• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Rumor Inside the target specs of the next Xbox 'Project Scarlett,' 'Anaconda', and 'Lockhart' (WindowsCentral.com )

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,065
24,473
770
I don't get your point. I think a proper nextgen game is the one that can't be doable in last gen hardware without make it shitty. Like ps3 gta5 can't be done in ps2 hardware.
Dont you remember the first couple of years this gen where there were a lot of 360/ps3 versions of XB1/PS4 games?. Devs do that because they need to make money and it takes a cou0ple of years for the install bases of a new gen to be large enough to be profitable.
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
1,271
1,848
585
Dont you remember the first couple of years this gen where there were a lot of 360/ps3 versions of XB1/PS4 games?. Devs do that because they need to make money and it takes a cou0ple of years for the install bases of a new gen to be large enough to be profitable.
Yes im aware of it. And that relate to my first post because...
 
Last edited:

Norse

Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,096
442
1,570
2 identical PCs but one has 5700xt while the other has a 580. Both play the same games but at different graphical fidelity. The 580 machine doesn't really gimp the 5700xt machine. I would hope the same would apply for Scarlett and Lockhart if there ends up being a Lockhart.

Same for ps5 and nextbox. Specs will be so close it will be like 2070 and a 2060super. Both will perform great.
 

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,065
24,473
770
No, because my computer runs fine. The same way people wouldn't buy Lockhart because their Xbox1S would be able to run the same games. If you don't want to spend the money for Scarlet, then certainly there is no justification to buy Lockhart when the 1S is still able to run all crossgen and MS exclusives.

See, people who care about 4K, are NOT the kind of people who would buy Lockhart over Scarlet. Just as the kind of people who have fast and powerful internet, are not the kind who would buy Stadia. People who don't want to pay for Scarlet, would just stay in current gen for a few more years. Microsoft told them that their 1S would still be able to run Halo Infinite, so why should they care about Lockhart?
Exactly, thats the point of Lockhart, for the more casual masses who dont care about 4k, or dont have a 4ktv and wont upgrade until their 1080p tv dies, or the peopl that care more about the price of a console, etc, etc.
I still dont believe Lockhart is true, and i bet it ends up being a diskless Scarlett. But if Lockhart IS true, i can certainly see why they are doing it.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,809
2,963
445
Dont you remember the first couple of years this gen where there were a lot of 360/ps3 versions of XB1/PS4 games?. Devs do that because they need to make money and it takes a cou0ple of years for the install bases of a new gen to be large enough to be profitable.
So the answer remains; why would anyone buy Lockhart, when they could just stay with 1S for two more years? Lockhart might be cheaper, but it is still more expensive than not buying it and staying with current gen. Microsoft is making the argument that people shouldn't bother upgrading because Microsoft games will still run on old machines, so "not buying a new machine" is the cheapst option.

Lockhart doesn't have a value proposition; people who care about visuals will buy Scarlet, people who care about saving money will stay with 1S. The only thing that could change this is if Lockhart has exclusive games Xbox 1S can't run, which Microsoft isn't making.

Exactly, thats the point of Lockhart, for the more casual masses who dont care about 4k, or dont have a 4ktv and wont upgrade until their 1080p tv dies, or the peopl that care more about the price of a console, etc, etc.
I still dont believe Lockhart is true, and i bet it ends up being a diskless Scarlett. But if Lockhart IS true, i can certainly see why they are doing it.
You still haven't explained WHY anyone would buy Lockhart. Do you think people would buy a plastic box for no reason? There is no justification for buying it no matter how cheap it is, if I can play all the same games with a machine I already own.

It isn't "Scarlet or Lockhart". It is "Scarlet, lockhart, or don't buy either and keep playing games on 1S". And Xbox 1S has better value than Lockhart.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SleepDoctor

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,065
24,473
770
Yes im aware of it. And that relate to my first post because...
Well you said you dont get my point, and my point was that there will be a couple of years (at least a couple of years this time i think) of cross gen games and last gen consoles will have much more of a negative effect on next gen games than Lockhart will.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
14,563
14,706
1,800
Dunno why people keep comparing smartphone space with console.

But why not? All these phone companies pump out tons of these things yet people somehow figure it out and find what suits their needs. Same with laptops or whatever at Best Buy. Why are consoles the one place where people can't do it? This idea that for consoles we just need the ONE TRUE SYSTEM and anything else would be dumb just doesn't make sense.

