-
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.
All jokes aside, Jim Ryan was mocked when he said this quote but...3 years into this generation, was he right?
- Thread starter Tiago Rodrigues
- Start date
Kumomeme
Member
from what i understand, the idea behind Series S is they planned to 'sandwiched' PS5 in between. pressure them in term of low price(Series S) and digital only device with Gamepass while at same time pressure on high tier competition with (Series X). the performance of Series S and the cheaper price would make people seriously consider the console over PS5 while for those who want to spend more, the performance of Series X would tempered them over PS5. their aim is to make PS5 is 'useless' in term of both price and performance bargain at same time.
so far the plan is failed miserably. turn out Series S weaker than expected performance it should be and PS5 turn out more powerfull than the teraflops differences with Series X indicated .
no use if it only able to successfuly sold more than its among family brethen Series X which is not even should be its competition. it is not what it supposed to do. it should compete with its competitor not among each others.
probably at beginning, on paper those exec in bussiness marketing probably expected Series S gonna pull a well working performance like how Nintendo Switch sold like hot cakes but turn out, only the best it can do is merely outselling it is bigger brother thats all. thanks to its lower price and gamepass combo which is something intended to work against their competitor PS5 at first place but in the end, of all consoles out there, it is working on Series X lol.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Not a fair comment to link to the series s as Microsoft hadn't art the world on fire with any of their consoles this gen. There could probably be an argument that Microsoft would be in even a worse position without the S.
So I'll say....maybe he was right but there isn't true reflective data to prove him right or wrong.
So I'll say....maybe he was right but there isn't true reflective data to prove him right or wrong.
Snake29
RSI Employee of the Year
Microsoft destroyed their own “most powerful console” narrative with the S sitting the backseat. It was all about the focus on the “12 TF power” and all the buzzwords around it. The Series X was pretty much irrelevant from day one since PS5 outperformed the console in games at launch. The whole narrative was dropped quickly after and turned into a “tools” thing. Well, 4 years later and console still isn’t showing and they even said Series X already was a mid gen refresh. Their focus and marketing and having the S around what makes series X a sad console right now. But without the S, i think MS would have a much bigger problem.
Hawking Radiation
Member
Pro = Mid Gen Console Refresh
Maybe you'd want to look up the meaning of that term ?!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
DeltaPolarBear
Member
You forgot something; you can play gamepass games on Xbox One. At least that was what would be the case if XboxOne was successful.
The entire reason why Xbox needed Series S is the exact reason why PlayStation didn't need one; Xbox wants to abandon Xbox One as soon as possible, while PS4 is still being fully supported by PlayStation 2 years after PS5 comes out. PlayStation 4 offer people on a budget an entire library of PS4 games, which they can move to a PS5 one day if they wished. Xbox gave up on XboxOne already and thus doesn't have anything else to offer a budget gamer. Series S was a compromise that was due to problems Xbox caused, thus only Xbox needed a Series S.
Killjoy-NL
Member
People can mock Ryan, but we've seen what happened.
Series S was lower-tier at €300.
Series X was higher-tier at €500.
PS5 was €500.
PS5 Digital was €400.
PS5 and PS5 Digital had the exact performance, on par with Series X, but at €400 Digital was the best offering in regards to pricing and power.
And it certainly shows, because Series is getting trashed nowadays. General perception is that PS5 is clearly the best option.
Ironically, while Series S plays part in said general perception, it's also the Xbox lifeline.
So, Ryan was right. Just a fact.
Series S was lower-tier at €300.
Series X was higher-tier at €500.
PS5 was €500.
PS5 Digital was €400.
PS5 and PS5 Digital had the exact performance, on par with Series X, but at €400 Digital was the best offering in regards to pricing and power.
And it certainly shows, because Series is getting trashed nowadays. General perception is that PS5 is clearly the best option.
Ironically, while Series S plays part in said general perception, it's also the Xbox lifeline.
So, Ryan was right. Just a fact.
Last edited:
crackajack
Member
No idea what other platform ever had a lower spec from the start, so there is just no historic comparison to make such a claim.
We had base systems and different levels and types of extensions, Mega CD, N64 RAM, Eyetoy, Kinect, VR1, we had a 2DS, removing the basic point of the 3DS and we also had PS4 Amateur which was not discontinued when Pro arrived and still sold nicely, same with MS. With the right platform it works, those were successes (minus Mega CD, but there the base was the problem). Imho a PS5 Light would have sold. (But going the detachable drive route would have been the wisest choice from the start.) The demand is still high for PS5 and people would have taken anything for some time, eg many would have tried Plus streaming if Sony tried to offer PS5 streaming for everyone as a stop gap substitute until physical demand could be met.
