• 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.

Xbox - Series S or X?

Rykan

Member
Doubling down when wrong, just admit it, here's another one.
Is the overwhelming majority of the video's campaign footage at 120 fps or below 120 fps?
The only place it hits 120 fps somewhat is the start of the game. As soon as you enter the open world (y'know, most of the game) it doesn't come anywhere near 120 fps.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

Gold Member
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Is the overwhelming majority of the video's campaign footage at 120 fps or below 120 fps?
The only place it hits 120 fps somewhat is the start of the game. As soon as you enter the open world (y'know, most of the game) it doesn't come anywhere near 120 fps.

That's not what you said, you said it doesn't hit 120fps at ANY point, that's factually incorrect.
Opinions are one thing but spreading disinformation that can be proven wrong very easily I'm sure is against forum rules.
 

Rykan

Member
That's not what you said, you said it doesn't hit 120fps at ANY point, that's factually incorrect.
Opinions are one thing but spreading disinformation that can be proven wrong very easily I'm sure is against forum rules.
This is the very definition of grasping at straws.
"You said it doesn't hit 120 fps at any point but thats totally incorrect because it actually does hit 120 fps on very rare occasions during a very short indoor section at the start of the game. This is totalllyyy against the forum rules".

The indoor section at the start of Halo:I is well known to run much better than the rest of the game. Ask anyone who has played this game on PC.

The game runs at 80 - 90 fps during the vastmajority of the game and that's what you'll be playing at for nearly the entire game.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Gold Member
This is the very definition of grasping at straws.
"You said it doesn't hit 120 fps at any point but thats totally incorrect because it actually does hit 120 fps on very rare occasions during a very short indoor section at the start of the game. This is totalllyyy against the forum rules".

The indoor section at the start of Halo:I is well known to run much better than the rest of the game. Ask anyone who has played this game on PC.

The game runs at 80 - 90 fps during the vastmajority of the game and that's what you'll be playing at for nearly the entire game.
you shouldn't have given him a leverage he can use. he will always manipulate the entire discussion around nitpicking. sorry, there's no valid and healthy way to properly discuss a topic with him
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
This is the very definition of grasping at straws.
"You said it doesn't hit 120 fps at any point but thats totally incorrect because it actually does hit 120 fps on very rare occasions during a very short indoor section at the start of the game. This is totalllyyy against the forum rules".

The indoor section at the start of Halo:I is well known to run much better than the rest of the game. Ask anyone who has played this game on PC.

The game runs at 80 - 90 fps during the vastmajority of the game and that's what you'll be playing at for nearly the entire game.

That's not what you said, you said at "any" point which you must now admit is wrong.
Also anyone who's played the game knows that the indoor sections are not just at the start of the game, the whole game has several indoor sections after you hit the open world.
Yes I've completed it and played all five versions.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
That's not what you said, you said at "any" point which you must now admit is wrong.
Also anyone who's played the game knows that the indoor sections are not just at the start of the game, the whole game has several indoor sections after you hit the open world.
Yes I've completed it and played all five versions.
This is pretty much why appeals for "Argument in good faith" don't work on this forum.

At no point are you even remotely interested in having anything that even resembles a semi intelligent discussion about this topic. The only thing you're doing is scouring over posts and look for a choice of words or the absolute tiniest of straws, knowing FULL WELL that the essence of the argument absolutely still stands. "If we just focus on this very tiny part of Halo, you'll see that it runs at 120 fps for about 3 seconds! See! You're wrong! WRONG!" while being well aware that the overwhelming majority of the experience runs between 70 - 90 FPS.

It's intellectual bankruptcy at best and blatant console warring at worst. I have zero interest in having any discussion with people only looking to score "Gotcha!" points to defend their plastic box. Consider yourself ignored.
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
This is pretty much why appeals for "Argument in good faith" don't work on this forum.

