There's also a discussion to be had about the specs Microsoft targeted with S (obviously intended with fps parity in mind, same as what Nintendo did with Switch) and whether the specs were appropriate for the function they were aiming for, obviously keeping in mind MS first parties have far more time to optimise then 3rd party multiplats. That will be determined in time and whether it happens with more titles, for now we can assume its a fault of Ubi more then the shortcomings of the hardware balance.

lol at microsoft trying to hit that 300 price point to grab market share with total disregard for the customer/gamer. It's like Trump trying to win the presidency.

I praise MS for making an affordable platform, but your pessimism about Series X is well founded. In the end, developers will end up making poor ports or not even doing them, if the console doesn't achieve a big installed base. 

Does anyone knows if games made for SX instantly run on SS with inferior settings or developers need to make ports? I think the amount of effort required to make games run on SS will determine its future.

The developers make it, which is why AC is running at 30fps and DMC5 doesn't have ray tracing on it. Meanwhile the Series S version of Watchdogs has raytracing and all the bells and whistles of the X version, just at a dynamic 1080p resolution

Total disregard is a bit dramatic don’t you think? It’s a very capable console, leaps better then the original Xbox One and even Xbox X. A $300 console with a SSD is a deal. You assume the people playing this console have an eye for this stuff like we do (they don’t). It’s a affordable next gen console with an SSD, and essentially a cheap Game Pass console if you want most bang for buck. 

Sorry but I can't agree that at the time of release X1 wasn't a subpar console compared to PS or PCs, Series S is a subpar console in hindsight.

I mean, you are paying cheaper for a reason.As times goes on, and assuming XBOx S proves to be popular, companies will get accoustomed to the hardware and invest more. But yeah, S is just stronger than the Switch compared to the other 9th gen consoles.

Meh, if Nintendo can get away with weak hardware I think for what Series S can do for $300 I’d say it’s great for what you paying for. 

Nintendo isn't directly competing and has portability in its favor.

I don't remember them ever marketing it as just a resolution difference. I remember them saying it would be the main or primary difference, but there's no way they could factually say the only difference would be resolution. Obviously because they can't control what resolution or frame rates third party companies make their games, nor should they.

It's crystal clear that if you're buying a SS, you should expect all the next gen bells and whistles of the SX, just at a lower resolution and in some cases, less graphical effects and frame rate. I can see future games having less resolution, no RT, lower frame rate. It's a phenomenal entry console for casual gamers but I think MS's plan is to eventually entice SS owners to upgrade. They basically have the phone model except instead of yearly upgrades with new models, they have their two models at launch. So you can use the SS and be happy for 2-3 years if you want and then upgrade. Or keep using the SS and be happy. Lets be honest, most of the target audience for the SS doesn't give a shit about RAM or TFLOP numbers or frame rates or RDNA2. They want a machine to play Fortnite and Calls of Doody and 2k on.