MS was just the very wrong platform for such a lesser device and it still sold okayish despite all the BS talk from "real" gamers and incapable devs. Many of those who want to be in their ecosystem don't mind paying the higher price, those who don't are probably cheapasses that only buy GP and are not necessarily the type of customer you want. But S was still supporting MS's numbers that otherwise might have been even lower.
We had base systems and different levels and types of extensions, Mega CD, N64 RAM, Eyetoy, Kinect, VR1, we had a 2DS, removing the basic point of the 3DS and we also had PS4 Amateur which was not discontinued when Pro arrived and still sold nicely, same with MS. With the right platform it works, those were successes (minus Mega CD, but there the base was the problem). Imho a PS5 Light would have sold. (But going the detachable drive route would have been the wisest choice from the start.) The demand is still high for PS5 and people would have taken anything for some time, eg many would have tried Plus streaming if Sony tried to offer PS5 streaming for everyone as a stop gap substitute until physical demand could be met.
MS was just the very wrong platform for such a lesser device and it still sold okayish despite all the BS talk from "real" gamers and incapable devs. Many of those who want to be in their ecosystem don't mind paying the higher price, those who don't are probably cheapasses that only buy GP and are not necessarily the type of customer you want. But S was still supporting MS's numbers that otherwise might have been even lower.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
Hudo
Member
If you had just read a tiny bit farther, you'd seen that I was just shitposting, like always.
Pro = Mid Gen Console Refresh
Maybe you'd want to look up the meaning of that term ?!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Half of Series S owners never owned Xbox before (per Microsoft). So I would say that he is not right. Without Series S sales of Xbox would be even worse, because it's not like every person who bought Series S would buy Series X if Series S didn't exist.
Series S was never designed as a console which will allow Microsoft to surpass Sony in terms of console sales. Because that will never happen (and Microsoft don't need that since they have broad ecosystem). It's doing it's job just fine. Only lesson that Microsoft should learn from Series S is to not skim on amount of RAM in lower SKU. Because basically only problem with Series S is 10GB of RAM. Everything else is just fine.
But on the other hand I think Microsoft should transform Series S style SKU in "next-gen" to the form of handheld device. So Series V2 X as a home console plus Series V2 S as a handheld hybrid with option to plug it into TV.
Series S was never designed as a console which will allow Microsoft to surpass Sony in terms of console sales. Because that will never happen (and Microsoft don't need that since they have broad ecosystem). It's doing it's job just fine. Only lesson that Microsoft should learn from Series S is to not skim on amount of RAM in lower SKU. Because basically only problem with Series S is 10GB of RAM. Everything else is just fine.
But on the other hand I think Microsoft should transform Series S style SKU in "next-gen" to the form of handheld device. So Series V2 X as a home console plus Series V2 S as a handheld hybrid with option to plug it into TV.
Last edited:
This is a false equivalence. There is no mandate to support PS4 when releasing a PS5 game. If the studio is making a PS4 game with PS5 features and has the budget to make it on as many platforms as it wants then it can. On PC they can set their own min spec. If crossgen was without cost or without disadvantages though then why aren't all third party games cross gen? You have had an example recently where a mandatory XSS release affected development yet you're refusing to accept that it's different.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Eh....you seem to be the one overreacting my man. I simply asked you a question. "I was just shitposting" would have sufficed.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
"One thing that can be said is that if you look at the history of the game business, creating a special low priced, reduced spec console is something that has not had great results in the past. We’ve considered that option and seen other executives who have attempted this discover how problematic it is."
So the question is was he right my question is when has what he said ever actually happened?
I think the dude was off his meds that day as this practice is not something I recall
I think the problem MS has with the Series S was the forced parity which made a game like BG3 a timed Sony exclusive
So the question is was he right my question is when has what he said ever actually happened?
I think the dude was off his meds that day as this practice is not something I recall
I think the problem MS has with the Series S was the forced parity which made a game like BG3 a timed Sony exclusive
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Forced parity was always going to be a thing. Otherwise, X and S would not have belonged to the same generation of consoles.
Topher
Gold Member
Closest example I can think of was the 60gb and 20gb PS3s. Those didn't have different processing specs, but the 20gb had cut down features like no wireless controller, no wifi and no SD card slots (why they bothered with those at all, no idea). It was a big failure, but not really comparable to X and S.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Jim Ryan is an executive at a company who actually depends on the success of their video game platform as it's a huge part of their company. He needs to make good business decisions or his company is in serious pain.
This is doubly true for Nintendo, which literally does nothing except video games. If Nintendo fucks up a business decision, the whole company's survival is in doubt.