At no point are you even remotely interested in having anything that even resembles a semi intelligent discussion about this topic. The only thing you're doing is scouring over posts and look for a choice of words or the absolute tiniest of straws, knowing FULL WELL that the essence of the argument absolutely still stands. "If we just focus on this very tiny part of Halo, you'll see that it runs at 120 fps for about 3 seconds! See! You're wrong! WRONG!" while being well aware that the overwhelming majority of the experience runs between 70 - 90 FPS.

It's intellectual bankruptcy at best and blatant console warring at worst. I have zero interest in having any discussion with people only looking to score "Gotcha!" points to defend their plastic box. Consider yourself ignored.

You made a false claim and got called out, man up.
Most 120fps console games are not locked, see recent Call of Duty games for details.
 

yamaci17

Gold Member
nope

overwatch, sea of thieve, battlefront 2, psychonot 2 (hello), realm royale, r6 siege, titanfall 2, destiny 2, rocket league, rogue company, fortnite, apex legends these games run mostly a solid rock solid 120 fps

i've probably listed half the games that have 120 fps support

halo inf optimization is pretty bad and devs couldn't stomatch drops below 1080p to attaint a constant 120 fps on halo inf on series x . if they did, it would also run at a consistent 120 but then it wouldn't be good for series x's image

cod on the otherhand is notorious for its cpu bound performance. it also proves my theory about CPUs not scaling forward. the game can run between 45-60 fps on a 1.6 ghz jaguar core yet fails to hit a consistent 120 on a 3.6 ghz zen 2 core. its not even about backwards compability mode, ps5/sx cpu exactly performs like a 2700x-2700 performs in cod warzone.

cod games do not create the "majority" of games. there are tons of other more fun games that can be played with greats fun and rock solid frames
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

Gold Member
nope

overwatch, sea of thieve, battlefront 2, psychonot 2 (hello), realm royale, r6 siege, titanfall 2, destiny 2, rocket league, rogue company, fortnite, apex legends these games run mostly a solid rock solid 120 fps

i've probably listed half the games that have 120 fps support

On Series S? SoT is 60fps not 120fps but add Gears 5 because that’s a stunning g example.
 

yamaci17

Gold Member
On Series S? SoT is 60fps not 120fps but add Gears 5 because that’s a stunning g example.

im talking about series x of course

series s wont hit a consistent 120 fps most of the time due to 540p hardcap at low resolution bound. it could hit 120 fps consistent at 300-450p. my friend actually plays cod at 600 or something with his rx 580 and gets 100 frames. not surprising the same logic applies to series s for most games

he's saying most console games do not hit a consistent 120. that's not the case with s.x. he did not specify whether he was talking about series s or x :) i don't even knoy why someone would defend 343 and their petty optimization though

by most you're talking about a %75-80 percentage. im sure if we do an actual list, %60-70 of the games that support 120 fps is mostly a consistent rock solid 120 fps on series x. outliers like cod and halo infinite, i dont care
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
nope

overwatch, sea of thieve, battlefront 2, psychonot 2 (hello), realm royale, r6 siege, titanfall 2, destiny 2, rocket league, rogue company, fortnite, apex legends these games run mostly a solid rock solid 120 fps

i've probably listed half the games that have 120 fps support

halo inf optimization is pretty bad and devs couldn't stomatch drops below 1080p to attaint a constant 120 fps on halo inf on series x . if they did, it would also run at a consistent 120 but then it wouldn't be good for series x's image

cod on the otherhand is notorious for its cpu bound performance. it also proves my theory about CPUs not scaling forward. the game can run between 45-60 fps on a 1.6 ghz jaguar core yet fails to hit a consistent 120 on a 3.6 ghz zen 2 core. its not even about backwards compability mode, ps5/sx cpu exactly performs like a 2700x-2700 performs in cod warzone.

cod games do not create the "majority" of games. there are tons of other more fun games that can be played with greats fun and rock solid frames
I said "locked" not "mostly" there is a difference.
Trying to use the game as a slight on Series S is a bit strange as the 120hz mode will give you latency and frametime benefits over the 60hz mode which are important for a shooter. It's also up to twice the framerate of the best last gen version.
The multiplayer also seems to run even better than the Campaign and that's where the most people will continue to be playing.
 

yamaci17

Gold Member
"Most 120fps console games are not locked,"

look bro, i'm not enjoying this. if this weird thing gets you giddy, i'm out.
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
"Most 120fps console games are not locked,"

look bro, i'm not enjoying this. if this weird thing gets you giddy, i'm out.

