from what i understand, the idea behind Series S is they planned to 'sandwiched' PS5 in between. pressure them in term of low price(Series S) and digital only device with Gamepass while at same time pressure on high tier competition with (Series X). the performance of Series S and the cheaper price would make people seriously consider the console over PS5 while for those who want to spend more, the performance of Series X would tempered them over PS5. their aim is to make PS5 is 'useless' in term of both price and performance bargain at same time.Series S is selling more than the X, right?
It's a win for the company that makes them and for the casuals.
Isn't the Pro a beefed up Playstation, which means that the "slim" is the weaker Playstation?
How is that different from the S and X shit?
You forgot something; you can play gamepass games on Xbox One. At least that was what would be the case if XboxOne was successful.The Series S isn't the worst solution in the world if you're desperate to play Gamepass games and can't afford either a Series X or a decent gaming PC or even a Steamdeck.
The comments in this thread, by the way, are indeed hilarious. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/series-s-style-consoles-‘have-not-had-great-results’-says-playstation-boss.1566897/
Please tell me you are joking.
Actually nevermind. I feel stupid asking you to clarify. You have to be joking.
If you had just read a tiny bit farther, you'd seen that I was just shitposting, like always.
Pro = Mid Gen Console Refresh
Maybe you'd want to look up the meaning of that term ?!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is a false equivalence. There is no mandate to support PS4 when releasing a PS5 game. If the studio is making a PS4 game with PS5 features and has the budget to make it on as many platforms as it wants then it can. On PC they can set their own min spec. If crossgen was without cost or without disadvantages though then why aren't all third party games cross gen? You have had an example recently where a mandatory XSS release affected development yet you're refusing to accept that it's different.This sentiment really doesn't hold up when you look at how long Sony and other developers held onto cross-gen. Having two specs wasn't that big of a deal. Considering the majority of games also release on PC where every game has minimum and recommended specs the majority of developers are already comfortable scaling games. This "weakest platform holds everything back" thing is just console war ammo.
Holy maccaroni.
I was just shitposting. Keep your balls cool, Playstationers.
But I still maintain that mid-gen refreshes are fucking stupid, tho.
Forced parity was always going to be a thing. Otherwise, X and S would not have belonged to the same generation of consoles."One thing that can be said is that if you look at the history of the game business, creating a special low priced, reduced spec console is something that has not had great results in the past. We’ve considered that option and seen other executives who have attempted this discover how problematic it is."
So the question is was he right my question is when has what he said ever actually happened?
I think the dude was off his meds that day as this practice is not something I recall
I think the problem MS has with the Series S was the forced parity which made a game like BG3 a timed Sony exclusive
"One thing that can be said is that if you look at the history of the game business, creating a special low priced, reduced spec console is something that has not had great results in the past. We’ve considered that option and seen other executives who have attempted this discover how problematic it is."
So the question is was he right my question is when has what he said ever actually happened?
I think the dude was off his meds that day as this practice is not something I recall
I think the problem MS has with the Series S was the forced parity which made a game like BG3 a timed Sony exclusive
That could be the best example and there were the base Xbox 360 skus where you needed to add HDDs and shit but like you said, power wise were the sameClosest example I can think of was the 60gb and 20gb PS3s. Those didn't have different processing specs, but the 20gb had cut down features like no wireless controller, no wifi and no SD card slots (why they bothered with those at all, no idea). It was a big failure, but not really comparable to X and S.
But now that it's become obvious that the PS5 Pro is just not powerful enough, would you buy a PS6 Pro?Eh....you seem to be the one overreacting my man. I simply asked you a question. "I was just shitposting" would have sufficed.
I know you didn't ask me but...But now that it's become obvious that the PS5 Pro is just not powerful enough, would you buy a PS6 Pro?
But now that it's become obvious that the PS5 Pro is just not powerful enough, would you buy a PS6 Pro?
Lower specs can mean any part of a system is gimped. Doesn't necessarily mean lower CPU/GPU performance. Which he is right. Those lower speced consoles always performed worse, as most people wanted the more expensive all-in-one SKU.That could be the best example and there were the base Xbox 360 skus where you needed to add HDDs and shit but like you said, power wise were the same
He made it sound like there were dead bodies everywhere of failed attempts like the S and X and I can't think of a single one
I know you didn't ask me but...
![]()
To me I will buy a new console every 3-4 years for incremental power boosts to help the games I love
I mean, since it's obvious that only the PS9 Pro will be powerful enough, I might just wait, personally.Hell yeah, given the option I'll buy the more powerful model every time. Either way, I don't think anything is "obvious" about the PS5 Pro's power. Rumors are just rumors. Remember when PS5 was supposed to be 9TF?
Lower specs can mean any part of a system is gimped. Doesn't necessarily mean lower CPU/GPU performance. Which he is right. Those lower speced consoles always performed worse, as most people wanted the more expensive all-in-one SKU.
And no matter what the rumors say what until we see real world performances as people are most likely to be disappointed in the actual numbers of the ProHell yeah, given the option I'll buy the more powerful model every time. Either way, I don't think anything is "obvious" about the PS5 Pro's power. Rumors are just rumors. Remember when PS5 was supposed to be 9TF?
