By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

There would be no real benefit in making the casing of Series S the same of Series X it would just be empty space, why would it boost performance? The lower GPU is due to the selection of chip not casing.

The TV will upscale to 4k anyway, but sure considering even X1S had an upscaler and a 4k disc there really is no reason for MS to not have upscaler on Series S (and well it was confirmed to support 1440p60fps rendering).

And nope it isn`t everything that should be called anti-consumer. It is just when it is pretty clear that something was possible, and is made by them and is just not allowed because of their own decisions. There is no real defense for a console that is at least equal in power to X1X to not be allowed to run X1X version of the game but go for X1S version.

The tighter the hardware is confined, the tougher it is to cool and hotter it will likely run, or louder it will sound. If they put XBSS in a bigger shell, they could likely boost the APU clocks to some degree without losing too much due to yields. Was this choice anti consumer?

Ya but those in the know, know that TV upscaling almost never beats the hardware doing it itself. If you've bought an XBSS, how expensively high end is your TV likely to be?

So would you also agree SNY is anti consumer for not offering a $299 version of the PS5? Did MS have to, or could they have just kept XB1X with XBSX, or better yet, launch XBSX only while discontinuing XB1X anyway?

The size of the console isn't anti-consumer, the CPU it have is almost the same as Series X, the GPU is like 1/3, and everything else scalled to meet the need, so even if you made it twice the size it would barely matter.

You are trying to make a enormous strawman here. Sony is losing a lot of money on discless PS5 to the point people are complaining that they are paying to much for the one with disc for 100 USD more.

It would be anti-consumer if Sony for example decided that digital PS5 won't have BC for the digital titles because it can't o BC for physical due to not having disc. Keeping or discontinuing X1X is irrelevant.

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

I think it was an odd decision since Series S is at least on par with X1X, and considering ram and CPU it is much better. But well they must have their reasoning and perhaps fanbase reaction may make they reconsider it.

Xbox One X has 12GB of Ram and the Xbox Series S has 10GB.
20% is a fair chunk.

The Xbox One X also has more compute on the graphics processor which could be doing some offloading.
Either way, the Xbox Series S *could* run the games in an "enhanced" state, but it wouldn't be able to brute-force, it would require for all games to be reworked, if people cared about 4k enhanced games, they would not be buying a more budget orientated 1080P/1440P console anyway.

There is plenty of HW leeway between using X1S version and allowing it enhanced on Series S.

Sure 20% difference in RAM is something, still you have PS4Pro version of those 3rd party games that run at over 1080p without needing over 8Gb of system RAM. Also wasn't confirmed that OS of Series uses less RAM than X1S and X1X?

And considering the SSD advantages that could also give some leverage for the RAM. The fact is that they are just cheaping it out since the HW is capable of much more than they are allowing it.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."