Which is true.
Locked is a constant 120fps. Most games have drops at some point at 120fps on consoles.
 

yamaci17

Gold Member
by that virtue almost every 30 fps lastgen game out there can have drops at one point

therefore, they're mostly a 30 fps lock

damn consoles. can't even get a straight %100 of the time 30 fps lock.

we're talking about dynamic rendering. you will never have a constant 30 fps 60 fps or 120 fps. it will drop frames regardless
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
by that virtue almost every 30 fps lastgen game out there can have drops at one point

therefore, they're mostly a 30 fps lock

damn consoles. can't even get a straight %100 of the time 30 fps lock.

we're talking about dynamic rendering. you will never have a constant 30 fps 60 fps or 120 fps. it will drop frames regardless

Are you saying no console games have a totally locked framerate at 30,60 or 120?
 

cireza

Member
Your source of the opposite is true? Come on now. Video games are a luxury item, If you can afford to jump into next gen this early, with so many games being multiplatform, you're probably not the kind of person for who 100$ more is a a breaking point. This is just an issue with a lot of the Series S defenders in this thread: Focus on a very hyperspecific scenario or group of people to make a point. It just isn't a very strong argument.

Series selling a lot? That's debateable. It's doing so while alternatives are constantly sold out and it's the only next gen system that sits on shelves. It's still unlikely to sell more than the Series X or PS5 when they aren't supply constrained.
You need to realize that every single person that buys a video-game console is not the exact same profile as you. Our arguments are not strong ? lol... You actually don't have any, except for "if people can afford 300$ they can afford 500$". Well, this might be a shock, but this is not the case. Not talking about other countries where video-game consoles are even more expensive for various reasons (South America).

When I was a kid, my parents offered me a Master System and not a MegaDrive. The reason is obvious. Still applies today. Not everybody can spend 500$ on a kid's gift. 300$ makes it affordable for these people. Yes, that's a 200$ difference. That's a lot, maybe not for you, but for many families it is.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Gold Member
Are you saying no console games have a totally locked framerate at 30,60 or 120?
you say that. your skewed logic makes it so. because if a game drops frames here and there, its not a locked 120 fps

god of war is commended for being a locked 30 fps game. yet i see framedrops. i would still say its a locked 30 fps game. but by your logic (drops frames here and there rarely), its not a locked 30 fps




your logic doesn't work on your own argument? now skew and manipulate the discussion to another topic.

the games i've listed there will run at a rock solid 120 fps %99 of the time. god of war also will run at a rock solid 30 fps %99 of the time. if you say that %1 percentage makes a game "mostly", then yes, there exists no games that run a locked framerate by YOUR LOGIC

believe it or not but sx/ps5 equivalent pcs can even push consistent 200+ fps on the games i've listed. naturally they won't drop a single frame %99 of the time aside from stutters and momentary hitches. you can use this information however you want
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
you say that. your skewed logic makes it so. because if a game drops frames here and there, its not a locked 120 fps

god of war is commended for being a locked 30 fps game. yet i see framedrops. i would still say its a locked 30 fps game. but by your logic (drops frames here and there rarely), its not a locked 30 fps




your logic doesn't work on your own argument? now skew and manipulate the discussion to another topic.

the games i've listed there will run at a rock solid 120 fps %99 of the time. god of war also will run at a rock solid 30 fps %99 of the time. if you say that %1 percentage makes a game "mostly", then yes, there exists no games that run a locked framerate by YOUR LOGIC

believe it or not but sx/ps5 equivalent pcs can even push consistent 200+ fps on the games i've listed. naturally they won't drop a single frame %99 of the time aside from stutters and momentary hitches. you can use this information however you want