Now it may be beneficial from a gamer POV, to have one powerful console, that everyone codes to, and everyone who buys a console buys that one console. I would even agree with that, but even last gen that model didn't hold so I'm not totally surprised to see a manufacturer continue to move away from it.
 

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,065
24,473
770
So the answer remains; why would anyone buy Lockhart, when they could just stay with 1S for two more years? Lockhart might be cheaper, but it is still more expensive than not buying it and staying with current gen. Microsoft is making the argument that people shouldn't bother upgrading because Microsoft games will still run on old machines, so "not buying a new machine" is the cheapst option.

Lockhart doesn't have a value proposition; people who care about visuals will buy Scarlet, people who care about saving money will stay with 1S. The only thing that could change this is if Lockhart has exclusive games Xbox 1S can't run, which Microsoft isn't making.
Come on, you're not going to be getting XB1 versions of Scarlett games 4 or 5 years into the gen. Maybe OneX but even then its doubtful, no matter what Phil says. I'm sure he's just trying to keep people buying Xbox's and not waiting for next gen.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
49,814
107,405
1,430
No, because my computer runs fine. The same way people wouldn't buy Lockhart because their Xbox1S would be able to run the same games. If you don't want to spend the money for Scarlet, then certainly there is no justification to buy Lockhart when the 1S is still able to run all crossgen and MS exclusives.

See, people who care about 4K, are NOT the kind of people who would buy Lockhart over Scarlet. Just as the kind of people who have fast and powerful internet, are not the kind who would buy Stadia. People who don't want to pay for Scarlet, would just stay in current gen for a few more years. Microsoft told them that their 1S would still be able to run Halo Infinite, so why should they care about Lockhart?

You make a good point. If Lockhart is real, what casuals is it supposed to appeal to if you told them their cheapest box still runs the games they want?
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,809
2,963
445
Come on, you're not going to be getting XB1 versions of Scarlett games 4 or 5 years into the gen. Maybe OneX but even then its doubtful, no matter what Phil says. I'm sure he's just trying to keep people buying Xbox's and not waiting for next gen.
Then that means Lockhart would get no sales for 3 years. In the mean time, you really think Lockhart would survive with no exclusives?
 

Stuart360

Member
Sep 9, 2018
10,065
24,473
770
Then that means Lockhart would get no sales for 3 years. In the mean time, you really think Lockhart would survive with no exclusives?
Why dont you just let Microsoft do what they want. If they are making a 'big mistake', i'm sure most of you will be happy anyway.
Just one thing, dont believe everyhting you read on the internet. Remember last gen and how many 'insiders' and leakers insisted XB1 was more powerful than PS4, even on the morning of the E3 reveal.
Hardly anyone knows anything.
 

GermanZepp

Member
Feb 15, 2017
1,271
1,848
585
Well you said you dont get my point, and my point was that there will be a couple of years (at least a couple of years this time i think) of cross gen games and last gen consoles will have much more of a negative effect on next gen games than Lockhart will.
Agreed! Edit: all im saying is in spite of games being scalable some of them couldn't work properly in last gen hardware IMO (pc is another story)
 
Last edited:

pawel86ck

Banned
Jan 27, 2018
2,122
3,224
430
You certainly don't game on PCs long enough to know a time before consoles gimped PC game development. There was a time when PC games were designed to run on only PCs, and players had to regularly upgrade when they want to play the latest and greatest.

The console gaming got big, and now most PCs can run games that were ported for Consoles. And that's when it became a waste of time to upgrade PCs, because consoles hold PC gaming back. And it has been like that at least two console generations now.

I was hoping that next gen would force me to justify buying a new computer. But it seems Lockhart meant I don't need to anymore.
When I bought my first PC in 1999 I had to upgrade more frequently exactly like you are saying, because 3 years later my TNT2 was already no match to GeForce 3 (the same with CPU). But guess what, consoles were already very popular then, and no one have said PC gaming was worse because of them.

However around 2006-2007 (xbox 360 and PS3 launch dates) game budgets suddenly skyrocketed, and developers like Crytek have found out making PC exclusives was no longer profitable. Developers were forced to build games with consoles in mind, because without consoles they wouldn't even make their expensive games. On top of that around year 2010 technology progress has slowed down drastically.

The difference in single thread performance between first gen i7 and current i9 is laughable considering 10 years difference. Nv and AMD were no longer launching their new architecture every single year, but more like every 2 years. What's worse when first "Titan" GPU has launched you could no longer buy Nv top dog GPU for cheap, in fact Nv started selling mid tier cards for the same price as their high end cards before, so not only technology progress was slower, but people started buying slower cards.

IMO currently even without consoles PC gaming would probably look similar, if not worse because without consoles developers would not make so many AAA games. Developers have free will and no one forbids them to make PC games like Crysis. If they dont do that it's only becase profits from PC platform alone arnt enough (in most cases because there are games like star citizen, that were founded by gamers).

PC guys, I know some of you like to blame consoles for everything, but consoles arnt holding games as much as you think. Steam stats clearly shows, the vast majority of people on PC game on low end hardware and laptops.

What's funny when game like RDR2 will launch not even these console ports can run smoothly on the best possible hardware... and that's how much consoles are holding PC back :messenger_tears_of_joy: .
 
Last edited:

TLZ

Member
Oct 20, 2015
11,858
17,770
1,040
Sydney
When I bought my first PC in 1999 I had to upgrade more frequently exactly like you are saying, because 3 years later my TNT2 was already no match to GeForce 3 (the same with CPU), so I was forced to upgrade. But consoles were already very popular then, yet no one have said consoles hold PC gaming back. However around 2006-2007 (xbox 360 and PS3 launch dates) game budgets suddenly skyrocketed, and developers like Crytek have found out making PC exclusives was no longer profitable. Thats why developers were forced to build games with consoles in mind, and on top of that around 2010 technology progress has slowed down drastically. The difference in single thread performance between first gen i7 and current i9 is laughable considering 10 years difference. Nv and AMD were no longer launching their new architecture every single year, but more like every 2 years. What's worse when first "Titan" GPU has launched you could no longer buy Nv top dog GPU for cheap, in fact Nv started selling mid tier cards for the same price as their high end cards before. IMO currently even without consoles PC gaming would probably look similar, if not worse because without consoles developers would not make so many AAA games. Developers have free will and no one forbids them to make PC games like Crysis. If they dont do that it's only becase profits from PC platform arnt enough (in most cases because there are games like star citizem, that were founded by gamers). PC guys, I know some of you like to blame consoles for everything, but consoles arnt holding games as much as you think. Steam stats clearly shows, the vast majority of people on PC game on low end hardware and laptops. What's funny when game like RDR2 will launch not even these console ports can run smoothly on the best possible hardware... and that's how much consoles are holding PC back :messenger_tears_of_joy: .
Wall of text! :messenger_dizzy:
 

TLZ

Member
Oct 20, 2015
11,858
17,770
1,040
Sydney
I'm on my phone and sometimes I just forget how my text will look like in the end. Will you forgive me? 😅

 

Silent Viper

Member
Mar 15, 2018
2,748
4,055
720
Correct if the GPU nowadays was only doing graphical “fluff“ while it can and does a lot more. Balancing an 8 TFLOPS delta in only graphical details means that the top end console is limited in what you can accelerate gameplay wise with that extra compute power.

So u telling me if i play on 1060 and u play on 1080Ti, our experience will be vastly difference.?

For years this happening on pc and consoles are no more than a pc. Games are made for high end system then scale down.


Throwing out numbers out of your ass and use term like Tflops won't make your post correct.

Tell me, Polaris 6tf better than Navi 4Tf. Yes or no?
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
19,406
13,703
2,110
So u telling me if i play on 1060 and u play on 1080Ti, our experience will be vastly difference.?
No, because PC games are, under a certain point of view, underutilising high end HW for brute force-able graphical flare only and the big changes in PC gaming are happening when the minimum specs make a jump usually coinciding with the game consoles releases. Many PC games are now made possible by having the console market to prop them up (see CDPR comments about console versions effect on Witcher 3 development for example).

For years this happening on pc and consoles are no more than a pc. Games are made for high end system then scale down.

Some people wish consoles to be no more than PC’s, but they are not. They are fixed HW closed boxes where developers have time and incentive to develop exclusive software targeting the new custom HW and custom OS combination and not an open platform with an OS that has strong backwards compatibility for HW peripherals and software applications. Hence why you will see Scarlett, for example, offering API’s to access the SSD and manage RAM you are likely not to see on Windows desktop for quite some time.

