I'm sorry but what I wrote is very related to what I originally replied to, I just added to it. I basically said: "Series S is an entry point into GamePass" and therefore it has value and you cannot compare this to the digital Play Station 5 as it offers another thing. We can disagree if you think it is not related but in my mind, it is quite related to what I wrote after (which is adding even more to that with another thing). Your whole point is about the value of the Series S (for the consumer I would assume). That's pretty much what I've been responding to since the start...

The Series S not outselling (or still) the Series X has nothing to do with it being a good value or not; if it would really sell at a very low % then maybe. I mean I can argue that if it sells as much as the X (I think the last numbers are around 55/45) then it has definitely a lot of value to the consumers who are not only buying by looking at the missing pixels Digital Foundry is pointing out when it comes to the Series S but more how much the Series S will cost (entry point), then how much they will have to spend after to enjoy other games and what games they have access to with the device. No other console can give them that for that price (some can argue about a low-cost PC Iguess...).

And I get your stance on Microsoft and that you believe/think they should retire the S. I simply disagree with that but that's not really an argument, merely an opinion :) 

Series S does not have to constitute the majority of sales to be useful to MS, just the fact that millions of owners actually exist and bring revenue to MS on a recurrent basis is quite enough to justify supporting the S.

If series S was in such a state that it could not be salvaged, they wouldn't be introducing a new version of it.

As far as the price point goes, a cheaper entry certainly helps but it can only do as much for the overall appeal, and considering the past 18-20 months Xbox release schedule there's not much even a lower still entry point could have achieved there. Comparing sales to the PS5 doesn't mean anything as you only compare Xbox console appeals to Sony ones, not Series S appeal with Series X and it also doesn't consider the implication of PC as an integral part of MS offering which of course reduces the need for player to even own an Xbox.

they cant drop it now its too late. the main issue with series s is that it doesnt stick to vision that was given out. aka series x targets 4k gaming whilst series s targets 1440p gaming thats simply not true as many series s version are really sub par the specs should have been higher on series s

Devs need to do more optimisation with their games .they are getting lazier and lazier. What ms should do is remove the feature partity between series s and x and they will be fine

That's a tough thing to do cutting the S away

The bulk of their sales came from the S. So they'd stand to anger a large portion of their install base.

It was an advantage at the start with the chip shortage. And smart delivery was always going to be a temporary thing. The fact of the matter is the X is going to suffer because they have to keep there S install base happy.

It doesn't have to be, to date I can only think of 1 example where Series X actually suffered because of Series S and it is with BG3 and the suffer is only in the form of a delay. Even the implemented solutions could have been taken weeks to months ago so the delay was avoidable and the actual solutions should be increased communication with 3rd party devs.

Other than that I don't see how Series X would "suffer" from the S existence. Even a game with ridiculous requirements such as Immortals (having an RTX 2080 Super as a minimum requirement on PC) still was able to produce a stable Series S experience and a Series X experience that bested the PS5 one in FPS while having the same configuration presets.

Optimization is always a game of balance between schedule, budget, and intended experience. If devs wanted and had no other constraint they could optimize almost forever but then we would not like that any more than an underoptimized title. 

Take a look at this if you want to see how much optimization can be done even to one of the most revered titles ever:

I won't call devs lazy, most of the time what people call lazy are in fact devs stuck between a rock and a hard place with other constraints, Most of the time the culprit is higher like for the infamous GTA trilogy remaster the devs were not lazy just constrained by take 2 who wanted to milk old title with very little investment.

As for feature parity, we don't even know to what extent they apply now but I like the way it played out with Larian albeit the resolutions should have come faster. For me, MS is better to keep exceptions as an exceptional measure, one that happens after the devs actually encounter an issue, make a dutiful attempt to resolve it, ask MS for assistance, and which resolutions still leave Series S with a complete experience of the game universe while playing in a 1 player mode.

Dropping the Series S is a terrible idea.

Thinking about it again... I don't know if mandating Series S will necessariy be a serious issue. No matter how demanding/heavy a game is, the Series S should be able to run it at extremely low settings/res/fps. Developers can simply release games at a near-broken state on the S just to meet Microsoft's requirements. Would still anger some fans but the blame would fall on 3rd parties and their "poor optimization".

Yes mostly, There will be some extreme cases, but such extreme cases will also affect Series X and PS5 way out of their standard zone. I use a lot of Immortals of Aveum as an example because it's very recent and one of the most extreme cases, if not the most extreme, which creates a great tangible example of what we could expect of series S in such a scenario and probably what's closest right now to your "near-broken state". When you require Series X and PS5 to internally render at 720P there isn't much leeway left to create an acceptable console experience altogether. yet the S, despite being way down in resolution and preset, and it shows, still manages great draw distance, stable fps, and delivers the full experience of the game so the most "near-broken state" up to date is still not that bad.

The "Anger" that will come out of such a title is pretty likely not to be reserved for a Series S owner, being a Series X owner I question the design choice Ascendant Studios made that produced an experience requiring Series X/PS5 to render as low as 720P way lower than my expectation for a 9th gen title. So when people point fingers and say Look at the poor Series S performance with Title X, the reality is it's probably a poor experience across the board anyway. The Series S experience delivery will always be tied to the one its most powerful siblings can achieve. Have a game that delivers on the expectation of a Series X/PS5 owner, it will deliver on the expectation of a Series S owner, deliver a game subpar to X/ps5 owner, it will also be sub-par to Series S owner expectation.

At the end of the day, it's up to the devs to design their games the way they want and I want them to have the leeway they desire, but it's also their responsibility to remain within reason. If devs go berserk trying to create the next visual benchmark at the expanse of the overall game experience on all but the very high-end PC rigs while the vast majority of their customer will be bound to a substandard resolution and presets then what's the point of even targeting such demanding graphics even in the first place?