My original point was about 120fps games, I'll have to go and have a look at the statistics to see myself.
 

yamaci17

Gold Member
My original point was about 120fps games, I'll have to go and have a look at the statistics to see myself.
i dont care if 30 fps games can drop to 27-28 and we call it a consistent locked 30, then i have every rights to call a 120 fps game that drops to 109-111 momentarily a locked 120 fps game

27-28/30 = %7-9 deviation
108-112/120 = %7-9 deviation
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
i dont care if 30 fps games can drop to 27-28 and we call it a consistent locked 30, then i have every rights to call a 120 fps game that drops to 109-111 momentarily a locked 120 fps game

27-28/30 = %7-9 deviation
108-112/120 = %7-9 deviation

You can call it whatever you want, I'm only interested in what is factually correct when using numbers.


Pretty much proves my point.
 
Last edited:

yamaci17

Gold Member
You can call it whatever you want, I'm only interested in what is factually correct when using numbers.
i dont care about your facts

i care about prominent reviewers' facts. they call most of the games a rock solid 120 fps lock
 

Rykan

Member
You need to realize that every single person that buys a video-game console is not the exact same profile as you. Our arguments are not strong ? lol... You actually don't have any, except for "if people can afford 300$ they can afford 500$". Well, this might be a shock, but this is not the case. Not talking about other countries where video-game consoles are even more expensive for various reasons (South America).

When I was a kid, my parents offered me a Master System and not a MegaDrive. The reason is obvious. Still applies today. Not everybody can spend 500$ on a kid's gift. 300$ makes it affordable for these people. Yes, that's a 200$ difference. That's a lot, maybe not for you, but for many families it is.
Your argument isn't strong because it focuses on one group and one group only: People who can only afford a 300$ console. For pretty much every other group, the Series X and both PS5 systems have a vastly better price performance ratio. It's also worth mentioning that gamers that are extremely limited by budget often rely on borrowing and buying/selling used games, which the Series S can't do/

The reality is that the vast majority of console sales take place in North America and Europe, where a 100$ - 200$ increase for a vastly better product is unlikely to be a dealbreaker. Markets like South America only make up a fraction of total console sales, mostly because prices for consoles in markets like Brazil are incredibly fucked no matter which system we're talking about.

Again, if the 300$ is all a person can afford then by all means, but the vast majority of console sales will be done by people who will be going for the more "premium" models and for whom the extra 100$ - 200$ isn't an issue. We see this proven over and over again by far greater demand and sales for the premium consoles. The PS4 launched at 399$. With inflation, the PS5 launched at more or less the same price for the disc version and 100$ less for the digital version. The PS4 is one of the best selling consoles ever and price has never been an issue.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Your argument isn't strong because it focuses on one group and one group only: People who can only afford a 300$ console. For pretty much every other group, the Series X and both PS5 systems have a vastly better price performance ratio. It's also worth mentioning that gamers that are extremely limited by budget often rely on borrowing and buying/selling used games, which the Series S can't do/

The reality is that the vast majority of console sales take place in North America and Europe, where a 100$ - 200$ increase for a vastly better product is unlikely to be a dealbreaker. Markets like South America only make up a fraction of total console sales, mostly because prices for consoles in markets like Brazil are incredibly fucked no matter which system we're talking about.

Again, if the 300$ is all a person can afford then by all means, but the vast majority of console sales will be done by people who will be going for the more "premium" models and for whom the extra 100$ - 200$ isn't an issue. We see this proven over and over again by far greater demand and sales for the premium consoles. The PS4 launched at 399$. With inflation, the PS5 launched at more or less the same price for the disc version and 100$ less for the digital version. The PS4 is one of the best selling consoles ever and price has never been an issue.
Europe was a market that saw a lot of sales for budget consoles like the Master System. Of course there is a vast market for people who have a budget or 200/300$ for a console but not 500$, this is why Series S exists to begin with. It is also a affordable for people with more budget as a secondary console. The price point of this console is actually perfect and a super smart move from Microsoft.

