Microsoft is a console manufacturer defined by a vested interest in technologies peripheral to the games themselves. Sometimes this interest has led to them to success, and sometimes it's left them in shambles. Xbox LIVE was a service that immediately changed how games were played, and the Kinect was a lucrative pillar in the house of Microsoft for some time. On the other hand, the company launching the Xbox One as a media hub tethered to a new Kinect shot them in the foot so badly that they entirely backtracked on their original direction for the console. This has left Microsoft in a place where they need an angle that is based on some product external to their console and its games, but they won't be returning to the waters of mainstream media to find that angle anytime soon.

Their prayers may, however, have been answered. The industry fortune tellers have pointed to VR as the next great peripheral, and if it is the holy grail it's cracked up to be then console manufacturers have a tremendous opportunity and a huge dilemma. VR is resource thirsty: The headsets have to keep up with the acute perception of the human eyes, and so VR games must simultaneously render to two screens at high resolution with high FPS without any faltering. Even the slightest blips can completely break the player's suspension of disbelief. We always expect coming consoles to be more graphically capable than previous consoles, but to be more graphically capable and support VR entails a towering jump up in console power. I believe that for Microsoft, Project Scorpio is that jump up.

The conference was not about how the console can enable VR gaming, it was about how the console can enable 4K gaming, but Microsoft can't build Rome in a day. The 4K component of the new Xbox One is important in its own right but also functions as a stepping stone to VR which, if its most trusting proponents are to be believed, will be a far more enduring and revolutionary technology. Microsoft is releasing the most powerful console on the market and doing it in between generations because they need an in-road to the most demanding technology on the market. If only the console they were releasing didn't cost $499 and wasn't called the "Xbox One X".

We can view the One X's exorbitant pricing as an extension of the problem that VR is very pricey. VR exists in a realm of emerging technology which is naturally expensive and so can only be enabled by other newer technologies which are also naturally expensive. I know that saying does not make the console any more desirable or affordable, but its pricing may be more a product of the hard rules of the electronics market than mismanagement on Microsoft's part. We can't say the same thing about the name. "Xbox One X" is a needlessly confusing moniker when there is already another higher performance version of the Xbox One on shelves called the Xbox One S. For those who've purchased the One S, they may also feel the incremental improvement on the original console was a poor investment when there's this hardware behemoth on the horizon. The One X could also split the player base. Yes, Microsoft requires developers publishing on the One X to also make their games functional for the original One, but it wouldn't be wild to speculate that companies may optimise their game better for one console or the other. Microsoft did, however, go all-in on showing that there will be plenty of games taking advantage of One X's 4K capabilities from early on, which is important when we might expect the $499 price tag to scare creators away.

Microsoft took their enthusiasm for raw graphical processing power to maniacal lengths. When you're boasting about a 4K Minecraft, you've lost the thread of what makes game aesthetics appealing. What piqued my interest in the show was mostly the visually breath-taking, and while I can include the high detail mountain ranges of Forza and the dense jungle of Anthem in that category, I'm more encouraged sit up and pay attention to the art of games like Cuphead, The Artful Escape, or The Last Night. I think I'd sell my left arm to see more of The Last Night, but it's just not possible in this venue because Microsoft has a console to sell. There was this internal conflict going on in their conference between their want to support indies and the AAA fireworks that a console launch feeds on. But hey, Xbox backwards compatibility is a good thing and there's a new Life is Strange coming.

While the problem with making a prequel to a choice-based game is that the choices players make cannot have a retroactive effect on the original game, we shouldn't underestimate the meaning of choices with consequences internal to a game. It's also going to be just satisfying to soak in more of Life is Strange's tone. The original was a journey of unbreakable friendship, hazy afternoons spent lying in teenage bedrooms, and supernatural twists. Life is Strange is one of a kind. Sea of Thieves also has potential. We do not know yet if there's a depth to its loop which lets it stand up to repetition but when multiplayer RPGs are exercises of "raiding" and "looting" it's surprising that pirates haven't become a more of a go-to for developers looking to get their pseudo-MMO on. It was just sad that most games couldn't get the look-in that Sea of Thieves did. With so many games in one show, it got a little cramped. Microsoft showcasing a whopping forty-two titles was to display how rapidly their games library is expanding, but it was also to show how many games will be there for us to enjoy on Xbox One X at launch. There's a console war on, and Microsoft doesn't have the time to let us stop and smell the flowers, especially not the low poly ones. Thanks for reading.