• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

An 8 tflops $399 Series S and a $599 16 tflops Series X would've been a far better sell.

Status
Not open for further replies.

SlimySnake

Member
Feb 5, 2013
10,635
28,991
1,230
Maybe it's the tools, maybe it isn't, but what's clear now is that we are not going to have a 1440p vs native 4k difference between the PS5 and XSX.

Series S is doing even worse. Slightly above 1080p at half the framereate in Valhalla, 900p in Watch Dogs Legion and can only do 120 fps at 576p in Dirt 5. Despite the more powerful CPU and a RDNA 2.0 GPU, clearly 4 tflops wasn't enough.

I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps. The 60 CU at 16 tflops RX6800 is that card. Only 8 more CUs than the XSX and only 250 mhz higher clocks. Costs with infinity cache would've been far higher, but they dont need the full 128mb of cache on consoles. You can easily get better cooling, and a bigger APU for an extra $100.

I know I would've picked up a 16 tflops gpu with even a smaller infinity cache in a heart beat. People are willing to pay almost $2,000 for consoles and GPUs, i think the $600 console would've really been attractive to the hardcore gamers.

What does gaf think? Too expensive? I am sure the Series X will go to sell millions. I dont see the console flopping in anyway, and it might even make a comeback like the 360 did back in the day. However, as something MS marketed as a power leader, I find it to be lacking whereas a more expensive console would've offered the kind of performance they were promising.
 

NullZ3r0

Banned
Jun 8, 2017
1,620
3,965
525
No it wouldn't have. The Series S isn't aimed at hard core gamers.

Theres a reason $100 graphics cards sell. Not everyone wants to be at the high end of the spectrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrtizTwelve

OrtizTwelve

Member
Aug 11, 2020
710
1,448
515
USA
So many armchair corporate business analysts and executives here. Perhaps some of you should write to Microsoft immediately and maybe they will give you a job because clearly you know more than them.

Series S at $299 is an incredible value between price and performance, with next generation console tech. This is a console with mass market approach to quick adoption and it will likely be very successful in the long run.

The Series X at $499 is still a good value for what you’re getting with everything inside, and it’s compact and clean design is well executed and should do very well.

I keep saying this and I will say it again. Video game consoles are for casuals and some hardcore gamers looking for ease of access and playability. If you’re looking for power and specs galore, stick to PC gaming.
 

Chris_Rivera

Member
Jan 12, 2016
1,141
554
435
Yeah with all the people dropping $800+ on a scalper, I’m surprised they don’t have a super Xbox option. With how things are going they may have to, even though I wonder if people will fall for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluedragon91

Garjon

Member
Sep 21, 2008
3,903
183
1,040
33
England
FFS 12TF is absolutely fine, COVID just put a big spanner in the works. In a year or so's time (the point at which buying a next gen console actually becomes worthwhile), you'll see how powerful these consoles are
 

Rubik8

Member
Jun 29, 2009
495
564
1,015
I thought the series s was a terrible idea from the beginning. Sony’s approach to a “budget” all-digital console with the same specs is a much better approach. My suspicion is that, as the generation moves on, the series s is going to look comparatively worse and worse. It isn’t even living up to the sales pitch on the first generation games.
 
Dec 22, 2019
1,049
3,813
345
S at $300 and game pass on both is incredible value.

Xbox is in a great place to start this generation. Don’t change what isn’t broken.

Gamepass, One S & $300 has been a thing now for years and it hasn't generated any market impact whatsoever. Broken may not be the right word but this strategy clearly hasn't worked.

Series S is fine if you want a FULL HD next gen console.

The market didn't want a current gen full HD console last year at $199. Why would people care for a more expensive version that will play all the popular/casual games as the cheaper one for the next 3 years?
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Member
Dec 6, 2008
12,423
3,035
1,240
SC USA
I think it's too early to say whether some other configuration would have been a better sell. The current configurations are selling so it's hard to know if this would have been better. If people weren't buying them then I could see going down the "what if" road.

I have a feeling that we're going to see a more powerful Xboxes at the same prices in a few years to replace the current models. Mid gen refreshes showed Sony and Microsoft that people will buy more powerful versions of the same architecture at full price so hardware will evolve faster I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluedragon91

Soapy Wooder

Gold Member
Aug 12, 2020
287
2,231
400
Gamepass, One S & $300 has been a thing now for years and it hasn't generated any market impact whatsoever. Broken may not be the right word but this strategy clearly hasn't worked.
Not when it is the start of a new gen. But I see your point.

I just meant that the S is value, and the X is where most would like to be. But the options are certainly nice to have.
 

ShadowWolf712

Member
Dec 27, 2019
731
1,488
355
34
Wisconsin
Maybe it's the tools, maybe it isn't, but what's clear now is that we are not going to have a 1440p vs native 4k difference between the PS5 and XSX.

Series S is doing even worse. Slightly above 1080p at half the framereate in Valhalla, 900p in Watch Dogs Legion and can only do 120 fps at 576p in Dirt 5. Despite the more powerful CPU and a RDNA 2.0 GPU, clearly 4 tflops wasn't enough.