You can buy Series S used, and it is a console that is perfectly fine for Game Pass, which is the obvious selling point. Again, this is going to work well with people that don't have a lot of money. They will be willing to spend a small monthly fee and be happy with it. No need to buy 60$ games. This is what Microsoft had planned, and it is actually working as planned.

You are crazy to think that a 200$ difference is not a deal breaker. In the end there are indeed two groups of persons : those who can afford a 500$ console, and those who can only afford (or are willing to spend) a 300$ console. Thus the split in sales between X and S. What a revelation.
 
Last edited:

twilo99

Member
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Series S for me .. especially if you can find it in the $250 range

I’m waiting for them to dip under $200 on Craigslist and I’ll grab one .. we getting very close


https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/ele/d/san-francisco-xbox-series/7479018825.html
You should ask Rykan Rykan , he will give you the remaining 250$ so you can buy a Series X.
 

Rykan

Member
Europe was a market that saw a lot of sales for budget consoles like the Master System. Of course there is a vast market for people who have a budget or 200/300$ for a console but not 500$, this is why Series S exists to begin with. It is also a affordable for people with more budget as a secondary console. The price point of this console is actually perfect and a super smart move from Microsoft.
Buddy, that was like 30 years ago. I'm sure there is a market for it, but it's much smaller than the market for regular priced consoles. It's important to keep in mind that the Series S currently gets a boost from the other consoles simply being supply constrained. We don't know what Series S will look like in a market where both PS5 and XSX are widely available.
You can buy Series S used, and it is a console that is perfectly fine for Game Pass, which is the obvious selling point. Again, this is going to work well with people that don't have a lot of money. They will be willing to spend a small monthly fee and be happy with it. No need to buy 60$ games. This is what Microsoft had planned, and it is actually working as planned.
Which, as previously mentioned, is a much smaller portion of the total audience.
You are crazy to think that a 200$ difference is not a deal breaker.
Based on what? Again, The Playstation 4 launched at roughly the same price point as PS5 and XSX are now, with PS5: DE actually launched cheaper. It's currently the 2nd best selling home console ever. Clearly the price point wasn't an issue before. Why is it suddenly an issue now?
In the end there are indeed two groups of persons : those who can afford a 500$ console, and those who can only afford (or are willing to spend) a 300$ console. Thus the split in sales between X and S. What a revelation.
Obviously. It's just that the latter group is significantly smaller. If you can afford a 400$ - 500$ console (which is clearly most people, as sales prove) then the Series X and PS5 (both editions) offer significantly better price - performance.

Just to clear up one thing to avoid misunderstanding: I don't think that the Series S is bad, I think that it's overpriced. The price difference between the XSX and especially the PS5: DE is too small to justify the rather large hardware difference. The Series S needs a price cut of 50$ - 100$ for it to make sense, in my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Buddy, that was like 30 years ago. I'm sure there is a market for it, but it's much smaller than the market for regular priced consoles. It's important to keep in mind that the Series S currently gets a boost from the other consoles simply being supply constrained. We don't know what Series S will look like in a market where both PS5 and XSX are widely available.

Which, as previously mentioned, is a much smaller portion of the total audience.

Based on what? Again, The Playstation 4 launched at roughly the same price point as PS5 and XSX are now, with PS5: DE actually launched cheaper. It's currently the 2nd best selling home console ever. Clearly the price point wasn't an issue before. Why is it suddenly an issue now?

Obviously. It's just that the latter group is significantly smaller. If you can afford a 400$ - 500$ console (which is clearly most people, as sales prove) then the Series X and PS5 (both editions) offer significantly better price - performance.

Just to clear up one thing to avoid misunderstanding: I don't think that the Series S is bad, I think that it's overpriced. The price difference between the XSX and especially the PS5: DE is too small to justify the rather large hardware difference. The Series S needs a price cut of 50$ - 100$ for it to make sense, in my humble opinion.
Since we don't know the split between S and X this discussion is utterly pointless.

