Your "consideration" doesnt change the fact swith is both porta le and home console.

Not only is that false, its also irrelevant. The ps4 and x1 didnt start the 8th gen, so the time between those and switch doesnt matter. First system.to come out a significant amount of time after the previous gen started will begin a new gen.

Switch came 4 years after wii u and ps5/xsx are coming 4 years after switch. So gen 9 for switch and 10 for the next consoles. This is just how it is and has no bearing in what system or games are better.

Switch was not designed as a home console. It's portable that also works like a home console. The specs reflect that.

It seems you feel Nintendo determines gens. Sony and MS missed a whole gen because Nintendo evidently begins and ends them by your logic.

The Minecraft XSX Ray/Path tracing demo runs at 1080p and goes between 30-60fps.

For people who thought that you wouldn't ever get 1080p on next-gen consoles or that 1800p would be the floor, this is a pretty clear indicator of the contrary 

Now of course a potential Series S could just run the game with Ray Tracing off but that takes freedom away from developers to build experimental games around ray tracing as a core feature. Just once again, I think a Series S would be a mistake which harms ambitions next gen and will lead to unsatisfied purchases later in the gen when the hardware is pushed more.

You're basically suggesting Series S shouldn't exist just incase some developers want to make an experimental project that uses essentially all the resources on cool lighting.

People argue 4K is a waste of resources when 60 fps should be a focus. I would argue ray/path tracing is also a waste when it makes a simple game like Minecraft 1080p/30 fps.

However, this same Minecraft demo could theoretically work on Series S at a low resolution. Maybe 600p? With some sort of image reconstruction it could be acceptable.

What this video demonstrates is this tech isn't practical quite yet. Not used like this atleast.

It's not like we need ray tracing for developers to raise the bar visually. It's more like an option and something that will used in ways that are less resource intensive. For example, some games may just use it for reflections which is less demanding.

MS said 4K/60 fps is the target for Series X. I expect the same for many games

Considering the type of game MS do I would expect most if not all 1st party to be 4k60fps or 30fps for those slower type.

You're basically suggesting Series S shouldn't exist just incase some developers want to make an experimental project that uses essentially all the resources on cool lighting.

People argue 4K is a waste of resources when 60 fps should be a focus. I would argue ray/path tracing is also a waste when it makes a simple game like Minecraft 1080p/30 fps.

However, this same Minecraft demo could theoretically work on Series S at a low resolution. Maybe 600p? With some sort of image reconstruction it could be acceptable.

What this video demonstrates is this tech isn't practical quite yet. Not used like this atleast.

It's not like we need ray tracing for developers to raise the bar visually. It's more like an option and something that will used in ways that are less resource intensive. For example, some games may just use it for reflections which is less demanding.

MS said 4K/60 fps is the target for Series X. I expect the same for many games

And I'm sure they set 1080p as the target when developing Xbox One yet look at how third party developers (99% of the console releases) use it. Ultimately Microsoft do not have a say in how their hardware is used. The only demonstration of ground upXSX content and not ports (Hell Blade 2) is a video consciously rendered at 60% of 4k at 24fps. Its not necessarily realtime but it's just funny because its from a 1st party themselves and no one cared to critique it yet suddenly everything has to be native 4k60fps? 

And no. I'm basically saying this exact principle we see here in the ray tracing demo will apply to other graphical features and ambition down the road. What the video clearly illustrates is that MS see's 1080p as a respectable resolution to show a game off in whereas several pple thought anything 1080p is unacceptable (MS already stated "4k" for them doesn't have to be native). If the minecraft demo was running at 600p, they probably would not have shown it. Also I'm not sure 600p can be reconstructed into quality image for a standard 42" display.

Summary is not that S shouldn't exist incase a developer wants to build a game around ray traced lighting, but S shouldn't exist because it takes freedom away from how developers use the Series X hardware.  Doesn't matter whether its ray tracing or other graphical detail. Alternatively Series S eventually starts hitting 720p and maybe lower. Or requiring games to be extensively optimised to run at higher resolutions which is a developer resource drain. The other thing is consumer expectations. I'm not sure S would be able to suppport many ray traced features at acceptable resolutions, this has to be made clear to consumers otherwise I think many will feel cheated if it becomes a common feature which S owners can't have but all they thought they were missing out on was 4k.

But that's just my feeling on it, I understand the want for a cheap entry level system but given the length of intended cross gen. I don't think it's necessary. In any case there is the PS5 with no weak version if developers want to work without the concern of how the game will look on a much lesser GPU. This just gives them more reasons to make PS5 exclusives.

The simplicity and logic behind S is dependent on the idea that developers will hit all their next geb ambitions alongside native 4k (or something close to it). I don't see that as a reality and my concern is not what happens next year, but what happens in 4 years. Anyway enough speculating on specs, we'll have to wait and see 

I suppose it will depend on the studio and project.

Dynamic resolution is an obvious choice for pushing graphics and performance. 30 fps can be used for cinematics and 60 fps in gameplay.

I anticipate a lot of games in the 9th gen will opt for 60 fps given its just more easily feasible while still maintaining polished visuals.

I get the impression MS didn't think every game needed to be 1080p. Especially when you consider Ryse and Dead Rising 3 didn't even attempt to get there. In retrospect, its evident X1 should have had more GPU power.

I don't get what your point is about Hellblade 2 is. Nor does it really matter.

You're missing two points. Few if any developers are going to push the Series X hardware so hard that the resolution is 1080p. But even if they do, the Series S could still support these projects at a lower resolution and maybe some tweaks to other graphics settings. Essentially I disagree with your premise Series S shouldn't exist because some hypothetical project could look bad on that hardware.

Question, do X1 users feel cheated because Ark looks and runs awful on base X1? Nope, its currently the 11th most played game on Xbox. With that said, if people get a visually underwhelming experience on Series S they might keep playing anyway. Even though its blurry, terrible performance and aggressive screen tear. Hence, people willing to buy a cheaper box will tolerate things you might not. This is an example of you being out of touch and missing the point.

Most developers already design games with various levels of GPU power in mind. So tweaking settings for Series S and Series X would be easy. Virtually any modern game ported to PC (99% of games) has resolution and graphical settings to tweak. Again, if the disparity is just GPU power than reducing resolution should be an easy solution for many games.

Games don't have to hit 4K Series X to work well on Series S. A sub 1080p game could be acceptable on Series S, they could use image reconstruction and dynamic resolutions to improve the average presentation. Lastly they could tweak graphics settings if necessary to boost resolution, as we've seen for decades.

There is no point in going in circles. Lets just wait and see.

Series S would only make sense if MS made it a point to get all their exclusives run at 1080p on it and 4k/60fps on Series X. Like I said before, that might sound great but not if it will limit the ambitions of Series X games. Trust me, if the ps5's exclusives will aim for 1440p/30 fps, developers will simply be able to do a lot more with their games and they're going to be a helluva lot more impressive looking.