• 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.

Should the Xbox Series S have gone the PS5 digital edition route?

Microsoft should have:


  • Total voters
    289

skit_data

Member
17+25=42% of the votes were for TVs capable of 4k. Sounds like an awful lot.

Anyway, people buy these consoles to use for at least 5 years onward, and that 4k percentage will probably be a lot higher within a couple of years, whereas the 1080p one will only go lower.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
in an ideal world the more specs the better,needless to say. however we need to know how much quantity can such a spec be produced and how much loss leader it is and be forced to seek revenue top-up elsewhere...

no point if the digital only edition is like 1/20 of your stock count....
It does not matter really, what matters is that as a dev you have a single target. You do NOT have to even think about it or take it into account. It is not about better specs just being better, but about having a unified target the positive effect it has on the game scope and polish wrt to HW potential utilisation.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
17+25=42% of the votes were for TVs capable of 4k. Sounds like an awful lot.

Anyway, people buy these consoles to use for at least 5 years onward, and that 4k percentage will probably be a lot higher within a couple of years, whereas the 1080p one will only go lower.
Downsampling to 1080p gets you better graphics too… you do not need a console that peaks at 1080p, an Xbox One X / XSX outputting at 4K and downscaling to 1080p is bringing you nice AA for free.
 

Zeroing

Banned
Another Xbox S S thread, must be really popular, that console.
Where’s the option to vote to “it should never had existed”

the fact that so many people here are trying to defend it by using “imaginary reasons of … the future” just shows how the core concept of why people buy a console is …. Power because it’s future proof.


one can argue that many people don’t have 4K TVs… well if I was one I would still buy a console capable of 4K because in the future if I wanted to upgrade my tv I wouldn’t need to upgrade my xbox Series S either.

That console doesn’t make sense as an investment in gaming in the long run.
 

longdi

Banned
It does not matter really, what matters is that as a dev you have a single target. You do NOT have to even think about it or take it into account. It is not about better specs just being better, but about having a unified target the positive effect it has on the game scope and polish wrt to HW potential utilisation.

for a dev, sure we want the tech best. but MS is more than just a dev, as a platform holder, they have more considerations to take. This has to be the best compromise to have, in the short term, looking at just this point of time, SS specs may looks unflattering, but Phil is in the long haul, this is a necessity move to get that foundation going. :messenger_bicep:

they may make tweaks and changes to the future SS type sku. but we must start some where. It's about selling the content to everyone, and not the dry specs.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
for a dev, sure we want the tech best. but MS is more than just a dev, as a platform holder, they have more considerations to take. This has to be th best compromise to have, in the short term, looking at just this point of time, SS specs may looks unflattering, but Phil is in the long haul, this is a necessity move to get that foundation going. :messenger_bicep:

they may make tweaks and changes to the future SS type sku. but we must start some where. It's about selling the content and not the dry specs
Translation: “if Phil decided it, it was the best thing to do”.

As a platform holder it would have also been the best strategy considering it would have made devs lives easier and the XSS is not catching fire in saws but still being something devs cannot ignore.
 
I personally wish they went with a discless X instead of the S. But then again with covid and gamepass, MS made the right decision. It'll pay off for now, but not sure how long it'll be viable.
 

Ozzie666

Member
I think think the S is a terrible idea and shouldn't exist. I think the Sony strategy makes more sense. Doesn't split the developers and user base.

Maybe before the pandemic, production of the S and X was more reasonable. But under current conditions, any resources put towards the S, takes away from X potential sales.
 

WakeTheWolf

Member
Now that we are a full 6 months into the new generation of consoles and have gotten to see some performance metrics for new releases, we're starting to get a sense for the performance gap between Xbox Series X and Series S.

There is no denying Series S actually provides amazing value. A bargain bin price for access to a new generation of games. Microsoft offers compelling streaming/subscription services now, so the lack of a disc drive is certainly more palatable than it was last generation.