However if you think that a 100$ or 200$ difference is nothing, you are completely wrong. It is not people who can afford a Series X as a primary console that are buying a Series S instead. These people are the kind that will wait to have the product they want, not buy a budget product. If 100$ was so relevant as you state, PS5 Digital would be flying off the shelves. However, my understanding is that demand for this product seem to have been much lower than for Series S, but this is based on what I can see around me, since we don't have numbers for these either. A lot of people have Series S, almost nobody has the PS5 Digital in the communities I participate into. The market is there for Series S, always was by the way.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Since we don't know the split between S and X this discussion is utterly pointless.
We have estimates from data analyst which put the split at about 50/50 between Series X and Series S, noting, ofcourse, that Series X is supply constrained where as Series S is not.
However if you think that a 100$ or 200$ difference is nothing, you are completely wrong. It is not people who can afford a Series X as a primary console that are buying a Series S instead. These people are the kind that will wait to have the product they want, not buy a budget product.
Again, based on what? How do you explain that the best selling home console launched at the same price point? How do you explain that demand for "premium" priced consoles is so much larger than that of Series S?
If 100$ was so relevant as you state, PS5 Digital would be flying off the shelves. However, my understanding is that demand for this product seem to have been much lower than for Series S, but this is based on what I can see around me, since we don't have numbers for these either. A lot of people have Series S, almost nobody has the PS5 Digital in the communities I participate into. The market is there for Series S, always was by the way.
Eh what..? Bruh, PS5 Digital Editions ARE flying off the shelves. It's sold out everywhere. They are sold out just as fast as any PS5 is. Again, the Series S is the only console that is sitting on shelves because it requires less resources to produce and because there is just a lot less demand for it compared to the other consoles.

I'm not saying there is not a market for the Series S. What I am saying is that its much smaller than for regular priced consoles and that its price/performance ratio is significantly worse than every other console.
 

cireza

Member
50/50 between Series X and Series S
Well there you have it. Validates the market opportunity.

What are the numbers for PS5 Digital ? Who can tell how many of these Sony is actually producing ? You can be sure that they are not margin much on this SKU, so better not make too many.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Well there you have it. Validates the market opportunity.
Picking out a statistic and then removing the context explained in that same post is disingenuous.
What are the numbers for PS5 Digital ? Who can tell how many of these Sony is actually producing ? You can be sure that they are not margin much on this SKU, so better not make too many.
We don't know what the numbers are for PS5 digital. We only know that they are selling out the moment they land on stores. As you pointed out already, the profit margin is probably significantly lower than the regular PS5 so most of the consoles produced will probably be the regular PS5.
 

cireza

Member
Picking out a statistic and then removing the context explained in that same post is disingenuous.
This is not context, this is your personal interpretation of things. You think that every single person who has bought a Series S did this because they could not find a Series X. Let's get real here for a sec. People bought Series S because they wanted this console, and only a minority will have picked the console because they could not find a Series X. And even though, it was their decision in the end. Nobody forced them. If it wasn't perceived as good value, nobody would buy it.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Gold Member
This is not context, this is your personal interpretation of things. You think that every single person who has bought a Series S did this because they could not find a Series X. Let's get real here for a sec. People bought Series S because they wanted this console, and only a minority will have picked the console because they could not find a Series X. And even though, it was their decision in the end. Nobody forced them. If it wasn't perceived as good value, nobody would buy it.

 

Rykan

Member
This is not context, this is your personal interpretation of things. You think that every single person who has bought a Series S did this because they could not find a Series X. Let's get real here for a sec. People bought Series S because they wanted this console, and only a minority will have picked the console because they could not find a Series X. And even though, it was their decision in the end. Nobody forced them. If it wasn't perceived as good value, nobody would buy it.
Eh what? You left out the other half of the sentence which provided the context.
Here is the entire sentence:
We have estimates from data analyst which put the split at about 50/50 between Series X and Series S, noting, ofcourse, that Series X is supply constrained where as Series S is not.
The Series X being supply constrained while the series S is not is not an interpretation, it is a fact. You do realise that even just an increase in production of Series X will increase the percentage towards the series X, right? A 50/50 sales split isn't the same as a 50/50 demand split.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
I don't realize this no. Because you actually have no clue if this will happen at all.
You are really struggling with some basic math here

The Xbox series X sells out almost as soon as supply hit stores. The Series S is widely available, so we do know the Series S is not supply constrained and an increase in production will not increase the sales. Series S currently has no issue with supply meeting demand, Series X is struggling because demand is higher than supply.

