So, let's ignore cpu, ssd and just compare gpus.
Btw, I've ordered X as well, but for most people, 300 vs 500 is a big difference.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Digital Foundry: "The big Xbox Series S interview: why Microsoft made an entry-level next-gen console"
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
So, let's ignore cpu, ssd and just compare gpus.
Btw, I've ordered X as well, but for most people, 300 vs 500 is a big difference.
It's when they can sell this for 199 whilst the others haven't dropped in price that it will become a Trojan horse for the gen.
I really hope in the future Microsoft considers releasing an external disc drive for the S. It'd go a long way for people like me who are fine with the entry level console but prefer physical games. I know it's probably a silly proposition given the Xbox is the Game Pass console, but I'd like to at least have the option.
This is a hilarious take, as if people bought their consoles based on the amount of teraflops, rotfl.
Now do the math with fun units. How many fun units does one teraflop carries?
I feel like you're placing too much value on power.
Different people have different priorities, and thus place different values on things like 4k vs 1080. Not only that, but people's idea of what looks "good" is almost purely a matter of context. When I shelled out $2k for a Panasonic plasma tv in 2008, the only impact it had for me after even just a month was that other TVs I saw looked crappy. I wasn't continually impressed with my amazing TV, because I just got used to it. And it's the same thing here. If you're just playing games at 1080, even on a 4k tv, the vast majority of people are going to pay no mind to the lower resolution because it will just be the way they're used to playing. Unless they're regularly going somewhere else and gaming at 4k, they'll be none the wiser.
Just think of it this way: Would you unhesitatingly recommend that everyone buy a $750 PS5/XSX if it were twice as powerful as the current consoles? I think even here most people would think that the current consoles are good enough and that $500 is about what they're comfortable spending on a gaming platform. It's the same thing for the S, just a different audience.
Series S:
- costs the same
- has better specs
- plays Xbox One games AND next-gen games
- will be supported for an entire generation to come
About the only downside is the lack of disc drive (and availability right now). It'd be a no-brainer for me.
Inb4 you too fall into Phil's trap of Series S + Starfield for 299 next year.
ya at that price or lower for a holiday sell. as long as there is plenty of stock.
If you look at PC gaming, I don't think that'll be the case. A GTX 1060 came out over 4 years ago and it can still run PC games on Medium/High (probably not Ultra) settings at 1080P and with a playable framerate.
By tuning graphics options and targeting a lower resolution, you can get a lot of mileage out of lower powered hardware. Now whether there'll be new rendering techniques in the next 5 years that make a 4TF RDNA2 chip obsolete, I don't know. But historically the theory on graphics scalability has worked out.
This isn't how it works - the more expensive ones are easier to reduce by the same absolute amount not vice versa.
Oh they will do that, but there is no necessity at launch. Especially taking Covid into account. It does come with 14 days of Ultimate, though.
they are literally saying the same as me in the article.
edit... whether that's true or not is another matter.
I think they might be onto to something with this console.
Pretty much all my friends/acquaintances that went with a ps4 only this gen are now going Ps5 + SS for this gen. Some even got the SS first as it was easier to pre order compared to the PS5 DE.
I assume there are a lot more like this.
Pretty much all my friends/acquaintances that went with a ps4 only this gen are now going Ps5 + SS for this gen. Some even got the SS first as it was easier to pre order compared to the PS5 DE.
I assume there are a lot more like this.
I am not really a console gamer much anymore bit the series s is tempting to me. I feel it will be fine over the next few years when you run games at around 1080p. Isnt the cpu nearly the same? 1080p locks more to cpu anyhow. This might hold me off on buying a new video card until the 4xxx series.
Where do they say a lower cost version aka the SS is easier to cost reduce?
Nah, you've completely missed it.
If you can't afford $499, then at least you have a cheaper option.
4TF > 0 TF. That's the only math you need
I went Xbox for Gamepass as well (though I got a series X). Why get a PS5 and spend $90 (CAD) on new games when I can just get an Xbox, ride out the first 3-4 years of the generation with XBSX, and then buy a slim/mid-gen refresh for PS5 and get their games when they are greatest hits? Just financially it makes a *lot* of sense.
I'm with you here!
even if I still have to buy an Xbox Series S ;p
Waiting for Santa Claus ahahah
True. If you can't afford the extra $200 spread over 4-7 years, then yes, you're correct. the S + gamepass is still way better than smartphone or appleTV games. (or Stadia!)
I think they kept the CPU and IO subsystems relatively close to avoid this as much as possible but I think it would be disingenuous to say it wouldn't have at least a bit of an effect.
Yeah, hard to compare though. 8 GB on Windows means 8GB for the game + operating system overhead, but then you need to have additional VRAM on your GPU. 8 GB on Series S is after the overhead has been subtracted, but it has to include both system and video memory.