Tell me, Polaris 6tf better than Navi 4Tf. Yes or no
From what we have seen on PC’s, for pure gaming apps, a Navi GPU is more likely to deliver close to its theoretical peak than a Polaris based GPU (almost closing that gap).
No such a thing as NVFLOP, Navi FLOP, Polaris FLOP, etc...
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
19,406
13,703
2,110
When I bought my first PC in 1999 I had to upgrade more frequently exactly like you are saying, because 3 years later my TNT2 was already no match to GeForce 3 (the same with CPU). But guess what, consoles were already very popular then, and no one have said PC gaming was worse because of them.

However around 2006-2007 (xbox 360 and PS3 launch dates) game budgets suddenly skyrocketed, and developers like Crytek have found out making PC exclusives was no longer profitable. Developers were forced to build games with consoles in mind, and on top of that around 2010 technology progress has slowed down drastically.

The difference in single thread performance between first gen i7 and current i9 is laughable considering 10 years difference. Nv and AMD were no longer launching their new architecture every single year, but more like every 2 years. What's worse when first "Titan" GPU has launched you could no longer buy Nv top dog GPU for cheap, in fact Nv started selling mid tier cards for the same price as their high end cards before.

IMO currently even without consoles PC gaming would probably look similar, if not worse because without consoles developers would not make so many AAA games. Developers have free will and no one forbids them to make PC games like Crysis. If they dont do that it's only becase profits from PC platform arnt enough (in most cases because there are games like star citizem, that were founded by gamers).

PC guys, I know some of you like to blame consoles for everything, but consoles arnt holding games as much as you think. Steam stats clearly shows, the vast majority of people on PC game on low end hardware and laptops.

What's funny when game like RDR2 will launch not even these console ports can run smoothly on the best possible hardware... and that's how much consoles are holding PC back :messenger_tears_of_joy: .

Very well said, thanks :).
 

psorcerer

Banned
May 1, 2012
2,479
3,535
1,035
For years this happening on pc and consoles are no more than a pc.

For years Nvidia cards couldn't even run generic compute loads alongside graphical load.
And they do it suboptimally even now. The reality you live in doesn't exist.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
1,778
1,306
1,440
Lockhart doesn't have a value proposition; people who care about visuals will buy Scarlet, people who care about saving money will stay with 1S. The only thing that could change this is if Lockhart has exclusive games Xbox 1S can't run, which Microsoft isn't making.
If you have a 1080p TV and would like to play "next gen" quality games on it, a One S isn't going to suffice. Since those games will be running at most likely 720p with heavily degraded visuals.

I would compare it to PC, where if you game at 1080p 60 FPS, the "sweet spot" is arguably a 1060, not a 1050 or 2080. Though, obviously that will change if this hardware level is targeted as a base for 30 FPS at 1080p on the consoles.
 

PaNaMa

Member
Jul 20, 2007
1,167
339
1,330
Newfoundland
People would buy Lockheart because its a PS4 Pro ++ level jump over their old XB1S, is appropriately priced and it can still play all the same games as Scarlett just at lower resolution and a few bells and whistles - not everyone is a gaming forum level pixel diva. Lockheart I think replaces X1S and X1X, and despite the 4TF number is probably more powerful than 1X cause of Navi and its CPU. So it's still a massive upgrade for most xbox owners
 

Negotiator

Member
Jun 28, 2011
4,675
1,500
985
For years Nvidia cards couldn't even run generic compute loads alongside graphical load.
And they do it suboptimally even now. The reality you live in doesn't exist.
To be fair, Turing closed the gap with GCN in terms of running mixed workloads (graphics/compute) with zero performance penalty.

Wolfenstein 2 runs excellent on 2080 Ti with Async Compute.

It's Maxwell/Pascal that have huge issues, something to do with the lack of hardware scheduling and thus incurring some context switch penalty (that's why nVidia recommends to disable Async on those cards).

What nVidia has had for a long time is tile-based rendering and more advanced memory compression algorithms. That's where all the rasterization efficiency comes from:

Vega introduced DSBR and Navi vastly improved memory compression, so they're on par with nVidia.