The detriment here is the performance gap of course. Was it really worth pursuing the lowest price point at the cost of a significant performance gap? We're taking about last generation performance in some respects. Should Microsoft have pursued a Series S that was the same specs as the Series X but without the disc drive like the PS5 digital? It may have cost $100 more but that would still be competitive with regard to the competition and then you ditch the unevenness between the experiences players have. Another option may have been to keep Series S as is and introduced a third Series console. Thus pleasing all the juvenile gamers with a Series E 🙄.

So what do you think? Did they make the right call?


My apologies if this discussion already happened and I just missed the thread. Also, I'm not really interested in discussing Sony's decision here, just wondering what people think about Microsoft's choice with the Series S so far.
I love my Xbox Series S if I was that bothered about an upgrade I'd get a new PC not another Xbox
 

Shmunter

Member
Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.

Gxd3SeI.jpg
It will stay that way for a gen longer than it should now.
 

Mattyp

Gold Member
Another Xbox S S thread, must be really popular, that console.
Where’s the option to vote to “it should never had existed”

the fact that so many people here are trying to defend it by using “imaginary reasons of … the future” just shows how the core concept of why people buy a console is …. Power because it’s future proof.


one can argue that many people don’t have 4K TVs… well if I was one I would still buy a console capable of 4K because in the future if I wanted to upgrade my tv I wouldn’t need to upgrade my xbox Series S either.

That console doesn’t make sense as an investment in gaming in the long run.

No 50% of consoles sold would be to kids and adults even who don’t give a fuck about 4K and just want to play Fortnite Minecraft & FIFA with their friends.

You’re an adult, go buy a X and a PS5. No ones asking you what makes sense ‘investment’ wise in the console market. I’m still baffled at what any console is investment wise, isn’t it just enjoyment? Fun? How is the switch selling so much? Isn’t it a piss poor 720p investment by your standard?

To someone struggling, or anyone who has a few kids, doesn’t have a 4K tv and just wants some ‘enjoyment’ a S is a terrific device.

Gaming is fun to 99% of the population. Not the same game running in lower pixels makes it an ‘unenjoyable investment’
 
Last edited:
Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.

Gxd3SeI.jpg
It's important to remember that just because you have a 1080p TV, doesn't mean that there's no point in getting a Series X. Games running on the Series X being displayed on a 1080p TV will still look leaps and bounds better than running on Series S. It's not all about resolution in the rendering difference on these consoles, plus supersampling from 4K creates a far nicer image on a 1080p display, it's a great anti-aliasing technique (albeit expensive).
 
Last edited:

KingT731

Member
I don’t think this comparison makes sense. Sony takes heavy losses on the PS5 DE as it is a full PS5 without a BD player. Series S on the other hand is a completely different beast focusing the budget market.
IS it really so different? They're still losing money on the XSX/S.
 

SkylineRKR

Member
What console is exactly future proof? The PS5 and Series X? I think they're behind within a few years as well, in fact they already are if you look at the scaled back RT solutions and lower resolutions.

The S should've had One X BC, thats my only issue with it. I knew what I was getting into, its a far cheaper system than Series X and thus games look less good on it. For 1080p sets however, its a very good system. Better than Pro and One X. Also cheaper. Its fast, it offers lot of 60 and even 120fps games.
 

ToTTenTranz

Banned
The Series S seems to be a pretty bad idea according to most dev statements I've seen.
Getting a 2nd tier with lower performance and RAM has been claimed by a bunch of developers as a lower common denominator that will hamper the performance and potential of even the PS5 on many multiplatform games with a lower budget.
It's also a pretty big motive for the Series consoles getting a pretty poor 1st-party lineup for their first year.

For us consumers this matters little at first, except for the fact that Sony may distance themselves in marketshare too much until all those Bethesda exclusives get done (which is unlikely considering the global IC shortage preventing console makers from ramping up production).


