| Chazore said: Yeah, and honestly, the pro versions worked for them before. While the Series S is alright, it starting weaker right outta the gate isn't going to help it later on down the line. It makes much more sense to just start out the gate with something decent, then releasing a slightly better one a year or 3 later, when the parts are cheaper and slightly better chips are available. It's more or less the same sort of philosophy I roll with when it comes to building a PC, like why start out with a very minimal weaker build, when I could go for a mid-range to high build and simply add slightly better parts later on. Starting out with weaker parts just means I'd have to replace them more sooner and often, which means more money spent over time. This is also why I wish Nintendo just followed Sony in terms of making a bolstered console for a new gen release, then making a slightly better one later (instead of now, where they purposefully chose 1st gen Nvidia mobile chips to save on money and not sell at a loss, and I can already see the Switch's graphical/perf limitations in their 1st party games). |
The thing with the Series S is it didn't exist in a vacuum. It replaced the One S. This is in contrast with the how Sony (which didn't make a lower-spec PS5 variant) is still making/selling PS4s, more than two years later.
It's not a given that the Series S will have a problem down the line. People with 1080p screens, or people who don't need leading edge performance, might remain happy with it throughout this gen, so long as developers target realistic fidelity levels (as they mostly have done so far, thankfully). The Steam surveys suggest lots of people are spending lots of time playing on lower-spec PCs just fine too, so I don't see how this is any different.
