Brett Bibby, Unity Chief Product Officer, thinks Xbox Series S is an "extremely capable machine"

[Eoin]

I think it's pretty clearly correct that it's a capable machine. As variable as the results of technical tests are, the fact is that the Series S is significantly outperforming any hardware that you can buy for the same price or below. For anyone outside the 4K market, it's a fine machine.

It's not a ResetEra machine, in general. The PS5 and Xbox Series X will outperform it, always. The PS5 Digital Edition is pretty clearly better value than the Series S, for anyone whose definition of value focuses on price/performance ratios. That still leaves the Series S as a great machine for kids, or as a secondary console for Microsoft exclusives and Game Pass, or for the many people for whom any higher-priced games console is out of financial reach.

It might well be that Microsoft have to spend a lot more time and effort communicating this more broadly. The Series S has pretty much a third of the graphical capability of the Series X. While its relative performance can't be simplified to just saying that it's a third as powerful, that's the kind of graphical difference it makes sense to expect to see. It's a difference that means that apart from the simplest of games, anything on Series S is going to have lower framerates and/or resolutions (and a lot of the negative perception seems to be from people who expected only lower resolutions, so that's a message that quite obviously needs a lot of work from Microsoft's side, and perhaps a drive to get developers to include matching framerate modes regardless of the cost in terms of resolution and effects).

 

[The Bookerman]

I don't understand this mindset. Unless game graphics become so demanding that the barely run at 1080p30 on the Series X and PS5, the same games can always target a lower resolution/framerate for the Series S with lower quality textures in RAM. The GPU has the same features as the Series X, just with less raw power

Click to shrink...

It's an optimisation thing and with the amount of platforms 3rd parties have to support(Pc, Stadia, Ps5, Xbox series, even switch) the effort put in to make it run smooth in a few years, is not gonna be worth it for Devs.

 

[Hasi]

Running a cross Gen assassins Creed game at 30fps. He can say whatever he wants. But series s has proven to be a bad purchase if anything.

Click to shrink...

The fact that it's cross gen is exactly the problem though. The Series S compares quite unfavorably to the One X here, but that's because they're completely different systems. The One X is a 6TF GPU connected to an overclocked 7 year old laptop GPU and hard drive. The Series S has state of the art (for consoles at least) CPU and SSD, but only 4TF of GPU power. Of course it isn't going to impress in a game/engine designed around last-gen system balance, it's strengths are completely underused.

In the DF threads, everyone is discovering that teraflops aren't everything, and praising the PS5 for its alternative system balance, but nobody bothers to apply the same logic to the Series S. People argue that next gen is going to come from the CPU and SSD, and then blame the Series S for holding back next gen...

 

[Marano]

It has 10GB, so your limited memory scenario is even more grim.

Click to shrink...

It has 8 available for games. I am sure the series s is for someone, it is just not for me. Good luck to MS and if it is successful whatever. I am not buying a series s just cause the series x is sold out everywhere and I am not paying scalpers their ridiculous asking prices.

 

[HellofaMouse]

i dont see it last more than half the generation

 

[LordBaztion]

Water is wet.
I just hope developers make games run at 60 fps on it.

 

[Adrifi]

We've had threads of Watch Dogs Legion and Gears 5 run like heaven on the thing that have got like 2 pages long.

Dirt 5 looks bad = 20 pages.

 

[zoltek]

"Extremely capable" is nice-speak for "gimped". I wish I had bookmarked the thread where so many were convinced the Series S would outsell Series X. I continue to have doubts.

 

[Edge]

Yeah....no.

 

[Theorry]

I feel like Assassins creed valhalla could do 60fps on Series S. I'd happily take 900p at 60fps over 1440p 30fpa.

Click to shrink...

I think so to yeah

 

[Jiraiya]

The Series S will be fine as long as it plays the same games as the gen goes along. Different devs will get different results based on whatever they prioritize visually and performance wise.

I think that's the point of the machine and it's doing what it's supposed to do. We've seen many games not perform up to expectations on the more powerful systems too.

 

[Atilac]

It's an optimisation thing and with the amount of platforms 3rd parties have to support(Pc, Stadia, Ps5, Xbox series, even switch) the effort put in to make it run smooth in a few years, is not gonna be worth it for Devs.

Click to shrink...

Cite your sources

 

[Deleted member 5028]

Realistically how much attention can or should developers even give to something that sits in a mid to low spec range when they have tons of other versions to also manage?

Click to shrink...

We are not the target audience. The target audience is the mass market and this is where they are going to tey and sell the most hardware unite. Thats what developers will support.

 

[ThisOne]

I think it will be really interesting to see how the Series S runs games a few years from now. I don't think it's going to be a very attractive machine from a performance perspective in 2-3 years.