We "know" (or at the very least, have a very good estimate) that the sale split is around 50%. We know that 100% of Series X consoles are sold, but not 100% of Series S consoles are sold hence them being widely available.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 1000 consoles are sold in any given time. 500 of those are series X, which is 100% of produced units hence sold out, and 500 are Series S. Not 100% of produced units thus not sold out

This makes for a 50/50 split. If you increase production of series X, this will increase the total amount of Series X consoles sold, and thus will increase the total percentage of Xbox series X sold and lower the percentage of Series S sold.

You do understand how percentages work, right?
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
You are really struggling with some basic math here

The Xbox series X sells out almost as soon as supply hit stores. The Series S is widely available, so we do know the Series S is not supply constrained and an increase in production will not increase the sales. Series S currently has no issue with supply meeting demand, Series X is struggling because demand is higher than supply.

We "know" (or at the very least, have a very good estimate) that the sale split is around 50%. We know that 100% of Series X consoles are sold, but not 100% of Series S consoles are sold hence them being widely available.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that 1000 consoles are sold in any given time. 500 of those are series X, which is 100% of produced units hence sold out, and 500 are Series S. Not 100% of produced units thus not sold out

This makes for a 50/50 split. If you increase production of series X, this will increase the total amount of Series X consoles sold, and thus will increase the total percentage of Xbox series X sold and lower the percentage of Series S sold.

You do understand how percentages work, right?
You are basing the entirety of your though process on guesses. You are guessing that Series X would sell a LOT more : you have no clue. You are guessing that Series S sales would drop : you have no clue.

Even if Series X is sold out, it doesn't mean that the demand is that much higher than what is actually being sold right now. And Series S will still keep selling...
 

Skifi28

Member
I would wait for the M or L variant that should be right around the corner. Maybe the Series XL if you're large.
 

Rykan

Member
You are basing the entirety of your though process on guesses. You are guessing that Series X would sell a LOT more : you have no clue. You are guessing that Series S sales would drop : you have no clue.

Even if Series X is sold out, it doesn't mean that the demand is that much higher than what is actually being sold right now. And Series S will still keep selling...
Okay you have clearly failed your math class so let me break it down for you once more:

Series X is currently sold out. In most regions, stock is cleared within hours. People are constantly complaining that they are unable to get one and shortages are expected for at least another year. If you honestly believe that, under these circumstances, an increase in supply would not result into an increase in sales (and thus a larger percentage of total sales) when the console has been sold out for a year and a half and is expected to remain sold out for another year, you're downright ignorant.

If an increase in supply leads to an increase in sales, then the Series X will make up a larger percentage of the total sales and the Series S will reduce in percentage even if Series S sales stay exactly the same.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Okay you have clearly failed your math class so let me break it down for you once more:

Series X is currently sold out. In most regions, stock is cleared within hours. People are constantly complaining that they are unable to get one and shortages are expected for at least another year. If you honnestly believe that, under these circumstances, an increase in supply would not result into an increase in sales (and thus a larger percentage of total sales) then you're straigth up ignorant. There's no other way to put it.

If an increase in supply leads to an increase in sales, then the Series X will make up a larger percentage of the total sales and the Series S will reduce in percentage even if Series S sales stay exactly the same.
You are simply repeating the exact same thing. I won't be doing the same, I made my point and you are totally biased.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
You are simply repeating the exact same thing. I won't be doing the same, I made my point and you are totally biased.
LOL I am biased? You literally tried to argue that an increase in supply wouldn't result in more sales for a console that has been sold out nearly instantly the moment supply hits stores for a year and a half. You don't even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
LOL I am biased? You literally tried to argue that an increase in supply wouldn't result in more sales for a console that has been sold out nearly instantly the moment supply hits stores for a year and a half. You don't even have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
Unlike you, I am not "guessing" that an increase in supply would instantly lead to tenths of millions of sales.
 

