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).

I picked up a 4k 60hz monitor in 2015 as opposed to a 1440p 120hz monitor because 60hz and 120hz look the same to me. while the resolution jump was noticeable.

adding to this if the hardware can run 120fps a 60hz display is still better then just 60fps combined with 60hz

They are marketing the 4K 60 in Series X. That's their strategy, trying to provide the best experience. Didn't Phil Spencer say that they try to lock down the 60fps experience for Series X? The S is aimed at another target audience, the guys who aren't into tech and they can scale down to 900P to work around the deficiency in ram pool and memory bandwidth. In any case I still think the Series S is a mistake. Developers will always have to go out their way to work on additional hardware so if anything this will take away resources from development teams.

I think 60fps is the target for Series X, yes.

But if they aim the Series S at less tech-savvy consumers; how will they sell it? 1440p is sort of no-mans land in resolutions on TV, it's either 1080p or 4k for commercial sets. There's a reason why most networks and broadcasters never bothered with this middle ground resolution. And the less tech-savvy will most certainly have problems distinguishing between the confusing models and brands, we already saw the hilarity that was the "Series X" pre-orders, turned out to be more casual customers buying Xbox Ones. Mainstream consumers want products that go well together, like a 4k TV and something that utilizes this with little fuzz. I think even something like a digital gaming store could be too much for those who understand too little to grasp the differences between the SKU's, especially combined with various subscriptions, accounts, and other potential nuisances. From my humble point of view, the Series X is aimed at the traditional console audience and the Series S is aimed at no one, currently. The all-digital Xbox One S was a massive flop less than 1-2 years ago, despite being on par with the original SKU specs-wise. I don't see how making a much weaker, similar console - when compared to the default SKU, would create much of a purchasing incentive over that one.

Besides, all of their PR and selling points still revolve around horsepower and their tech advantage over the PS5, regardless of the Series S' intended demographic.

I think you're right that the Series S is a mistake, it will annoy developers, even if they can work around/with the hardware, and it will confuse consumers and ultimately fail to appeal to anyone in particular. Heck; even Disney+ offers 4k streaming for a measly 6$ a month, I'd hate to be the one explaining to a casual customer the reasoning behind 1440p gaming with lower frame rates on either a 4k set or an older 1080p one.

Series S is fine for most everyday people. It is not as good a deal as i initially thought at its reveal but it will be fine if you play your COD, Fifa, Madden, Fortfight. PC gamers with their $700 gpus should stop worrying about people who will buy Series S.

Series S is also much better value for emerging markets. Console prices are already inflated there. So a cheaper alternative that plays all the new games would be nice.

I think Microsoft's strategy overall makes sense. There's a lot of parents who's main priority isn't gaming but the reason why they want to get a console is to satisfy their kids. Not every parent understands the power difference or what game console is better and what not. In today's economy, I think a lot of parents will want the cheapest gaming console out there and that's where the Series S comes into play. But the main draw of the Series S isn't just it's hardware price, it's the combination of it's price and gamepass. You can either get a Ps5 for $400 and then spend $70 on a game costing $470 or you can get a Series S for $300 and then spend $10/month and play 100s of games. And that's before you think about Xbox All Access.

As for developer opinions, they don't really matter if the console is a success. Sure they can be "annoyed" but the publishers that pay them couldn't care less about their "annoyances." We have seen time and time again where if the console is a success, the developers will port games to it and porting games to a Series S/X is much easier than say porting games to a switch.

As for the power difference, it's kind of like the SD subscription on Netflix vs UHD subscription. It's 2020, why is there a SD subscription still? Because there's a lot of people that are on a budget that don't care about the advantages of HD/UHD. And that's the point of the Series S, to target those people.

The biggest thing is whether or not it will be a success. If it's a success, MS will look like geniuses. If it's a fail, MS will probably do something different next gen.

Microsoft's biggest problem is a lack of games. They really needed Halo to be that flagship but 343 goofed it.

It depends AFAIK. At these internal frame rates, display lag will become the dominant factor limiting response if it's longer than the frametime. That's not unusual for TV displays and older monitors.

With Bethesda, Obsidian and InXile in their hands, they can certainly craft some new flagship titles and series. Also, if Wolfenstein, Doom, Elder Scrolls and Fallout won't release on Playstation anymore, that alone would be some serious hit against the PS5.

Yea it will be eventually but at launch, Xbox really needs something outside of Gamepass and pricing. The long run gonna be interesting though.