islington667
CAG in Training
Does anyone else find it ridiculous that they have just announced the series s (to the surprise of no one) with pricing, when they haven't released pricing on the long announced Series X?
Xbox Series S
- Thread starter islington667
- Start date
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
It IS a little ridiculous. The sheer degree to which Sony and Microsoft are both gun-shy on their new consoles is crazy. The current circumstances are almost certainly to blame. In any other year someone would have shown their hand by now. Even in this case, Microsoft was essentially forced to reveal this information due to a leak. They might have tried to sit on it even longer if someone else hadn't spilled the beans.
This is especially confusing with the nature of the news. There are some drawbacks to having a model like the Series S available. But there are also a lot of benefits. The biggest problem with the Series S is market confusion. Having too many different models can muddle the market, inspiring less confidence in consumers and making their choices more difficult. But this issue isn't that big, and it's even less significant nearer to launch. Around launch, the most likely customers will be hard-core gaming fans for whom confusion over multiple models will not be a problem. Those fans will already know everything there is to know before they pull their wallets out. The clear visual differences between the models further mitigates the confusion. Even casual consumers can tell the two model lines apart at a glance.
A slightly bigger long-term disadvantage is fragmenting the development base. The Series S will likely end up being a default base-line target for developers to scale their games down to. They will have to make certain that their games can run well on the weakest hardware spec. This issue will become larger over time, but won't matter that much early on. And most savvy developers in this day and age build their games to be scalable anyway. Since the Series S WILL have the same SDD streaming support as its more robust brethren, the hit to rendering power won't be that onerous. Forcing a scale-back in resolution for the system is also a good idea.
And that's basically it for the downsides. Everything else is gravy. Making the system digital-only is a win-win for Microsoft. Making it one of several options provides the consumers with more choices and flexibility. The scale back in resolution will place more of the system's power toward the places where that power will have more of a visual impact, HDR and raytracing. Consumers who haven't picked up 4K screens yet won't feel like they're being left out. And THAT PRICE! Back in the day, $200 was the sweet spot where system's would start selling major numbers. With the increase in prices in recent generations, that $300 price-point is going to look really attractive to a LOT of consumers. Despite some of the drawbacks, I'm thinking that the Series S is a really good idea on Microsoft's part. They may actually be looking at a potential Wii scenario with this one. Squeezing what they can out of the tail end of a flagging display standard with an affordable alternative. Reasonably powerful, but quite affordable, and with a clear incentive to buy digital and/or jump on Microsoft's digital subscription service. Yeah, this could be a really savvy move.
This is especially confusing with the nature of the news. There are some drawbacks to having a model like the Series S available. But there are also a lot of benefits. The biggest problem with the Series S is market confusion. Having too many different models can muddle the market, inspiring less confidence in consumers and making their choices more difficult. But this issue isn't that big, and it's even less significant nearer to launch. Around launch, the most likely customers will be hard-core gaming fans for whom confusion over multiple models will not be a problem. Those fans will already know everything there is to know before they pull their wallets out. The clear visual differences between the models further mitigates the confusion. Even casual consumers can tell the two model lines apart at a glance.
A slightly bigger long-term disadvantage is fragmenting the development base. The Series S will likely end up being a default base-line target for developers to scale their games down to. They will have to make certain that their games can run well on the weakest hardware spec. This issue will become larger over time, but won't matter that much early on. And most savvy developers in this day and age build their games to be scalable anyway. Since the Series S WILL have the same SDD streaming support as its more robust brethren, the hit to rendering power won't be that onerous. Forcing a scale-back in resolution for the system is also a good idea.
And that's basically it for the downsides. Everything else is gravy. Making the system digital-only is a win-win for Microsoft. Making it one of several options provides the consumers with more choices and flexibility. The scale back in resolution will place more of the system's power toward the places where that power will have more of a visual impact, HDR and raytracing. Consumers who haven't picked up 4K screens yet won't feel like they're being left out. And THAT PRICE! Back in the day, $200 was the sweet spot where system's would start selling major numbers. With the increase in prices in recent generations, that $300 price-point is going to look really attractive to a LOT of consumers. Despite some of the drawbacks, I'm thinking that the Series S is a really good idea on Microsoft's part. They may actually be looking at a potential Wii scenario with this one. Squeezing what they can out of the tail end of a flagging display standard with an affordable alternative. Reasonably powerful, but quite affordable, and with a clear incentive to buy digital and/or jump on Microsoft's digital subscription service. Yeah, this could be a really savvy move.
While the idea of a lower-priced console targeting 1440p/120fps is a fantastic idea, the naming is horrendous. There is already an Xbox One S, which offers 4K resolution at a higher price than the Xbox Series S, meaning many consumers will wonder if this is a downgrade from the Xbox One S.
Imagine how many kids will ask for a Xbox Series S for Christmas and end up with an Xbox One S because their parents went, saw the two models, saw the Xbox One S offered a higher resolution (and is probably more expensive) and figured that must be the new one.