Rykan

Member
Unlike you, I am not "guessing" that an increase in supply would instantly lead to tenths of millions of sales.
No instead , you're "guessing" that it doesn't. The only difference between you and me is that there is absolutely zero logic behind your thought process. The idea that a console that is sold out for nearly two years is producing Exactly the precise amount of consoles to meet demand is utterly laughable.


I have no idea why you double down on this, it's utterly ridiculous. We've had some serious lows in this thread from Series S fans but this one really takes the cake.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
No instead , you're "guessing" that it doesn't. The only difference between you and me is that there is absolutely zero logic behind your thought process. The idea that a console that is sold out for nearly two years is producing Exactly the amount of consoles to meet demand despite both analysts and MS themselves believing this not being the case is utterly laughable.


I have no idea why you double down on this, it's utterly ridiculous. We've had some serious lows in this thread from Series S fans but this one really takes the cake.
Quote me where I said it would sell exactly the same amount.

You are totally exaggerating, in your mind, the number of sales the Series X would make if it had better availability. You don't have any concrete information about the demand, and no common sense at all. But this is not a surprise from someone who has zero objectivity and simply wants to push his narrative. This is just as ridiculous as when you said that everybody can totally afford a console that costs 200$. Maybe try understanding in what world you leave in to being with ?

You had the exact same attitude in the Sonic topic, where you were pushing your opinion as if it was an absolute truth, which everybody demonstrated how ridiculous it was. And you are so butt-hurt that you have been actually crying in every single thread about Sonic ever since. What a child.
 

Rykan

Member
Quote me where I said it would sell exactly the same amount.
Quote me where I said it would sell tens of millions more. See? I can play that dumb little word game too. You know exactly what you meant.
You are totally exaggerating, in your mind, the number of sales the Series X would make if it had better availability. You don't have any concrete information about the demand, and no common sense at all. But this is not a surprise from someone who has zero objectivity and simply wants to push his narrative. This is just as ridiculous as when you said that everybody can totally afford a console that costs 200$. Maybe try understanding in what world you leave in to being with ?
You again prove how utterly clueless you are. OFCOURSE THERE IS NO CONCRETE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH THE CONSOLE WOULD SELL IF PRODUCTION WAS INCREASED BECAUSE ITS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. Like shit dude, this is some of the dumbest shit i've seen posted on this forum. There are literally analysts pointing out again and again that console sales are down and not what they usually are because of supply issues, but then we have this MFer on Neogaf saying "Well you don't know for sure! You have no concrete information!". Saying that a console that has been sold out for nearly 2 years and is one of the most scalped items in the world "Would not sell significantly more if it had better supply" is utter stupidity.
You had the exact same attitude in the Sonic topic, where you were pushing your opinion as if it was an absolute truth, which everybody demonstrated how ridiculous it was. And you are so butt-hurt that you have been actually crying in every single thread about Sonic ever since. What a child.
Yea this literally has nothing to do with anything.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
No shit ?!
Then stop pretending as if a completely reasonable expectation is disqualified on the basis that no concrete/exact information is possible. The system has been sold out for nearly 2 years and will probably be sold out for at least 3. Several industry analyst have pointed out that console sales are lacking behind because of supply issues. It's a prime target for scalpers.

Saying that the series x would sell a fair bit more if supply wasn't an issue is a completely logical expectation based on these facts. Oh and just a correction, since you've misrepresented my previous claim: I've never said that 100$ -200$ more isn't a deal breaker. What I have said is that it's not a deal breaker for most people that buy consoles, a claim that is both factually and demonstrably correct due to the fact that most home consoles sell at this price point. Not surprised you forgot though, considering you keep dodging the question as to how PS4 became the 2nd best selling console ever despite launching at this price point.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom