It is what it is, MS made this decision. And they have to deal with the consequences.
Do they? It seems to me that series s owners have to deal with the consequences. MS on the other hand is posting record sales thanks largely to the series s being in stock. last year, the split was 50:50 with sales tilting towards more series s sales. it is probably 60:40 or even 70:30 now.
I think developer complaints on this issue - in this current protracted cross-gen where the Series S is inferior to One X and plays enhanced One games - is probably very fair against the "Series" mantra that then keeps the original Xbox One forever in the cross-gen picture.
Unlike distinctive generations with one base console target, the series strategy implies that the consumer is expected to just buy a newer device in the series - if they don't like the visuals/performance of games on their current device - but the problem for developers is that it just increases the number of unique nuanced xbox hardware's they have to support for longer, and for efficiency they probably want to share as much of the CPU, IO solution between S and X, but the RAM CPU split of the X - they then use on the S - means they have just half the available VRAM of the X, - for use with the S - when the difference between targeting next-gen visuals in HD on the S and 4K on the X will use more than 6GB for the base assets.
Then they look at the One X, realise that they can better share the VRAM footprint with the series X, and then probably get frustrated that the Series S isn't superior to the One X in every single way, and then realise that they've had to refactor things for the S graphics, and then realise they can then dial those specific changes down further to work on the Xbox One and are then supporting 4 different unique nuanced xbox hardwares for an audience that wants to pay for games on a sub, and doesn't represent the biggest chunk of the AAA game paying market. Their natural grievance then being more work for less reward, and the additional work at the expense of making the PC, X and PS5 versions better - which helps market their game.
I still think that an 8 tflops XSS with the same exact memory setup, cpu and ssd wouldve been a great buy at $399. This thing has way too many compromises not just for the dev but also the consumer. The whole idea behind the series s was that things would scale down, and its clear from every single game that things are not scaling down 1:1. That shouldve been their first clue and I remember DF bringing this up back at E3 2020 before the series S was announced. This was right around the time when insiders were saying the series S was cancelled after dev outrage. No idea why Phil revived this thing without giving it a bigger spec increase.
Even a 6 tflops RDNA 2.0 gpu with the X1 ram bandwidth wouldve been better than this. The 10.7 tflops 6600xt seems to be mostly fine with just 256 GBps of memory bandwidth as long as you stick with 1080p or 1440p resolutions, but it doesnt have to share that with the CPU like console GPUs do. I think MS made far too many compromises with the tflops number, the memory size and memory speeds, and the worst thing is the ssd size. To me that one is just unforgivable, this is a digital only console and only 380 GB is available for games? When cod alone takes up 200 GB? They knew that soccer moms would eventually have to run out and buy a $240 SSD which wouldve made this a more expensive console than the XSX.
I remember in 2000, I couldnt find the PS2 anywhere. My dad would stop over at shops on his way home from work every day for months until he was able to find one in May of 2021. Shortages were a thing back then too, but both Sony and MS went all out with the specs. Especially MS which included an HDD, a network adapter, and 64 MB of RAM in a console. My $1,500 PC had 64 MB of RAM back then. THat was not a $300 console. They took that loss because thats what you do. You dont pass the cost on the consumer. You are a trillion dollar company, you can afford to take a $100 loss to make sure the consumer gets a proper ssd size, and the devs get enough tflops and ram bandwidth to ensure your consumer does not get shafted. If MS really wanted that casual audience at $300, they shouldve taken the loss instead of passing it on the customer. If they were scared Sony would launch at $399 then they shouldve released an 8 tflops console at $399.
I mean these guys released the 360 in 2005. The best console of that generation. Better than any PC GPU available at the time. For $299. Same GPU, same CPU, same RAM. The only thing they saved money on was an optional HDD. Yes, it was expensive, but the key word is optional. They did not dare give 360 Arcade users an inferior experience.
www.google.com