 

[Musubi]

As Microsoft's tools mature, I think it'll be absolutely fine. I was hesitant of it's viability, but a was surprised to come across a number of my friends whose televisions were relics without even 4K capabilities.

Click to shrink...

This is my take as well. If games are optimized for it they can run really well. Gears 5 is a real showpiece title right now for it tbh.

 

[Deleted member 4869]

 

[alphacat]

I think it's pretty clearly correct that it's a capable machine. As variable as the results of technical tests are, the fact is that the Series S is significantly outperforming any hardware that you can buy for the same price or below. For anyone outside the 4K market, it's a fine machine.

It's not a ResetEra machine, in general. The PS5 and Xbox Series X will outperform it, always. The PS5 Digital Edition is pretty clearly better value than the Series S, for anyone whose definition of value focuses on price/performance ratios. That still leaves the Series S as a great machine for kids, or as a secondary console for Microsoft exclusives and Game Pass, or for the many people for whom any higher-priced games console is out of financial reach.

It might well be that Microsoft have to spend a lot more time and effort communicating this more broadly. The Series S has pretty much a third of the graphical capability of the Series X. While its relative performance can't be simplified to just saying that it's a third as powerful, that's the kind of graphical difference it makes sense to expect to see. It's a difference that means that apart from the simplest of games, anything on Series S is going to have lower framerates and/or resolutions (and a lot of the negative perception seems to be from people who expected only lower resolutions, so that's a message that quite obviously needs a lot of work from Microsoft's side, and perhaps a drive to get developers to include matching framerate modes regardless of the cost in terms of resolution and effects).

Click to shrink...

I agree with most of your points but wouldn't a series s be more efficient at pushing frames at lower resolutions since then it becomes more cpu than gpu dependent? I know Valhalla runs at 1440p30 but I think 900-1080p60 would have been possible if they optimized it

 

[Prine]

It's an optimisation thing and with the amount of platforms 3rd parties have to support(Pc, Stadia, Ps5, Xbox series, even switch) the effort put in to make it run smooth in a few years, is not gonna be worth it for Devs.

Click to shrink...

I don't agree with this, why wouldnt a publisher try to expand their reach, more versions of a single game, means more opportunity to resell. This is also a reason MS threw away their XDK for GDK, its intended to absorb some that overhead once tools have matured. I think in about a year's time their tooling should be to achieve that (based on Chris Grennel ex-Killzone Dev on GameOn recent podcast), they have 23 dedicated studios now actively participating in advancing it, that would mean any fixes or improvements through development of a Coalition or id Software game etc would be fed into GDK, which 3rd parties would get for free. For the 3rd party or indie dev, they'd have a stack that allows them to manage PC, cloud and console versions, without the typical effort needed to manage them individually. Also, devs are used to profiling, so this isn't anything new as of right now though.

 

[alphacat]

Click to shrink...

isn't gears 5 1440p/60?

 

[NekoNeko]

if it truly was the same game at 1080p (or 1440p) like it was pitched, i would get one but it's not now and most likely will only get worse in the future. i'd up and spend a little more for the X.

 

[Reckheim]

I agree with most of your points but wouldn't a series s be more efficient at pushing frames at lower resolutions since then it becomes more cpu than gpu dependent? I know Valhalla runs at 1440p30 but I think 900-1080p60 would have been possible if they optimized it

Click to shrink...

You guys are discussing 900p resolutions for a 'next gen' console. Anyone you cut it that's bad.

isn't gears 5 1440p/60?

Click to shrink...

Isn't gears 5 a last gen game?

 

[Eeyore]

when's ray tracing gonna be production ready?

Click to shrink...

It's not even ready on the Xbox Series X and PS5. These machines aren't good enough for it at the resolutions these publishers seem to want it to run at.

 

[Deleted member 4869]

isn't gears 5 1440p/60?

Click to shrink...

That's a last gen game, isn't it?

 

[SlickShoes]

I am not sure what many people were expecting from it? to me it still looks like a 1080p 60fps or 1440p 30fps machine, and that is fine for the price point. Some games are all over the place performance-wise at the moment and this console is no different. If we see games pushing PS5 and Series X down to 1080p then there is something very wrong going on.

 

[Prine]

That's a last gen game, isn't it?

Click to shrink...

Cross gen. Series S/X native versions were released via Smartdelivery. Same as Valhalla, Watchdogs, Dirt 5 etc.