I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps. The 60 CU at 16 tflops RX6800 is that card. Only 8 more CUs than the XSX and only 250 mhz higher clocks. Costs with infinity cache would've been far higher, but they dont need the full 128mb of cache on consoles. You can easily get better cooling, and a bigger APU for an extra $100.

I know I would've picked up a 16 tflops gpu with even a smaller infinity cache in a heart beat. People are willing to pay almost $2,000 for consoles and GPUs, i think the $600 console would've really been attractive to the hardcore gamers.

What does gaf think? Too expensive? I am sure the Series X will go to sell millions. I dont see the console flopping in anyway, and it might even make a comeback like the 360 did back in the day. However, as something MS marketed as a power leader, I find it to be lacking whereas a more expensive console would've offered the kind of performance they were promising.
The whole point of the S was affordability and to be the potential "Second" console in a PS or Nintendo gamers home. A higher cost would defeat that purpose, and eating the price difference would mean it'd take even longer to make up the loss.

TL; DR you'd be making that box wholly pointless.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
Jan 27, 2020
2,906
3,516
585
No lol a $599 XB would not be a good sell in 2020.

MS should of either released a $299 6TF XSS or a $349 8TF XSS.
A $499 12TF XSX as the top tier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iced Arcade

sircaw

has bigger MS points balance than reaction score.
Jul 3, 2019
6,452
34,439
825
A local pond.
There is nothing really wrong with Microsofts machine, they just need to stop with all the pr bullshit and just concentrate on quality games. People are sick to death of the world's most powerful console and all that bullshit.
 

Soapy Wooder

Gold Member
Aug 12, 2020
287
2,231
400
I'll tell Jim Ryan the ps6 can launch with no games, but a prominent advertisement for Playstation Now.
Not sure your point. I didn’t say Xbox first party studios was in a good spot. Xbox console launch is. The topic is about the X and S having more Titiflop power right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluedragon91
Oct 16, 2017
1,639
2,642
405
Disagree. X and S are both good enough at their price points and are great value. If people really cared so much about a few extra 'flops, the Switch wouldn't be as popular as it is.
Microsoft is stuck with the power narrative. They have no other choice. If power doesn't matter, then Xbox as a whole doesn't matter. That was the hill they choose to die on.
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
4,102
5,625
545
Not sure your point. I didn’t say Xbox first party studios was in a good spot. Xbox console launch is. The topic is about the X and S having more Titiflop power right?
It's not about dem tetra flaps. It's that launches are turning more and more bland. Dreamcast launch? Absolute banger. Xbox 360 launch? Glimpse into the future. Ps4? 1080p resolution and several new franchises. Series x? Gamepass. No new games. Ps5? Even that is muted from the ps3 and ps4 era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluedragon91

Soapy Wooder

Gold Member
Aug 12, 2020
287
2,231
400
It's not about dem tetra flaps. It's that launches are turning more and more bland. Dreamcast launch? Absolute banger. Xbox 360 launch? Glimpse into the future. Ps4? 1080p resolution and several new franchises. Series x? Gamepass. No new games. Ps5? Even that is muted from the ps3 and ps4 era.
But that isn't what the thread is about...

I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps. The 60 CU at 16 tflops RX6800 is that card. Only 8 more CUs than the XSX and only 250 mhz higher clocks. Costs with infinity cache would've been far higher, but they dont need the full 128mb of cache on consoles. You can easily get better cooling, and a bigger APU for an extra $100.

I know I would've picked up a 16 tflops gpu with even a smaller infinity cache in a heart beat. People are willing to pay almost $2,000 for consoles and GPUs, i think the $600 console would've really been attractive to the hardcore gamers.

What does gaf think? Too expensive? I am sure the Series X will go to sell millions. I dont see the console flopping in anyway, and it might even make a comeback like the 360 did back in the day. However, as something MS marketed as a power leader, I find it to be lacking whereas a more expensive console would've offered the kind of performance they were promising.
 

DustQueen

Member
Oct 7, 2020
340
508
325
A couple of buggy ubi-soft turds working on the shit API is not something you should judge on... Same goes for early versions of new technology (RT)
Let's wait at least half a year before final judgment on Series S shell we?
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
4,102
5,625
545
But that isn't what the thread is about...
This topic just got infinitely worse if that's what it's about. So raise it to 8tf for 400 and 16 for 600? At 400 it loses to the PS5 digital edition which is more powerful and has a far superior hard drive. At 600 that becomes the face of the 599 US dollars meme except Microsoft doesn't have the library to back it up or the good will. Nonwithstanding the fact that only the US is Microsoft leaning at best. Sony had the world to lean on with Europe and Japan helping ease that burden.

Microsoft did what they could with what they were dealt with. Which means buying some studios, praising their flops and launching with nothing of substance. The original Xbox launch bringing PC developers into the fray giving the OG Xbox it's own flavor which the PS2 and Gamecube did not have. Now that pc devs develop on everything Xbox has no flavor to call its own. All it has is Gamepass, Flops, and Phil Spencer bullshitting his way into everything with the finesse of a rich kid going I BOUGHT THAT!
 

OrtizTwelve

Member
Aug 11, 2020
710
1,448
515
USA
Lol. Look at all the nerds taking about TF this and TF that. Disgusting. Since when did consoles become a circle jerk like PC builds. Fuck.

Reality check: 99% of consumers purchasing these consoles don’t give a fuck about TF or understand what it even means. It’s irrelevant.

I’ll say it again: AS LONG AS THERE ARE GOOD GAMES, GOOD VISUALS AND GAMEPLAY, AND DECENT PRICE — that’s what people will buy. End of story.

Jesus Christ.
 

Golgo 13

The Man With The Golden Dong
Jun 14, 2014
5,092
3,235
915

I predict some people in this thread might face moderation soon. If not in this thread, certainly others
 

Radical_3d

Member
Apr 6, 2020
1,100
2,471
385
Maybe it's the tools, maybe it isn't, but what's clear now is that we are not going to have a 1440p vs native 4k difference between the PS5 and XSX.

Series S is doing even worse. Slightly above 1080p at half the framereate in Valhalla, 900p in Watch Dogs Legion and can only do 120 fps at 576p in Dirt 5. Despite the more powerful CPU and a RDNA 2.0 GPU, clearly 4 tflops wasn't enough.

I think MS should've released an 8 tflops Series S GPU to compete with Sony, and an OP $600 console for the hardcore that can really do native 4k 60 fps. The 60 CU at 16 tflops RX6800 is that card. Only 8 more CUs than the XSX and only 250 mhz higher clocks. Costs with infinity cache would've been far higher, but they dont need the full 128mb of cache on consoles. You can easily get better cooling, and a bigger APU for an extra $100.

I know I would've picked up a 16 tflops gpu with even a smaller infinity cache in a heart beat. People are willing to pay almost $2,000 for consoles and GPUs, i think the $600 console would've really been attractive to the hardcore gamers.

What does gaf think? Too expensive? I am sure the Series X will go to sell millions. I dont see the console flopping in anyway, and it might even make a comeback like the 360 did back in the day. However, as something MS marketed as a power leader, I find it to be lacking whereas a more expensive console would've offered the kind of performance they were promising.
You solve nothing increasing the TFs and keeping that awful RAM configuration. A 500€ SX with 20GB of fast RAM would probably do the trick.
 

Dee Dah Dave

Member
Nov 24, 2013
6,516
2,717
665
England, UK
I was thinking this the other day. Microsoft are onto something with the two console strategy, but they don't quite have the recipe correct!

Consoles are now just standardised PC architecture so it's very simple to do. I would go even higher for the top end model though. Then they could even think about switching back to Nvidia for some real performance. Valve basically flirted with this idea with the Steam machines.

If they grow All Access then it's even more palatable for many I would imagine to do a genuine high end console. Something like a 3 year contract for 40 or 80 a month. With choice of console and gamepass thrown in. I think there could be a significant market for true high end consoles if propositioned correctly.
 

Zuzu

Member
Jun 12, 2020
168
248
260
I was thinking something along these lines just a short time ago when I was reading the Digital Foundry Dirt 5 performance thread. I completely agree with you; I would've bought a $600 (well the equivalent in Australia dollars) Series X with 6800 performance and an 8TF Series S would've been so much more future proofed and would actually be able to run at 1440p in a lot more games. A $600 Series X would've also given Microsoft a clear demarcation point against the PS5, because it would run multiplats better and it would be a significant difference between it and the PS5, not just a minor or non-existent difference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SlimySnake

Portugeezer

Member
Dec 11, 2008
20,780
4,643
1,420
London
abload.de
12Tflop was a beastly surprised when it was announced. 16Tflops is not necessary.

But MS has egg on its face as the XSX gets outperformed by a better designed 10.3Tflop console, after all the power talk.

I do think XSX will catch up - even surpass - the PS5 in multiplatform games in the future. But not right now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bluedragon91

Nvzman

Member
Dec 23, 2013
2,104
200
525
Disagree. X and S are both good enough at their price points and are great value. If people really cared so much about a few extra 'flops, the Switch wouldn't be as popular as it is.
How? The S is a significantly weaker (GPU is weaker than the One X FFS and the CPU is clocked lower as well as almost half the RAM speed and less ram at that) console all around than the PS5 Digital Edition, which is only $100 more, AND on top of that the thing only has like 300GB which necessitates buying the +$200 memory expansion to play more than 2 games (Cold War and Warzone both take up about that amount together). Its a fucking horrible value. The X is fine (although it proving to be weaker performance-wise than PS5 kinda completely destroys the point of it existing) but the Series S is terrible at its current price, maybe at $250 it would be acceptable but in the long run AND short run theres literally no benefit from getting it over just spending the extra $100 for a PS5 DE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.