Is it economically feasible/possible to get a 4K 60 FPS capable

They'll make their money with video game royalties and Xbox Live subscriptions. Just like the printers manufacturers make their money with ink.

>>60866715
4K 60 FPS doesn't mean much without knowing the graphis settings being used. I could probably run at 4K on my 480 if I turned some settings down.
Besides, as >>60866749 said, MS could afford to sell the hardware at a loss and make it back on software.

>>60866715

It's closer to $800 after paid online, but no it's not remotely possible at all. 4k 60fps gaming PCs cost wat over $1000.

>>60866762
This. A few consoles have dome this in the past and done okay. The PS3 was sold at a loss for quite a while before manufacturing costs came down enough.

>>60866715
It will be 4k 60FPS, just like the PS4 was 1980p 60FPS.

Meaning, some low fidelity indie games will run like advertised the rest NOT.

>>60866715
Uhhh it's a ~60% sized RX580 die with 2x 4 core jaguar cores.
You think that's expensive?
You're fucking retarded.

The only cost was for the R&D to make it so small, keep it cool, figure out how to make Polaris efficient still at ~1200MHz or whatever, get Polaris and Jaguar makeable at TMSC, etc. And these R&D costs were able to be dropped down by being shareable with the new mobile RX500 GPUs.
The actual manufacturing cost is going to be cheap as fuck.

>>60867562
Actually the Xbone Pro seems to be true 4K sometimes even at 60fps.
It's not using checkerboard tricks that lower quality and make it more like 1620p like with PS4 Pro.

>>60867669
>Xbone Pro
What might that be?

4k 60FPS on high settings is not cheap to get on a PC, I can 100% guarantee you that Microsoft will not sell $1000 in hardware for $500.

The companies have always lied about their performance, this time it will be no different.

>>60867669
>It's not using checkerboard tricks
Source on that?

>>60866715
They are lying like they've always been. Kids and retards who don't know the difference will eat that shit up anyway no matter what the actual performance is, so why bother marketing truthfully.

>>60866715
Hardware costs for consumers are greatly inflated. MS could probably break even on manufacturing with $500 (but this of course does not cover shipping, packaging, advertising etc), then make money on software and licensing later.

Building your own PC has always been more expensive but you get exactly what you want. If somebody mass manufactured gaming PCs with all the same parts and sold them at cost it'd probably be about $500. But then they'd probably be making a gaming console so that they could sell software and licensing and make money off of it...

>>60867728
Digital Foundry's analysis from a few weeks/months ago when they first revealed the hardware.

>>60866715
>A setup to support that gameplay would require a fairly high end PC
The difference is that you wouldn't build a PC to play 4k 60Hz at low settings.

File: bait-12.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>60866715
Why do you ask for speculation when the hardware is actually out there and you can look at actual benchmarks?

Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzgSrYB60KE

>>60866715
Yes. My Raspberry Pi can run minesweeper at 60fps 4k so it's not false advertising.

>>60866715
>>60866775
>>60867709
No it wouldn't. A PC with a G4560, 8GBs of RAM, GTX 1060, 1TB of space costs around $552. It plays videogames at 4k60 on High Settings.

Did they change the Jaguar?, if not is DOA .

>>60869884
And that's before the console optimization and mass purchase discount memes