Imagine how many kids will ask for a Xbox Series S for Christmas and end up with an Xbox One S because their parents went, saw the two models, saw the Xbox One S offered a higher resolution (and is probably more expensive) and figured that must be the new one.
Last edited by a moderator:
islington667
CAG in Training
I dont necessarily agree that it's going to fragment the player base. They both still play all the same games. The resolution/frame rates are only going to matter to those who pay attention to that anyway. The naming convention IS terrible though. I like the idea that they have a lower priced console for those who cant afford the 500 (600 here in Canadaland) price tag.
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
Fragmenting the player base isn't nearly as important. As you yourself point out, they play the same games. And MIcrosoft wisely capped the resolution instead of the framerate. For a budget-priced system, scaling back the resolution is the best, and most prudent compromise.
Fragmenting development is a far more serious issue, with much worse potential long-term consequences. Three years from now, there will be many people clamoring for the Series S to be dropped, as they think it is holding developers back. This sort of thing always happens. Of course, just because hard-core fans raise a hue and cry, doesn't mean there is actually an issue. The Switch has decisively proven that there is a place in the market for less powerful hardware. If the Series S can claim enough of a user-base in its first few years on the market, fragmenting development won't actually matter. Developers will happily make concessions if the market is there.
anotherpoorgamer
CAGiversary!
Did the Xbox One S All Digital sell that good? To the point that a Bluray drive isn't worth putting in.
I would buy an Xbox Series S if it had a disc drive, even if it just played only Xbox One games.
Seems like the working class isn't the targeted demographic for this new generation. You'll need Internet for this all digital console.
I would buy an Xbox Series S if it had a disc drive, even if it just played only Xbox One games.
Seems like the working class isn't the targeted demographic for this new generation. You'll need Internet for this all digital console.
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
No, the SAD edition didn't sell particularly well. But then, it came out alongside a near-identical console for a near-identical price that DID have an Ultra-HD disc drive.
This new Series S is coming out alongside no disc-based S-line alternative. If you want the Series X, you'll be dropping $200 extra dollars for the advantage of using discs. That's a sizable incentive. It's especially substantial for users who have been trained over the past decade to accept digital games in the first place. And it is particularly appetizing to consumers who have already bought into Microsoft's Game Pass subscription service. (which they will no doubt be pushing harder than ever along with this Series S)
Five to seven years ago, this wouldn't have flown. But now? Now it's a different story. A lot of people are happily abandoning their cable television services in order to only pay for high-speed internet. Fast internet is a given for enough consumers to make something like the Series X possible. And Microsoft putting their foot down and insisting on $500 for the cheapest model with a disc drive is a clear indication that they WANT the Series S to succeed, perhaps even for it to become the primary SKU for the latest generation.
Some gamers, such as yourself, will turn their noses up at this. But I'm willing to bet there are an awful lot who will be thrilled to pick up a Series S. Game collecting is becoming much more a niche hobby. It's not the sort of thing that casual gamers indulge in these days. And lets be honest, while Microsoft's motivations here are rather transparent, this is still a far more savvy move than what they tried to pull back in 2013.
islington667
CAG in Training
Playing on PC hasn't fragmented development at all and there are far more options to account for there.
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
That's because one of the primary development targets on the PC is a standard tablet. PC games haven't actually been targeting high-end graphics for quite some time. Anyone hoping to make decent sales on the PC makes certain that their game can scale down to the point where it can be played on a laptop without a dedicated GPU. The market for high-end graphics on the PC has been shrinking for some time, and continues to shrink. It's just more expensive and more trouble than the average gamer is willing to commit to. Indie games have been able to thrive on PC specifically because of this.
In fact, we could easily argue that consoles themselves have specifically held PC gaming back. The vast majority of major graphically-focused releases have to scale their games back for their console releases. Even if they offer additional features for the PC release, they are still fundamentally limited by the consoles where the majority of their sales happen.
Bottom line, having a weaker version of the console means that games will be forced to scale down to accommodate it. Some developers won't like that. But as I already pointed out, this is only a small issue, as most developers are already quite used to scaling their games.
I was thinking the same thing... regular/hardcore gamers might know the difference. But parents and casual gamers are likely gonna end up with the wrong item.
And I know people are super excited about a cheap console with GamePass, but if we learned anything from Netflix, it's that publishers will just pull their games and start their own subscription service to exclusively host their own games. And gamers are gonna end up being for multiple game streaming services...
Last edited by a moderator:
I just realized I completely confused the One X and the One S in my post. Which ... well just sort of proves my point. The naming makes it hard to figure out what order they go in:
Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S.
Especially because, spec-wise, there is not a strict linear order between them.
It reminds me of iPhone models, where people would knowingly buy an iPhone 6 Plus over the iPhone 7, maybe even spending more for it, just to get the bigger screen. There will definitely be some parents buying a One S over a Series S this holiday just to get the disk drive, which in most cases will be a mistake.
Last edited by a moderator:
islington667
CAG in Training
islington667
CAG in Training
Laughs in Crysis. This is laughable. I'm not even going to argue with you. This is just wrong.
bread's done