Look, we can argue about resolutions all day, but the fact remains that resolution isn't that big a deal for the average console gamer. Most people watch 1080p content all day and can hardly tell the difference between a 1080p or a 4k movie on a 55inch tv. If a game looks great, nobody is going to sit right in front of their tv and say "wait a minute, this is not even 4k!" and feel like they're getting a lackluster experience. 

The real question is how ambitious next gen games will still be if they're designed to run on a 4Tflops Series S and the Xone. Also, if we're talking about parity, what will developers be able to use those extra 8 Tflops for on Series X? My point is that they wouldn't be able to use it for anything except resolution, fps and a bump in graphics settings. Not the things that actually matter like larger/ richer levels, ai, physics, world simulations etc.

Having cheap options might sounds great, but it does come with a major trade off. The worst thing that could happen is if 3rd party developers would start using Series S as the lowest common denominator, limiting their ambitions across all platforms. I'm sure games would still look better than what we're seeing today, but it simply would be a much smaller leap than what it could have been without Series S.  

Look, we can argue about resolutions all day, but the fact remains that resolution isn't that big a deal for the average console gamer. Most people watch 1080p content all day and can hardly tell the difference between a 1080p or a 4k movie on a 55inch tv. If a game looks great, nobody is going to sit right in front of their tv and say "wait a minute, this is not even 4k!" and feel like they're getting a lackluster experience. 

The real question is how ambitious next gen games will still be if they're designed to run on a 4Tflops Series S and the Xone. Also, if we're talking about parity, what will developers be able to use those extra 8 Tflops for on Series X? My point is that they wouldn't be able to use it for anything except resolution, fps and a bump in graphics settings. Not the things that actually matter like larger/ richer levels, ai, physics, world simulations etc.

Having cheap options might sounds great, but it does come with a major trade off. The worst thing that could happen is if 3rd party developers would start using Series S as the lowest common denominator, limiting their ambitions across all platforms. I'm sure games would still look better than what we're seeing today, but it simply would be a much smaller leap than what it could have been without Series S.  

Agree with your first paragragh. But your previous comments about X1 resolutions was mostly wrong.

The ambition of future MS games isn't inherently limited by Series S or even X1. Is Doom Eternal and Witcher 3 limited by Switch? It also depends on the individual project as games can have features removed.

"larger/ richer levels, ai, physics, world simulations etc." For Series S, all of that can be maintained as that often has little to do with GPU TF. For X1, which will be supported for a period, can scale aspects back like we see on Switch ports for example.

In theory the only significant compromise Series S would make is 4TF vs 12TF. That means the S and X should support the exact same content with GPU heavy aspects being compromised for S. Whether that be performance, graphics settings and/or resolution.

Anyway, you aren't say anything new and for decades we've seen PCs games scale significantly for GPUs.

A powerful graphics card can play RDR2 at 4K/60/Ultra. A lesser card can play it well at 720p/30/Low. Either way you would be playing the exact same game. So if GPU TF is the only disparity, they can likely handle the same large scale and ambitious games.

If all ps4/Xone games were designed to release alongside a Switch version with parity in mind, those games would also be seriously compromised and we wouldn't even have games like RDR2 right now. Luckily that's not happening because games like Witcher 3 were developed separately and released much later. It does run, but it can drop to 810x456 at times. The Switch can somewhat get away with that because its a handheld, but good luck playing in that resolution on a 55inch tv. 

All I'm saying is that any game will have to make concessions if it has to run on a range of different specs and the high-end will never be fully used to its potential. Just look at the mid-gen consoles. They were like 4 or 5 times more powerful than base consoles but they never felt like that big of an improvement. Why? Because developers could never really take advantage of the extra hardware since they had to aim for parity with the base consoles. In the end we got the exact same games with only got a higher res and/or framerate. But here's a tech-demo of what's possible on a ps4 pro if it's not held back by base ps4 and is running at 1080p/30fps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpn96bbzkk

If all ps4/Xone games were designed to release alongside a Switch version with parity in mind, those games would also be seriously compromised and we wouldn't even have games like RDR2 right now. Luckily that's not happening because games like Witcher 3 were developed separately and released much later. It does run, but it can drop to 810x456 at times. The Switch can somewhat get away with that because its a handheld, but good luck playing in that resolution on a 55inch tv. 

All I'm saying is that any game will have to make concessions if it has to run on a range of different specs and the high-end will never be fully used to its potential. Just look at the mid-gen consoles. They were like 4 or 5 times more powerful than base consoles but they never felt like that big of an improvement. Why? Because developers could never really take advantage of the extra hardware since they had to aim for parity with the base consoles. In the end we got the exact same games with only got a higher res and/or framerate. But here's a tech-demo of what's possible on a ps4 pro if it's not held back by base ps4 and is running at 1080p/30fps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpn96bbzkk

That's the thing, there isn't true parity between X1, Series S or Series X. A Series S version will have lower quality visual settings given the rumored disparity is GPU. The X1 version might be compromised in other ways kinda like Switch ports can be.

The Switch version of Witcher 3 on Switch doesen't just have lower graphics settings and resolution. They also made changes to geometry, AI density, etc. They reduced the load on GPU, CPU and RAM without breaking the game. Yeah, it looks terrible compared to other versions. Its the same game though running on surprisingly low specs. It demonstrates how much modern games can scale back spec demands.

Your argument is inconsistent. Sometines your concern is the Series S version could look bad. The simple solution for you is dont get the S. Meanwhile spec disparity isnt a big issue if its just GPU. I suspect you keep bouncing because you don't feel strongly either way.

Also I suspect you're in the PS camp. So do you really care if MS makes technically inferior games? Is that going to impact your Gamepass subscription.

Anywho, the Witcher 3 can technically function on specs well below X1 capabilities and well beyond. Yet its still a very ambitious product. Get the point? A core game can function often on limited specs.

Sometimes concessions could be exclusive to a version with limited specs. There are many examples from various generations as well. Just depends on the route MS goes.

The mid gen upgrades were simply designed to improve performance and visuals. However, if a game was designed specifically for X1X, that doesen't mean a base X1 port is impossible. Especially when the big disparity is GPU power.

How do you know for a fact that Xbox games won't aim for parity across all of their consoles? Because to me that's exactly what it sounds like if they're saying Series X will target 4k/60fps. I don't care that the Series S versions would look bad, I care that the Series X will be held back by it and potentially the ps5 if it becomes the lowest common denominator for 3rd party games.

The thing with Witcher 3 is that it took a lot of work to get it to run on the Switch, so is MS really going to develop 4 different versions of all of their exclusives? Or will it be like they said and have 1 game that scales up and down their family of devices? 

A 4K/60 fps target is feasible on Series X with power to spare for vastly superuor visuals and scale than say X1 or X1X. However, MS also said developers have freedom so its uncertain what developers will target.

Given most games will be cross gen for a couple years, you may get more 4K/60 fps content than hoped.

You argue PS5 will be held back by Series S as well. That could only be for multiplat games. That's also a scenario where Series S is being treated as the lead platform for every aspect. The scenario also ignores Series S's only significant disparity is GPU power, an aspect of games that most easily scales. Hence, developers could treat PS5 as the lead and still lower visual settings to accomodate S's GPU.

4 different versions? Series S and X would get the same versions with tweaked visual settings and resolution. The X1 version may vary on developers approach. The PC version will just be whatever Series consoles get with lots of graphics settings to adjust.

I am sure numerous cross gen games will require extra work. Sometimes they may bring in other studios to do the work. Which is fairly common.