Pemalite said:
Mummelmann said:
I don't really understand MS' Xbox strategy right now; they sold us their new console on it being the most powerful one and thus superior to PS from a technical perspective. And then they proceed to announce and unveil a much weaker all-digital version which will hamper developers since they need to adjust their software to this rather large deficit. Higher CPU clock rates, 60% more system memory, and a significantly beefier GPU on the series X will be sort of wasted as long as developers have to factor in the much weaker Series S in development. Not to mention it punches holes in the whole "ease of development" factor for console gaming. Varying SKU's was expected, this is how the market works now, along with lots of revisions, but releasing two SKU's with such a large performance discrepancy seems rather dumb.
"We're gonna kick the PS' ass with this new box. But also; the box' brother is much weaker so not really."
Anyone else feeling a tad confused? The naming is an entirely different thing, I get confused sometimes, I can imagine average joe having issues with this. Consumers/gamers who would want an all-digital console would probably also like a fully competitive one when it comes to specs, not a downgrade with much lower resolutions and/or much lower frame rates. It's just a damn weird strategy from where I'm sitting.
|
If the PC has proven anything over the last several decades is that developers have long abandoned the desire to build games to a highly specific set of hardware nuances that are restricted to certain pieces of hardware.
Now engines are geared to be scalable, not just across multiple types of consoles (I.E. Playstation vs Switch vs Xbox), but Generations (I.E. 7th vs 8th gen games are everywhere.) and even across multiple hardware configurations. (Playstation 4 Pro vs Playstation 4, Xbox Series S vs Xbox One X etc'.)
The important aspect is having the hardware feature set to enable the modern graphical effects and simply scale from there... And the Xbox Series S does meet those modern hardware architectural requirements.
What will ultimately make the Xbox Series S vs X different than the Xbox One S vs X is that we aren't having staggered hardware releases, so developers from the very start will be building their games for all the hardware variants available on the market.
The fact that the Series S has a massive 60% memory deficiency over the other consoles may be a hindrance, but probably not as much as we think if Microsoft keeps the OS/Background tasks slimmed down... A console that operates at only a meager 1080P is not going to need as much DRAM as a console that oeprates at 2160P, it simply has smaller framebuffer requirements.
|
Scalable engines are for sure the staple of PC gaming (and in general), but my main concern is the actual strategy of promoting themselves as the "strongest box", only to scale back considerably in their all-digital version. It seems to be a bipolar message for consumers. I'm all for choice for consumers, but MS specifically used the horsepower argument to keep their heads above Sony, they even doubled down on this sales pitch once the specs of the PS5's impressive storage unit were revealed (kind of impressive, anyway).
As for memory issues, the need for RAM, both video and system, is kind of exaggerated today. But if these machines are to remain viable long term, there could still be issues a few years down the line. System memory seems to be the single largest complaint developers had about the 8th gen offerings. Even the Xbox One had 8GB and the One X had 12GB, so the series S is a tiny step up from a 7-year-old machine, and a small step down from the 3-year-old One X. Even the all-digital One S had 8GB of system memory.
I think the Series S is aiming for 1440p if I've understood it correctly, so it would still require a decent amount of memory (?). As I mentioned; my main gripe is with the strange communication, going all-in on being the mightiest in terms of hardware only to do a 180 and offer a significanly weaker SKU alongside. I realize that it enabled them to launch with a really good pricing incentive, but this might not be enough, especially in a modern electronics market so fiercely dependent on perceived value. I think the Series S might be a shot in the proverbial foot, both concerning consumers and developers. But, I could very well be wrong. As for the actual performance itself, it won't affect me much since I'll probably get the beefier version myself (likely a slimmer version down the line).