The only way I see the Series S turning into a good idea is if Microsoft eventually launches a mobile console with the same performance that replaces it. IMO that would make it a massive win over whatever bargain-bin performance Nintendo is probably bringing with the Switch Pro, and justify all the game delays on the Series' first couple of years.


Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.
Honestly, 4K adoption is a lot higher than I expected.
Regardless, this is only representative of the first 6 months of this console generation, which will probably last at least 12x more (6 years).
It's almost impossible to buy a 1080p TV nowadays except for the very small models that people tend to put in the kitchen or bedrooms.

The SeriesS makes the most sense for people with smaller 1080p TVs, and don't have any plans to buy a new TV anytime soon.
This is anecdotal of course, but I don't have a single friend who owns a 1080p TV and isn't looking to upgrade to a 4K model this year.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s pretty obvious they’re trying to appeal to a more casual audience with it. Like the type of people who’ll only play the latest COD or someone who just plays an occasional Gamepass title. The only other thing it may be useful for is for people whose main console is the PS5, and may want to dip their toes in to playing Halo or Bethesda games or something and don’t want to spend a lot of money.

We’ll see how it works for them I guess but it’s for sure not a good pick for gaming enthusiasts.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
It will stay that way for a gen longer than it should now.

What do you mean by "should"? People spend quite a bit of their money on their 40-55" TV sets back in the days and they see absolutely no reason to update them anytime soon, they're still big, they're still good, so despite all the 4K, 3D, curved, HDR or whatever marketing buzzword the companies are coming up with just to convince people into replacing their fully functional TVs, people are perfectly happy with what they have, and that's perfectly fine.

The vast majority of people doesn't really care about the specs, the features, all they care is the size of the TV, nothing else matters, and like I said, if they already have something that fills half of their wall, why should they change that? Why should they spend a grand or more on something that's equally big and will deliver the exact same content?

Especially when the consoles already have hard times with delivering 4K, which brings the question what's actually the killer-app for 4K TVs for an average Joe? Netflix? That's the only thing I can think of that could justify getting a 4K TV. People who take gaming seriously will obviously invest into a proper next-gen TV set, something like a 4K 120HZ OLED, but that's just a drop in the ocean, if you're really THAT serious about gaming you game on PC, simple as it is, while consoles always have been and always will be oriented towards average Joes, the casuals, the weekend players, whatever you wanna call them.

Let's take Spider-Man as the best example of why it's really not necessary to get a 4K TV to enjoy next-gen consoles - the game offer both 60FPS and RT, at native 1080p which is perfect for a 1080p display, so there are absolutely no shortcomings to the end user experience, I'd even say it's better than on a 4K TV where you have to choose between visuals and performance. People who will use PS5/XSX on a FullHD display are the ones that don't have to worry about the performance in the upcoming 8-10 years, as all games will comfortably run at 1080p60 on those consoles, as oppose to people with 4K, where some are already looking forward to mid-gen refresh models.
 

yamaci17

Member
Downsampling to 1080p gets you better graphics too… you do not need a console that peaks at 1080p, an Xbox One X / XSX outputting at 4K and downscaling to 1080p is bringing you nice AA for free.
No you wont be able to make them believe, I tried a lot, believe me


Native 1080p image looks blurry in modern games. Any supersampling works wonder to make the image sharper.

This is what you get with Series X even if you have a 1080p monitor. Sharper and cleaner image. Not only "AA". This is not only AA. It is straight up image quality upgrade. There are leaps and bounds differences in actual gameplay when you pan the camera.
 

Three

Member
Do you want me to vote with the perspective of what would have been better for me or what would have been better for MS?
 

yamaci17

Member
What do you mean by "should"? People spend quite a bit of their money on their 40-55" TV sets back in the days and they see absolutely no reason to update them anytime soon, they're still big, they're still good, so despite all the 4K, 3D, curved, HDR or whatever marketing buzzword the companies are coming up with just to convince people into replacing their fully functional TVs, people are perfectly happy with what they have, and that's perfectly fine.