Too bad plenty of uninformed people will keep confusing rasterization (plain old 3D graphics) with GPU compute (using the GPU to offload CPU tasks).

A flop is a flop (in terms of GPU compute, not rasterization), just like a kilogram is a kilogram. Only an uneducated person would argue than 1kg of iron is "heavier" than 1kg of cotton.

We're talking about the same people that think the GPU these days still does graphics first and foremost (spoiler alert: we don't live in the 3Dfx Voodoo era anymore, get with the times!), which is definitely not true for modern AAA games:

It's no coincidence that this game runs at 4k60 on XB1X, while there's no chance it's going to hit 4k60 on a 4TF Navi (Lockhart) and that's OK (Lockhart won't promise to deliver 4K gaming).
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2019
4,155
4,977
460
To be fair, Turing closed the gap with GCN in terms of running mixed workloads (graphics/compute) with zero performance penalty.

Wolfenstein 2 runs excellent on 2080 Ti with Async Compute.

It's Maxwell/Pascal that have huge issues, something to do with the lack of hardware scheduling and thus incurring some context switch penalty (that's why nVidia recommends to disable Async on those cards).

What nVidia has had for a long time is tile-based rendering and more advanced memory compression algorithms. That's where all the rasterization efficiency comes from:

Vega introduced DSBR and Navi vastly improved memory compression, so they're on par with nVidia.

Too bad plenty of uninformed people will keep confusing rasterization (plain old 3D graphics) with GPU compute (using the GPU to offload CPU tasks).

A flop is a flop (in terms of GPU compute, not rasterization), just like a kilogram is a kilogram. Only an uneducated person would argue than 1kg of iron is "heavier" than 1kg of cotton.

We're talking about the same people that think the GPU these days still does graphics first and foremost (spoiler alert: we don't live in the 3Dfx Voodoo era anymore, get with the times!), which is definitely not true for modern AAA games:

It's no coincidence that this game runs at 4k60 on XB1X, while there's no chance it's going to hit 4k60 on a 4TF Navi (Lockhart) and that's OK (Lockhart won't promise to deliver 4K gaming).
Why? 4TF RDNA = 6TF GCN.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,809
2,963
445
If you have a 1080p TV and would like to play "next gen" quality games on it, a One S isn't going to suffice. Since those games will be running at most likely 720p with heavily degraded visuals.

I would compare it to PC, where if you game at 1080p 60 FPS, the "sweet spot" is arguably a 1060, not a 1050 or 2080. Though, obviously that will change if this hardware level is targeted as a base for 30 FPS at 1080p on the consoles.
I am not sure what you mean by sweet spot. The fact is the 1S would be able to play all the games a Microsoft customer would want to play for the next two years. Unless the studios intentionally make the games run horribly on 1S of course, which would b e a scandal all to itself.
 

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,404
9,572
1,420
To be fair, Turing closed the gap with GCN in terms of running mixed workloads (graphics/compute) with zero performance penalty.

Wolfenstein 2 runs excellent on 2080 Ti with Async Compute.

It's Maxwell/Pascal that have huge issues, something to do with the lack of hardware scheduling and thus incurring some context switch penalty (that's why nVidia recommends to disable Async on those cards).

What nVidia has had for a long time is tile-based rendering and more advanced memory compression algorithms. That's where all the rasterization efficiency comes from:

Vega introduced DSBR and Navi vastly improved memory compression, so they're on par with nVidia.

Too bad plenty of uninformed people will keep confusing rasterization (plain old 3D graphics) with GPU compute (using the GPU to offload CPU tasks).

A flop is a flop (in terms of GPU compute, not rasterization), just like a kilogram is a kilogram. Only an uneducated person would argue than 1kg of iron is "heavier" than 1kg of cotton.

We're talking about the same people that think the GPU these days still does graphics first and foremost (spoiler alert: we don't live in the 3Dfx Voodoo era anymore, get with the times!), which is definitely not true for modern AAA games:

It's no coincidence that this game runs at 4k60 on XB1X, while there's no chance it's going to hit 4k60 on a 4TF Navi (Lockhart) and that's OK (Lockhart won't promise to deliver 4K gaming).


Lockhart will most likely have double rate fp16 with the memory bandwidth to take advantage of it plus the CPU & other advantages that Scarlett will have over Xbox One X .
 

