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.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....
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.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.
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.
Translation: “if Phil decided it, it was the best thing to do”.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.
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
I love my Xbox Series S if I was that bothered about an upgrade I'd get a new PC not another XboxNow 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.
It will stay that way for a gen longer than it should now.Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.
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.
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).Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.
IS it really so different? They're still losing money on the XSX/S.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.
Honestly, 4K adoption is a lot higher than I expected.Just yesterday ign did a poll on YouTube. A lot of people voted.
It will stay that way for a gen longer than it should now.
No you wont be able to make them believe, I tried a lot, believe meDownsampling 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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
Pretty much.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.
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.
They can get a One S and play every Xbox game except the medium on there if money is a concern.
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?
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?
Let’s not spread too much bullshit here, it’s significantly more powerful than the One X, just look at Resident Evil 8, Watch Dogs Legion, etc. And the gap will get wider between the two in the future once games make more use of the architecture.The S is a mistake and it drags xbox down. it is about as powerful as a XboneX..
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.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.
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
It's a turd of a console. They should have done a digital console instead. I'm so angry devs will have to make their games work on such a weak console.