 

[brawndolicious]

The fact that it's cross gen is exactly the problem though. The Series S compares quite unfavorably to the One X here, but that's because they're completely different systems. The One X is a 6TF GPU connected to an overclocked 7 year old laptop GPU and hard drive. The Series S has state of the art (for consoles at least) CPU and SSD, but only 4TF of GPU power. Of course it isn't going to impress in a game/engine designed around last-gen system balance, it's strengths are completely underused.

In the DF threads, everyone is discovering that teraflops aren't everything, and praising the PS5 for its alternative system balance, but nobody bothers to apply the same logic to the Series S. People argue that next gen is going to come from the CPU and SSD, and then blame the Series S for holding back next gen...

Click to shrink...

It is impressive that this early in the gen, how well it compares against the Xbox One X. Didn't Yakuza: Like a Dragon on Series S run at twice the resolution of the Xbox One X version? And that is at the beginning of the generation.

 

[TheGhost]

Does it do 60 frames then it's good to go. I got my cousin a Series S just so he can have a wider field of view and higher frame rate when the patch for destiny drops in December

It has the power to do that, that truly is next gen.

 

[Shigs]

The Series S looks fine for launch day, but it's really going to struggle 3+ years down the road. It's limited memory (12GB) will make it struggle with next-gen only titles that are pushing XSX and PS5 (both 16GB). And once the mid-gen refreshes come out, Series S will really look to be behind the curve.

You are going to be better off saving your pennies and buy a Series X after the first price drop.

Click to shrink...

Yup. As a 1080P TV owner, I was originally interested in a Series S, but seeing that AC Valhalla is already running at 30 FPS and not looking much different from the One X version, I can only imagine how underpowered future games will be.

 

[Zutroy]

I was pretty set on getting a XSS, but initial output and impressions have put me right off, so just gonna save a bit longer and get a XSX instead.

 

[Eoin]

I think it will be really interesting to see how the Series S runs games a few years from now. I don't think it's going to be a very attractive machine from a performance perspective in 2-3 years.

Click to shrink...

Indeed, it's probably not.

It will be relatively more attractive than the Xbox One (S) was for much of last generation though, and that's still getting games now (and really struggling at times, but both the console and the games are still selling).

I agree with most of your points but wouldn't a series s be more efficient at pushing frames at lower resolutions since then it becomes more cpu than gpu dependent? I know Valhalla runs at 1440p30 but I think 900-1080p60 would have been possible if they optimized it

Click to shrink...

As I say, it may be that Microsoft need to start encouraging developers to including matching framerate modes, even if that sometimes results in resolutions that seem low. That would include games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla. I'm not going to try to guess how hypothetical performance profiles might play out for individual games, though.

In the end, even if Microsoft do encourage developers to do that, allocating that power and deciding where to compromise will be a developer decision, and regardless of what we might prefer, some of them will choose to compromise on framerate, as we've seen.

 

[Sems4arsenal]

I am not sure what many people were expecting from it? to me it still looks like a 1080p 60fps or 1440p 30fps machine, and that is fine for the price point. Some games are all over the place performance-wise at the moment and this console is no different. If we see games pushing PS5 and Series X down to 1080p then there is something very wrong going on.

Click to shrink...

It really doesn't, though. Not from what we've seen so far. We're in the cross gen era as well.

 

[CarpetSalesman]

The Series S looks fine for launch day, but it's really going to struggle 3+ years down the road. It's limited memory (12GB) will make it struggle with next-gen only titles that are pushing XSX and PS5 (both 16GB).

Click to shrink...

The whole point is that it uses lower res assets. It's tuned to do the 4k game at lower res.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

We are right at the start of the generation. Things might improve. How will the S deal with games that are built specifically for next gen? 30fps and 1080p? What about games that have dynamic resolution scaling? How many 1080p gamers with TVs in their bedrooms will have VRR? So many questions. Only time will tell.

Click to shrink...

The way a lot of people are talking, things are bad for the Series S. They are? I would certainly say it sucks that Assassin's Creed is 30 fps without an option for 60fls but other than that, seems like the system is doing exactly what it claimed to do. 1080-1440p visuals with lower settings.

 

[Yerffej]

It will be fine in the long run.

 

[Hasi]

That's a last gen game, isn't it?

Click to shrink...

You're right, imagine what it can do on games that are specifically built for it!

It's so weird that somehow for PS5 and XSX cross gen is "not showing the true power of the console" but for Series S it's somehow only going to get worse from here?

 

[raketenrolf]

Man, the tools narrative has really taken hold here. People are going to be disappointed when this doesn't pan out like you think it will based on thinking "tools improvements" will magically get the Series S to be something it's not.

Click to shrink...

Reminds me of that time early last gen when MS made Kinect not mandatory and some people thought it will change things.