The vast majority of people doesn't really care about the specs, the features, all they care is the size of the TV, nothing else matters, and like I said, if they already have something that fills half of their wall, why should they change that? Why should they spend a grand or more on something that's equally big and will deliver the exact same content?

Especially when the consoles already have hard times with delivering 4K, which brings the question what's actually the killer-app for 4K TVs for an average Joe? Netflix? That's the only thing I can think of that could justify getting a 4K TV. People who take gaming seriously will obviously invest into a proper next-gen TV set, something like a 4K 120HZ OLED, but that's just a drop in the ocean, if you're really THAT serious about gaming you game on PC, simple as it is, while consoles always have been and always will be oriented towards average Joes, the casuals, the weekend players, whatever you wanna call them.

Let's take Spider-Man as the best example of why it's really not necessary to get a 4K TV to enjoy next-gen consoles - the game offer both 60FPS and RT, at native 1080p which is perfect for a 1080p display, so there are absolutely no shortcomings to the end user experience, I'd even say it's better than on a 4K TV where you have to choose between visuals and performance. People who will use PS5/XSX on a FullHD display are the ones that don't have to worry about the performance in the upcoming 8-10 years, as all games will comfortably run at 1080p60 on those consoles, as oppose to people with 4K, where some are already looking forward to mid-gen refresh models.
Watch out, you will trigger people who bought expensive as hell 4K TVs. They will probably battle you to the end that 1080p on 4K tv looks miles better than native 1080p because of upscaling and yadda yadda.

Or they will say that even anything above 1080p goes wasted on 1080p tv. Yeah for an extra 144p (1224-1080) pixel quality to show up instead of acting as supersampling, let's invest in a 4K TV. How smart! And of course the occasional 1440p game which should be rare throughout the generation
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
What do you mean by "should"? People spend quite a bit of their money on their 40-55" TV sets back in the days and they see absolutely no reason to update them anytime soon, they're still big, they're still good, so despite all the 4K, 3D, curved, HDR or whatever marketing buzzword the companies are coming up with just to convince people into replacing their fully functional TVs, people are perfectly happy with what they have, and that's perfectly fine.

The vast majority of people doesn't really care about the specs, the features, all they care is the size of the TV, nothing else matters, and like I said, if they already have something that fills half of their wall, why should they change that? Why should they spend a grand or more on something that's equally big and will deliver the exact same content?

Especially when the consoles already have hard times with delivering 4K, which brings the question what's actually the killer-app for 4K TVs for an average Joe? Netflix? That's the only thing I can think of that could justify getting a 4K TV. People who take gaming seriously will obviously invest into a proper next-gen TV set, something like a 4K 120HZ OLED, but that's just a drop in the ocean, if you're really THAT serious about gaming you game on PC, simple as it is, while consoles always have been and always will be oriented towards average Joes, the casuals, the weekend players, whatever you wanna call them.

Let's take Spider-Man as the best example of why it's really not necessary to get a 4K TV to enjoy next-gen consoles - the game offer both 60FPS and RT, at native 1080p which is perfect for a 1080p display, so there are absolutely no shortcomings to the end user experience, I'd even say it's better than on a 4K TV where you have to choose between visuals and performance. People who will use PS5/XSX on a FullHD display are the ones that don't have to worry about the performance in the upcoming 8-10 years, as all games will comfortably run at 1080p60 on those consoles, as oppose to people with 4K, where some are already looking forward to mid-gen refresh models.
We only get one shot every gen to push the envelope, and XsS dilutes it. I look at it from a technical advancement viewpoint, not a social justice qq think of the poor people.

They can get a One S and play every Xbox game except the medium on there if money is a concern.

XsS is a cynical attempt by ms to gain market share going into next gen. In fact they prefer a low baseline to feed their ultimate aspiration of a console free service platform streaming to billions of phone users. MS themselves claim XsS will be the main console/seller - yikes if true.

Don’t be brainwashed by the PR. For us gamers, the XsS does us all a disservice.
 