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
47,731
14,844
2,000
People would buy Lockheart because its a PS4 Pro ++ level jump over their old XB1S, is appropriately priced and it can still play all the same games as Scarlett just at lower resolution and a few bells and whistles - not everyone is a gaming forum level pixel diva. Lockheart I think replaces X1S and X1X, and despite the 4TF number is probably more powerful than 1X cause of Navi and its CPU. So it's still a massive upgrade for most xbox owners

Why do you people keep saying Lockhart will be appropriately priced? We DON'T know that. For all we know MS could release Lockhart at $399.
 

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,404
9,572
1,420
honestly there is no need for lockhart as most games the first couple of years will be multigen games. i honestly can't think of a reason this pos even exists.


Even if Lockhart GPU was the same 1.3TF as Xbox One the advancements in technology since 2013 would still be worth it for a lot of people if it bring a new experience.

Nintendo Switch with less than 1TF was released the same year as the 6TF Xbox One X , Switch is close to 50 million as we speak while Xbox One X probably haven't sold 5 million.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2017
1,809
2,963
445
Even if Lockhart GPU was the same 1.3TF as Xbox One the advancements in technology since 2013 would still be worth it for a lot of people if it bring a new experience.

Nintendo Switch with less than 1TF was released the same year as the 6TF Xbox One X , Switch is close to 50 million as we speak while Xbox One X probably haven't sold 5 million.
Except it does NOT bring a new experience. Microsoft made sure that at least for the near future, which I read as being 2 years, that there would be no next gen Microsoft exclusives. That the likes of Halo Infinite would be available on Xbox One.

It isn't the existence of Lockhart that baffles me. It is the existence of Lockhart in conjunction with a lack of next gen exclusives for Xbox that made it baffling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

TeamGhobad

Banned
Oct 15, 2018
4,049
4,595
520
Even if Lockhart GPU was the same 1.3TF as Xbox One the advancements in technology since 2013 would still be worth it for a lot of people if it bring a new experience.

Nintendo Switch with less than 1TF was released the same year as the 6TF Xbox One X , Switch is close to 50 million as we speak while Xbox One X probably haven't sold 5 million.

its gonna keep nexgen hostage thats the purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
May 24, 2005
47,731
14,844
2,000
399 for a 4tflop system!? that thing better be 250.

$250 would have people buying it day one. But MS has never been about selling new hardware at a super low cost. Their HQ controller cost like $180 lol.
 

vpance

Member
Jun 20, 2005
9,108
3,440
1,650
Except it does NOT bring a new experience. Microsoft made sure that at least for the near future, which I read as being 2 years, that there would be no next gen Microsoft exclusives. That the likes of Halo Infinite would be available on Xbox One.

It isn't the existence of Lockhart that baffles me. It is the existence of Lockhart in conjunction with a lack of next gen exclusives for Xbox that made it baffling.

It's baffling from a consumer perspective, but not when viewed as a race to the bottom type strategy. MS needs as large of a user base as it can draw from as well cheap bait in the form of Lockhart that they can technically frame as next gen ready. Whether or not those 2 aspects clash in terms of game tech advancement isn't a concern of MS.
 

eastwood333

Banned
Nov 3, 2019
1,689
3,159
490
So the answer remains; why would anyone buy Lockhart, when they could just stay with 1S for two more years? Lockhart might be cheaper, but it is still more expensive than not buying it and staying with current gen. Microsoft is making the argument that people shouldn't bother upgrading because Microsoft games will still run on old machines, so "not buying a new machine" is the cheapst option.

Lockhart doesn't have a value proposition; people who care about visuals will buy Scarlet, people who care about saving money will stay with 1S. The only thing that could change this is if Lockhart has exclusive games Xbox 1S can't run, which Microsoft isn't making.


You still haven't explained WHY anyone would buy Lockhart. Do you think people would buy a plastic box for no reason? There is no justification for buying it no matter how cheap it is, if I can play all the same games with a machine I already own.

It isn't "Scarlet or Lockhart". It is "Scarlet, lockhart, or don't buy either and keep playing games on 1S". And Xbox 1S has better value than Lockhart.
XB1S is already struggling big time with CURRENT gen games.

