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

Whenever I make a PC that is my mindset, pick up the middle ground where I can have the best performance per cost to hold 5 years at decent level, and if I have a surplus of money perhaps upgrade midway, but to get the very best and hold over 5 years without upgrade would be to costly and without that big of an impact (cost benefit for me).

Interestingly, that's how I feel about the Series S.  When my options are a PS4 on the low-end, or a PS5/Series X on the high ground, the Series S *IS* the middle ground surely?  And, especially if we don't end up with Pro consoles this gen, the extended cross-gen period, plus game subscription services that include lots of PS4/Xbox One games, and game streaming, I expect last-gen consoles to remain surprisingly relevant through this-gen.  And that will effectively keep the Series S the mid-range option throughout.

For me the Series S isn't a middle ground because the extra price for PS5/X isn't that big. But yes for the general market I agree it can work like that.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

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