Last edited:
While I love my series S, I wish MS had developed it with 12gb ram and a 6.1 TF GPU and priced it at 329 or something.

Yeah. Higher clocks and some more Ram would still be cheap and way cheaper to produce than the PS5 Digital.

But 12GB RAM on a full 192bit bus would be overkill compared to Series X 16GB split. But Series X should've been 20GB anyways.


Series X should've been 20GB on a full 320bit bus at 1.95GHz
Series S should've been 12GB on a full 192bit bus at 1.75GHz with 8 more CUs



But I guess it just wasn't worth it.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
We only get one shot every gen to push the envelope, and XsS dilutes it. I look at it from a technical advancement viewpoint, not a social justice qq think of the poor people.
XsS is a cynical attempt by ms to gain market share going into next gen. In fact they prefer a low baseline to feed their ultimate aspiration of a console free service platform streaming to billions of phone users. […] Don’t be brainwashed by the PR. For us gamers, the XsS does us all a disservice.
Inspiring Tim Tebow GIF by Home Free
 
Last edited:

ToTTenTranz

Banned
But 12GB RAM on a full 192bit bus would be overkill compared to Series X 16GB split. But Series X should've been 20GB anyways.


Series X should've been 20GB on a full 320bit bus at 1.95GHz
Series S should've been 12GB on a full 192bit bus at 1.75GHz with 8 more CUs

Yes, I also think that the real lost opportunity here is the SeriesX not getting 20GB. The difference in cost for using only 16Gbit chips couldn't have been that large, they would have avoided the memory contention issues and the extra RAM could have compensated somewhat for the lower performance I/O compared to the PS5.

The SeriesS getting such a modest GPU with modest clocks makes me think Microsoft is indeed planning for this to become a mobile console eventually.
 
Last edited:
The first 1-2 years of a generation usually include huge sales for the prior generation console at low entry-level prices. XBox has effectively turned those sales into people able to buy/participate in next-gen games.

With the CPU / SSD being essentially the same performance-wise, a Series S will be able to play the same experiences even if the visuals are heavily compromised in the end. It’s a big boost to their platform (assuming they can make enough at some point).

Also, they’re going to price this thing at $199-249 very soon. Something that would be 5 years away for a discless Series X.
 

acm2000

Member
a bluray-less series x will come once they can meet demand, so probably next year.

the series s is NOT for you, its for casuals, its for the kids room, its a 2nd box for game pass, NOT for nerdcore forum gamers.
 

Lysandros

Member
Yes, I also think that the real lost opportunity here is the SeriesX not getting 20GB. The difference in cost for using only 16Gbit chips couldn't have been that large, they would have avoided the memory contention issues and the extra RAM could have compensated somewhat for the lower performance I/O compared to the PS5.

The SeriesS getting such a modest GPU with modest clocks makes me think Microsoft is indeed planning for this to become a mobile console eventually.
Is it true that XSS has even lower rasterization rate than PS4 PRO due to being 1 SE versus 2 SE (less rasterization blocks) despite the higher frequency? I also suspect that it has less texel and pixel fill rate.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Spencer said they would not ”be out of position on power or price”, but according to me they looked to be out of position on both when Sony revealed the PS5 DE.
Exactly. Obviously everything is in hindsight right now, but the PS5DE literally came out of nowhere. Barely any rumors of a 2nd sku and any halfway believable rumors were quickly dismisses. I think I only saw 2 rumors and neither stuck.

The PS5DE basically nullifies what Spencer, MS were going for.

When you have an sku thats $100 cheaper than the XSX and is absolutely going toe to toe with it....the same $100 more it cost over the XSS doesnt really matter.


People are still talking about the resolution as if that's the sole thing that the existence of XSS compromises after all this time and developer insights. This is hopeless at this point.
Pretty much.
 
When you have an sku thats $100 cheaper than the XSX and is absolutely going toe to toe with it....the same $100 more it cost over the XSS doesnt really matter.