Its what is great about the Pro its totally optionalI mean, since it's obvious that only the PS9 Pro will be powerful enough, I might just wait, personally.
stolen from the other thread
![]()
PSVR2 Pro is what I am all about.And no matter what the rumors say what until we see real world performances as people are most likely to be disappointed in the actual numbers of the Pro
Its what is great about the Pro its totally optional
We can talk about lower specs and or HD size all day but I'd bet all the money I have that if Sony released a less powerful version of the PS5 and have Insomniac bundle in a exclusive game to it - it would sell more than the Series consoles.
Not really comparable but by all accounts the Playstation Portal sold really well no? Consumers by default know that any Playstation products they buy will be of high quality. Stupid AF that Jim Ryan or the teams at Sony couldn't see this.
Also, if anyone claims that Sony went with just the one PS5 config because they care about the developers. I have a bridge to sell you...
To be fair. Ryan was just riding a wave that Tretton/Layden built for him.Nah....has nothing to do with developers. I think XSS worked out well for Microsoft during the shortages, but since stock stopped being a problem Xbox has not done well. I do not think for a second that a S version of PS5 would have worked long term either. PS5 has two very distinct choices: with or without disc drive. None of this continually horrible naming conventions that Microsoft insists on using that I think just confuses consumers. And not really sure how you can say Jim Ryan was "stupid AF" when you take into account PS5's performance this gen. I'm no fan of Jim Ryan but PS5 has been a monster seller. Where's the stupidity again?
Can you clarify why you think a weaker S style PS5 would not do well?Nah....has nothing to do with developers. I think XSS worked out well for Microsoft during the shortages, but since stock stopped being a problem Xbox has not done well. I do not think for a second that a S version of PS5 would have worked long term either. PS5 has two very distinct choices: with or without disc drive. None of this continually horrible naming conventions that Microsoft insists on using that I think just confuses consumers. And not really sure how you can say Jim Ryan was "stupid AF" when you take into account PS5's performance this gen. I'm no fan of Jim Ryan but PS5 has been a monster seller. Where's the stupidity again?
To be fair. Ryan was just riding a wave that Tretton/Layden built for him.
PS5 is monster success because PS4 was a monster success and all he had to do was not shot himself in the foot which he didn't do. You can see that cleary this year when Sony had 1 first-party games and they still outsold Xbox pretty heavily. PS5 is selling on brand awareness and recognition. I'm not holding Ryan at such a high regard because his initiatives (PC ports, PS Plus revamp, live service push) are still in process of being evaluated.
And trying to pretend that PS5 SKU in style of Series S would not result in even higher sales is pretty bold statement to make. Especially since that hypothetical PS5 Series S style SKU would be easier to manufacture which would result in higher sales during shortages.
And that's my point. Ryan is not "right" regarding his quote because nobody knows how Xbox would fare this gen without Series S. And nobody knows how PS would fare this gen if they had Series S style SKU.
Can you clarify why you think a weaker S style PS5 would not do well?
The stupid comment was more to do with why they think a dual sku approach would not have worked for Playstation.
Edit - Also, as Godot mentions in the post above, I don't really attribute Playstations continued success to Jim Ryan. The 1st Party Studios, especially Insomniac are the reason why Playstation is #1.
Europe doesn't care about Xbox, it never has barring the UK. Playstation outsells it's 3 to 1. Xbox only sells well in their home turf NA.Where? In Europe, Series S has been in stock and sitting on store shelves since December 2020, nobody wants it.
Yeap now imagine if the only Xbox available was the $500 Series X which has been greatly outsold by the Series S. Exactly.Saved it? The Series sales are abysmal. It was outsold 3:1 this year by the PS5. Next year will probably be worse.
Sure, it would have been worse if it weren't for the S, but it's still so bad with it that MS is ready to dump this gen already.
I think its highly likely MS does it again though they may not launch at the same time.If MS does make another console, I'd expect them to do it again.
And the wireless controllers, no?the only thing lacking in the 360 arcade was the HDD and the 20 GB PS3 was identical save for the 60 GB HDD and some memory card slots. it even came with PS2 BC.
The Wii U didnt have a basic version.
This wasn't purely Xbox's doing though, the industry left the Xbox One behind as well. Look at major third party releases such as Resident Evil 4 (2023). One of the biggest hitters of this past year, it released and was fully supported on PS4. XB1? Nope. No XB1 support whatsoever. Given the game will run on a baseline PS4, I hardly think it would have been a herculean task to downport the game to XB1. But Capcom knew there was negligible revenue at best to be had in it. The XB1 install base is less than half of the PS4. In fact, if my memory isn't faulty--and please fact check me if I'm wrong--but the PS4 is one of the best selling consoles of all time--I think behind only the PS2 and the DS and the Switch? Unless my memory's gotten hazy, which is not an impossibility considering I had two cocktails.You forgot something; you can play gamepass games on Xbox One. At least that was what would be the case if XboxOne was successful.
The entire reason why Xbox needed Series S is the exact reason why PlayStation didn't need one; Xbox wants to abandon Xbox One as soon as possible, while PS4 is still being fully supported by PlayStation 2 years after PS5 comes out. PlayStation 4 offer people on a budget an entire library of PS4 games, which they can move to a PS5 one day if they wished. Xbox gave up on XboxOne already and thus doesn't have anything else to offer a budget gamer. Series S was a compromise that was due to problems Xbox caused, thus only Xbox needed a Series S.
Send one if these to him as a farewell