Based on the rumor specs of Lockhart,it'll have a 4tf GPU(navi),which is more powerful than XB1Xs 6tf GPU. Navi is a far more advanced achictecture vs Polaris old tech. That is why simply comparing Lockharts 4TF gpu vs XB1X 6TF gpu is redundant. Then you factor in Lockhart will have a Zen 2 CPU,which dwarfs XB1Xs cpu. Then you factor in Lockhart will have a SSD.

Lockhart is not only much more powerful than XB1X,it will be able to run next gen games at a 300(my best guess) dollar price point. It is aimed at the more casual audience who do not understand specs,watch DF,or follow gaming forums. They will be able to play the next GTA etc...

Lockhart is not being built to last just for the next year or so. It will be the cheaper next gen capable machine. Neither the XB1X and certaintly not the XB1S will be able to keep up with next gen with the weak sauce CPUs, no navi based GPU,no SSD,no hardware accelerated raytracing etc...which is what next gen games/devs will have.
 

eastwood333

Banned
Nov 3, 2019
1,689
3,159
490
Why do you people keep saying Lockhart will be appropriately priced? We DON'T know that. For all we know MS could release Lockhart at $399.
Then whats Anaconda/PS5 going for? 600?700?

The whole point of a Lockhart with no disc drive and weaker specs is to hit a consumer friendly price point, while Anaconda hits the hardcore price pount. A low end and a high end end model.
A 400 dollar Lockhart puts it out of the cheap range in my view,especially given the rumored specs and no disc drive. MS wants those gamepass subs. So 299 seems the most likely imo.
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,639
9,525
650
www.instagram.com
But why not? All these phone companies pump out tons of these things yet people somehow figure it out and find what suits their needs. Same with laptops or whatever at Best Buy. Why are consoles the one place where people can't do it? This idea that for consoles we just need the ONE TRUE SYSTEM and anything else would be dumb just doesn't make sense.

Now it may be beneficial from a gamer POV, to have one powerful console, that everyone codes to, and everyone who buys a console buys that one console. I would even agree with that, but even last gen that model didn't hold so I'm not totally surprised to see a manufacturer continue to move away from it.

The thing with phones is that you rarely get games that fully target for a given phone spec (also phones can rarely deliver their top performance due to thermals). They have to program against high-abstraction APIs to ensure those games can run across a gamut of configurations.

I think in the future, once the rate of diminishing returns has reached a point where we're practically at photorealistic graphics and highly advanced AI and physics systems, then the phone-like analogy could be more apt because the spread between the low-end and high-end will only result in a minuscule amount of performance difference where high-abstraction APIs won't feel like an obstruction in terms of tapping into full performance out of the hardware. But we aren't there yet.

And it's because of that why people (imo) have some right to be concerned about Lockhart possibly holding back Anaconda. I know there are low-level APIs and hand-written assembly out there, I know some PS4 exclusives use both. But base PS4 targeted the highest end a console could target for that price back in 2013, it wasn't designed as a low-end option. Lockhart is being designed as the low-end option from the outset.

But like I keep saying, we'll see how it all pans out. Hopefully for the best.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Negotiator

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
17,404
9,572
1,420
Except it does NOT bring a new experience. Microsoft made sure that at least for the near future, which I read as being 2 years, that there would be no next gen Microsoft exclusives. That the likes of Halo Infinite would be available on Xbox One.

It isn't the existence of Lockhart that baffles me. It is the existence of Lockhart in conjunction with a lack of next gen exclusives for Xbox that made it baffling.

Accessibility will be the go to feature for next gen so you will get a new experience that being cross gen will not take away from you.

Most games will be tied to PC , Phones & last gen consoles anyway so what is it that you want from a exclusive Scarlett game that you think you're not going to get if the game is also playable on Xbox One?


If you know maybe you can help the devs out because they had a hard time coming up with new ideas this generation because the biggest new features/concepts of this generation came from the OS besides VR & Dreams.
 

Mistershine.

Banned
Jan 20, 2018
2,022
3,342
495
Except it does NOT bring a new experience. Microsoft made sure that at least for the near future, which I read as being 2 years, that there would be no next gen Microsoft exclusives. That the likes of Halo Infinite would be available on Xbox One.

It isn't the existence of Lockhart that baffles me. It is the existence of Lockhart in conjunction with a lack of next gen exclusives for Xbox that made it baffling.
I expect the cross gen games from MS to follow the Forza Horizon 2 route, with the old gen version being handled by another studio on an older engine.