As for the console itself, I will never buy one myself but I am curious to see where it stands two or three years from now. I doubt it will do XSX settings in 1080p but devs could always half the framerate (if the game is running at 60fps on XSX) like they did in Valhalla. Or ideally just offer multiple modes like in almost every other game.

But counting pixels in a time like this.. idk. I barely see a difference between 1440p and 4k on my C9. My wife played Ring Fit yesterday and I don't know what resolution that runs at but it looked simple, but good. As long as the res isn't abysmally low like the 120fps mode in Dirt 5 on XSS, it's going to be fine, especially with those AA solutions that we have today.

 

[Maple]

Same Zen 2 cores and NVME SSD as the Series X. Shouldn't be holding back games.

My only concern would be the 7.5 GB of usable RAM.

 

[The Bookerman]

I don't agree with this, why wouldnt a publisher try to expand their reach, more versions of a single game, means more opportunity to resell. This is also a reason MS threw away their XDK for GDK, its intended to absorb some that overhead once tools have matured. I think in about a year's time their tooling should be to achieve that (based on Chris Grennel ex-Killzone Dev on GameOn recent podcast), they have 23 dedicated studios now actively participating in advancing it, that would mean any fixes or improvements through development of a Coalition or id Software game etc would be fed into GDK, which 3rd parties would get for free. For the 3rd party or indie dev, they'd have a stack that allows them to manage PC, cloud and console versions, without the typical effort needed to manage them individually. Also, devs are used to profiling, so this isn't anything new as of right now though.

Click to shrink...

Here's the thing. You're betting that Microsoft is done adding SKU's to their line up. You don't think Sony or Microsoft won't be adding newer versions of their hardware and with more horsepower? Newer PC hardware will show up with newer features and Sony and Microsoft will add that stuff in. The performance floor will rise up again. Regardless of the tools, performance will take a hit.

Again, it's not holding back anything right now.

 

[OldDirtyGamer]

That's a last gen game, isn't it?

Click to shrink...

Every current xbox game is a "last gen" game

 

[HadesHotgun]

I intend to pick up a Series S as my secondary/bedroom system. Everything I have seen so far indicates that it will be great for that purpose.

It certainly seems to have more value than all these deeply concerned comments do.

 

[Alek]

The S is a burden to develop for. I don't think this will change with time, and I think it's a bad choice for anyone looking for a next gen experience.

It's probably not for that type of consumer though. The S is just there for the folks that want to play the new Call of Duty as cheaply as possible, and that's fine... but don't expect it to hold up in side by side comparisons.

 

[Deleted member 45460]

That's not what's happening, though. DMCV lacks ray tracing entirely on Series S, and AC Valhalla runs at half the framerate.

It's not just difference in resolution. Not at all.

Click to shrink...

The generation has just started. Don't judge it on cross-gen games at launch.

 

[Deleted member 11008]

That's not what's happening, though. DMCV lacks ray tracing entirely on Series S, and AC Valhalla runs at half the framerate.

It's not just difference in resolution. Not at all.

Click to shrink...

The AC game could be 60fps with other setting, Ubisoft is not trying.

About DMCV, I would consider raytracing as graphical effect, so if it need be disabled to have performance parity I wouldn't mind.

 

[JaggedSac]

You are going to be better off saving your pennies and buy a Series X after the first price drop.

Click to shrink...

These consoles ain't dropping price anytime soon.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

People shit talking it and laughing because "omg it hits 576p" was bizarre without the context that in similar situations the far more powerful system were 900p. It was pretty much the expected scaling there.

 

[brawndolicious]

I looked him up on LinkedIn since I was wondering if he's mostly a business or technology guy and apparently he has like 30 years of experience, mostly working in the European and Asian markets with most of it spent developing games and game engines for every platform under the sun.

Definitely seems like a biased and unreliable source. I understand now how concerned people are in this thread.

 

[JigglesBunny]

It's capable, sure, but apparently not capable of what Microsoft promised it was capable of.

 

[Wizzlight]

People shit talking it and laughing because "omg it hits 576p" was bizarre without the context that in similar situations the far more powerful system were 900p. It was pretty much the expected scaling there.

Click to shrink...

Thing is, it hit 576p with potato quality graphics, when that gets fixed, what is going to be the new low on the res?

 

[OldDirtyGamer]

Thing is, it hit 576p with potato quality graphics, when that gets fixed, what is going to be the new low on the res?

Click to shrink...

I'm surprised there is no uproar over 500 dollar 10+tf ng consoles dropping to 900p

 

[Deleted member 6730]

I think Microsoft should've made a discless Series X rather than a new piece of hardware outright. It's clear seeing the games that it won't do 1080 60 consistently and having to develop an extra version will be a pain for developers.