The pressure for the PS5DE to stay at $399 is a lot higher than the pressure for the Series S to stay at $299. As soon as they can consistently meet demand at $299 it will drop in price.
 

ZywyPL

Banned
They can get a One S and play every Xbox game except the medium on there if money is a concern.

Maybe for now, with cross-gen titles build with a tablet CPU in mind, and an HDD, sure, but after ~2 more years One S/One X will be obsolete. With the same CPU and SSD the XSS won't hold down any game design feature for XSX/PS5, it's all the same, it's actually much better than what most people have in their PCs if we want to look at the whole picture, while its weak GPU shouldn't be much of an issue as the resolution, textures and graphics can easily be scaled down, even turned completely off (which I expect to be the case for RT in many cases in the upcoming features). I think that within 3-4 years XSS will be a 900-1080p RT-off console, not that any of its owner will care about, but like I said, the baseline CPU and SSD are the same as in the stronger consoles, that's what the devs will build their games around this gen, they just need to be humble and accept that the console won't be able to pull off 1440p60 for long.
 

muteZX

Banned
As far as i know PS4 PRO has 64 ROPS, shouldn't the pixel fill rate be 58.3 GP/s instead of 29.15 GP/s?

some sources say 32, others 64 .. personally i think the PRO GPU has no chance to saturate such a high number of ROPs with a relatively narrow mem bus bandwidth.
 

Lysandros

Member
Texture rate should be correct, it is indeed ~5% higher on PS4 PRO (131.2 GT/s vs 125.2 GT/s) but i strongly suspect pixel fill rate figure to be wrong. Techpowerup often makes mistakes like this, last time i checked Wikipedia the figure was 58.3 GP/s for the PRO, i guess they changed it back to match the (incorrect) Techpowerup figure.
 
Last edited:

Lysandros

Member
some sources say 32, others 64 .. personally i think the PRO GPU has no chance to saturate such a high number of ROPs with a relatively narrow mem bus bandwidth.
PS4 had 32 ROPS. PS4 PRO being 64 ROPS was a direct consequence of the doubling (2 SE/'butterfly') design to my knowledge. Now the real world performance is another matter, i was talking about the theoretical peaks.
 

muteZX

Banned
PS4 had 32 ROPS. PS4 PRO being 64 ROPS was a direct consequence of the doubling (2 SE/'butterfly') design to my knowledge. Now the real world performance is another matter, i was talking about the theoretical peaks.

Eurogamer: "Leaked documentation from the Sony SDK confirms this, and likely it's a factor of the platform holder adopting a 'mirror image' strategy on the GPU to ensure compatibility with the base system - the 32 ROPs of the original PS4 is doubled up along with everything else. As things stand, doubling up on ROPs is an intriguing postscript to what we know about the established Pro spec, but the docs also confirm that it's theoretically impossible to fully utilise them - the memory bandwidth just isn't there."
 
Watch out, you will trigger people who bought expensive as hell 4K TVs. They will probably battle you to the end that 1080p on 4K tv looks miles better than native 1080p because of upscaling and yadda yadda.

Or they will say that even anything above 1080p goes wasted on 1080p tv. Yeah for an extra 144p (1224-1080) pixel quality to show up instead of acting as supersampling, let's invest in a 4K TV. How smart! And of course the occasional 1440p game which should be rare throughout the generation

^ This is the result of not buying an LG CX or higher model. Bitterness, jealousy, and misery. A true beta male in our presence.

If you don't think these new TVs are better than your shitty 1080p then you really are lost. The difference is insane. Imagine buying an XSX or PS5 and only having a 1080p or lower monitor/tv to use it. What's the fucking point?
2021 and people are still cucking for low-quality TVs. Spend $530 on a new console and play it on a $25 TV gotten from Goodwill. It's not a good look. When your girl realizes what the fuck you done she's gonna leave your ass immediately and I don't blame her.
 
Top Bottom