I've always thought that'd be a good idea as a consumer too, but Albert Penello on here made comments that basically hinted at why it doesn't work out very well for the company. You need to sell it at a big markup to make up for the customer "buying out" of your digital store/ecosystem, which then makes it seem really overpriced for "just an optical drive."
Yeah, sounds like we could see a slim 2TB (drool) but not likely to get far below $499.
I think $100 would be an ideal price for a drive. Still plenty of room for a markup, and then the S + the drive together still costs less than an X.
Microsoft is playing it smart with the Series S, kudos to them for considering the more cost-conscious consumer.
Think it will sell well in the U.K. particularly if there are deals for the Series S sub £199 for Holiday 2021 and beyond.
When considering the whole $/flop or whatever, you have to remember that these are consoles. The developer makes a different graphics/resolution target for each platform, I hate to admit it because I spend so much money on this hobby, but 1080P => 4K doesn't make a big difference in the experience when you're actually playing most games.
It's definitely nice when you notice some extra detail but if you do the math counting $/polygon, the S stacks up well.
You genuinely made me giggle at this lol. That math doesn't work that way as TFLOPs figure don't scale linearly with performance. but I do agree that the Series S is actually a bad value. The PS5 DE is only $100 more, but it's a true next gen console with no compromises to the experience verses the disk version. Also you get a lot more storage out of it as well.
I think series S is a fantastic option as a Gamepass box. The only drawback (and very big draw back) is the tiny HDD in it. Not sure why MS put such meager disk space in a digital-only console. New CoD would take almost 1/4 of its capacity.
In fact it's gonna be lapped since day 1, but that's never been the point of the S
I won't buy digital only consoles until it is absolutely the only option. Or they at least have optional disc drives. If even just for backwards compatibility.
The S is a great value proposition. But I am honestly afraid of it being left out in a couple of years.
If Microsoft supports this through the whole generation, that is amazing, if it somehow becomes a cloud gaming machine for AAA games, not so much.
But that wont happen right?
If Microsoft supports this through the whole generation, that is amazing, if it somehow becomes a cloud gaming machine for AAA games, not so much.
But that wont happen right?
I haven't owned an XBox since the bog boy 360.
A Series S and Game Pass MIGHT be enough to get me to pick one up.
A Series S and Game Pass MIGHT be enough to get me to pick one up.
Having an affordable, but lower powered device lets them better emphasize the value proposition of Gamepass. For 450 you could give a kid a Series S with 3 years of Gamepass and presumably not have any more expenses for gaming while still giving them a ton to play and lots of big titles over that time. It's hard to beat that value proposition for people who don't have a ton of disposable income.
You can't play Xbox games on a PS5. Gamepass isn't on a PS5.
Not sure what you're on about. This IS a new console. It should easily last all gen, with all the benefits from a fast SSD and CPU, albeit at a lower resolution.
That is assuming the balance of PS5 DE -> PS5 shipments improves any time soon. IMO the reason launch shipments for the XSS are lower is because MSFT started production late and wanted to prioritize early adopters with the XSX. The reason launch shipments for the PS5 DE are lower is because Sony wanted to have the $400 bullet point without taking the massive loss it entails.
I'd be willing to bet that in one years time the # of PS5 DEs shipped will remain relatively constrained while the # of XSSs shipped will rise to equal or exceed the XSX.
Last edited:
Disagree. It has 100% of the new SSD performance, which is a defining feature of next gen. It has 95% of the CPU performance, which is the other defining feature of next gen. It has ray tracing hardware which is already being used in retail games. It has all the quality of life features like quick resume. That's clearly a "next gen" console IMO.
The drawbacks are that it's 33% of the Series X GPU, but it's only targeting 25-44% (1080p-1440p) of the resolution that Series X is targeting. That sounds reasonable. Even if visuals have to be turned down beyond resolution, well, we're just talking visuals. Witcher 3 on Switch is still Witcher 3.
The one potentially significant drawback everyone has identified is total RAM (8GB available vs 13.5GB available). I think we're still in wait and see mode on whether that adds up to anything. But it's not obviously disqualifying to me. From One S to to Series S is 5.5 GB vs 8 GB. From One X to Series X is 9 GB to 13.5 GB. Approx 50% increase in both cases.
I see it as a clever ploy from MS to get you into the ecosystem and provide an incentive for you to upgrade later on. I don't think the S is really planned / intended for you to last through the whole generation.
Of course it's planned/intended to last through the whole generation. Did you not read the article on why they created the Series S at the beginning of next gen rather than wait for the Series X to gradually get cheaper to produce and manufacture and get to a mass market, casual audience, affordable price.
Your math makes sense. But it's still not for everyone. Some people think of the size and short term but in cost.
Not everyone buys the economy size. Some are happy spending less now vs long term.
The Series S is a very cool product that I can see being just as popular as the series X. It's the perfect companion console if you choose the PS5, Switch or PC as your main gaming platform.