There's only 1 platform holder who relies on Windows, Office, and Azure for 99.99% of their money and it's not hard to see why the company which doesn't rely on their video game platform for anything tends to make worse business decisions. When there's no stakes and no penalty for fucking up, you can just fuck up for 20 years and nothing will happen to you.
In this context, you can begin to understand that Jimbo was thinking carefully when he said things, and he means what he says. Because his decisions matter.
This is doubly true for Nintendo, which literally does nothing except video games. If Nintendo fucks up a business decision, the whole company's survival is in doubt.
There's only 1 platform holder who relies on Windows, Office, and Azure for 99.99% of their money and it's not hard to see why the company which doesn't rely on their video game platform for anything tends to make worse business decisions. When there's no stakes and no penalty for fucking up, you can just fuck up for 20 years and nothing will happen to you.
In this context, you can begin to understand that Jimbo was thinking carefully when he said things, and he means what he says. Because his decisions matter.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
That could be the best example and there were the base Xbox 360 skus where you needed to add HDDs and shit but like you said, power wise were the same
He made it sound like there were dead bodies everywhere of failed attempts like the S and X and I can't think of a single one
Hudo
Member
But now that it's become obvious that the PS5 Pro is just not powerful enough, would you buy a PS6 Pro?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It’s almost as if the number one console maker doesn’t exist around here.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I know you didn't ask me but...
To me I will buy a new console every 3-4 years for incremental power boosts to help the games I love
Topher
Gold Member
Hell yeah, given the option I'll buy the more powerful model every time. Either way, I don't think anything is "obvious" about the PS5 Pro's power. Rumors are just rumors. Remember when PS5 was supposed to be 9TF?
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Lower specs can mean any part of a system is gimped. Doesn't necessarily mean lower CPU/GPU performance. Which he is right. Those lower speced consoles always performed worse, as most people wanted the more expensive all-in-one SKU.
Hudo
Member
I know you didn't ask me but...
To me I will buy a new console every 3-4 years for incremental power boosts to help the games I love
I mean, since it's obvious that only the PS9 Pro will be powerful enough, I might just wait, personally.
Topher
Gold Member
Yes, but he is saying that in reference to the X and S and that is not the same as previous "lower speced" consoles
Last edited:
DevilHunterX0
Member
Always thought:
Series S = Base
Series X = Pro
Series S = Base
Series X = Pro
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
And no matter what the rumors say what until we see real world performances as people are most likely to be disappointed in the actual numbers of the Pro
Its what is great about the Pro its totally optional
AJUMP23
Gold Member
stolen from the other thread
Out there looking like Tim Apple.
Hudo
Member
PSVR2 Pro is what I am all about.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
We can talk about lower specs and or HD size all day but I'd bet all the money I have that if Sony released a less powerful version of the PS5 and have Insomniac bundle in a exclusive game to it - it would sell more than the Series consoles.
Not really comparable but by all accounts the Playstation Portal sold really well no? Consumers by default know that any Playstation products they buy will be of high quality. Stupid AF that Jim Ryan or the teams at Sony couldn't see this.
Also, if anyone claims that Sony went with just the one PS5 config because they care about the developers. I have a bridge to sell you...
Not really comparable but by all accounts the Playstation Portal sold really well no? Consumers by default know that any Playstation products they buy will be of high quality. Stupid AF that Jim Ryan or the teams at Sony couldn't see this.
Also, if anyone claims that Sony went with just the one PS5 config because they care about the developers. I have a bridge to sell you...
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
Series S cannibalized some of the X sales, I have no doubt about it, but in the long run I believe that without it, PS5 dominance would be even greater.
I think Microsoft should look at the 360 early days and see what worked for them. They need a cheap and powerful console, even if it meant to be a bit weaker than the competition, they need great games, exclusive games that made people want an Xbox, and they need to innovate, bring better haptics to their excellent controller design, study ways to differentiate it from the competition, give Xbox its own DNA.
Instead of having two SKU, I argue that they have one middle-ground system cheaper than PS5, Microsoft would be able to do a competitive SKU 100 bucks cheaper, hell they spent so much money on acquisition and to keep Xbox afloat, why not subsidized their console?
I think Microsoft should look at the 360 early days and see what worked for them. They need a cheap and powerful console, even if it meant to be a bit weaker than the competition, they need great games, exclusive games that made people want an Xbox, and they need to innovate, bring better haptics to their excellent controller design, study ways to differentiate it from the competition, give Xbox its own DNA.
Instead of having two SKU, I argue that they have one middle-ground system cheaper than PS5, Microsoft would be able to do a competitive SKU 100 bucks cheaper, hell they spent so much money on acquisition and to keep Xbox afloat, why not subsidized their console?
Topher
Gold Member
Nah....has nothing to do with developers. I think XSS worked out well for Microsoft during the shortages, but since stock stopped being a problem Xbox has not done well. I do not think for a second that a S version of PS5 would have worked long term either. PS5 has two very distinct choices: with or without disc drive. None of this continually horrible naming conventions that Microsoft insists on using that I think just confuses consumers. And not really sure how you can say Jim Ryan was "stupid AF" when you take into account PS5's performance this gen. I'm no fan of Jim Ryan but PS5 has been a monster seller. Where's the stupidity again?
Last edited:
To be fair. Ryan was just riding a wave that Tretton/Layden built for him.
PS5 is monster success because PS4 was a monster success and all he had to do was not shot himself in the foot which he didn't do. You can see that cleary this year when Sony had 1 first-party games and they still outsold Xbox pretty heavily. PS5 is selling on brand awareness and recognition. I'm not holding Ryan at such a high regard because his initiatives (PC ports, PS Plus revamp, live service push) are still in process of being evaluated.
And trying to pretend that PS5 SKU in style of Series S would not result in even higher sales is pretty bold statement to make. Especially since that hypothetical PS5 Series S style SKU would be easier to manufacture which would result in higher sales during shortages.
And that's my point. Ryan is not "right" regarding his quote because nobody knows how Xbox would fare this gen without Series S. And nobody knows how PS would fare this gen if they had Series S style SKU.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Can you clarify why you think a weaker S style PS5 would not do well?
The stupid comment was more to do with why they think a dual sku approach would not have worked for Playstation.
Edit - Also, as Godot mentions in the post above, I don't really attribute Playstations continued success to Jim Ryan. The 1st Party Studios, especially Insomniac are the reason why Playstation is #1.
Last edited:
Freelance Yakuza
Member
The fact that the Series S is the best-selling and still selling below the Xbox One highlights how bizarre and bad Microsoft's situation is.
I've said it several times: A weaker console only works when you're the market leader. Everyone will WANT their games to run on it. When you're the least sold, people only put the games on it when they're forced to. It's that simple. It's not laziness, it's not unwillingness, it's not persecution against Microsoft. It's money, it's always money.
I've said it several times: A weaker console only works when you're the market leader. Everyone will WANT their games to run on it. When you're the least sold, people only put the games on it when they're forced to. It's that simple. It's not laziness, it's not unwillingness, it's not persecution against Microsoft. It's money, it's always money.
Topher
Gold Member
I actually amended my post before your reply to say a PS5 "Series S" would not have worked "long term" as I agree that it would have helped alleviate the shortages like XSS did. I don't necessarily disagree with anything else you've said. I think you are right that Jim Ryan benefited from the choices of his predecessors, but I think he should be credited for not fucking that up, a la Don Mattrick. He just stuck with what worked and that was wise. Too bad he couldn't do that on the games side of things, but that's a different topic....
As I clarified, I think Series S did well as a short term solution so PS5 may have benefited from it in that respect, but long term I think multiple speced consoles are just too confusing for the average consumer. PS5's strength is its simplicity. Simplicity is the reason why consoles exist. So no, I don't think Jim Ryan was stupid in that regard at all. Jim Ryan wasn't the mastermind behind PS5's success, but he kept things simple and didn't fuck it all up either. Hard to argue with the results, I say.
Last edited:
The reality, judging by the list prices of Series S and PS5 digital is that you only save $100 by accepting a much worse gpu, half the storage space and less RAM. Hence his comment that lower spec machines haven't done well in the past.
The value proposition has not been there.
The value proposition has not been there.
Last edited:
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Europe doesn't care about Xbox, it never has barring the UK. Playstation outsells it's 3 to 1. Xbox only sells well in their home turf NA.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Yeap now imagine if the only Xbox available was the $500 Series X which has been greatly outsold by the Series S. Exactly.
asdasdasdbb
Member
If MS does make another console, I'd expect them to do it again.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I think its highly likely MS does it again though they may not launch at the same time.
marquimvfs
Member
And the wireless controllers, no?
Last edited:
Lord Malachite
Member
This wasn't purely Xbox's doing though, the industry left the Xbox One behind as well. Look at major third party releases such as Resident Evil 4 (2023). One of the biggest hitters of this past year, it released and was fully supported on PS4. XB1? Nope. No XB1 support whatsoever. Given the game will run on a baseline PS4, I hardly think it would have been a herculean task to downport the game to XB1. But Capcom knew there was negligible revenue at best to be had in it. The XB1 install base is less than half of the PS4. In fact, if my memory isn't faulty--and please fact check me if I'm wrong--but the PS4 is one of the best selling consoles of all time--I think behind only the PS2 and the DS and the Switch? Unless my memory's gotten hazy, which is not an impossibility considering I had two cocktails.
yurinka
Member
Last edited: