With the dust having largely settled on this generation's home console war, do you feel the strategy of a cheaper entry level device paid off for Microsoft, or do you think they would have been better off concentrating on a single piece of hardware?

I get the intent, cheaper next generation console, but also seemed silly to me. The console was too weak to be worth it.

Seeing how the prices just go up this gen, I like the idea a lot more than at the start of the gen. We kinda need machines like that so gaming doesn't become a hobby solely for privileged people. I know for sure I would never have gotten a gaming console for 500 Euro or something when I was a kid, even with inflation in mind. We got the SNES when it was 299 DM packed together with Mario World and a Super Game Boy. That equals 150 Euros. Adjusted for inflation it would be 254 Euros today, according to ChatGPT.

Our family was poor. So yeah, I can get a Series S right now for 249 Euros at Amazon. We would have managed that as christmas present or something. But 599 for a series X or 450 for a PS5 Digital? No way, that simply would have not happened.

I consider it a success. A vast majority of 9th games play fine on it. Any speculation of it holding back games PS5 and Series X haven't actually happened. The only thing holding games back this generation is dog shit engines like UE5, lack of originality and DEI.

The biggest issue is price. I feel MS should make it cheaper to grow market share. Although, I assume it will be $299 during sales. Which isn't terrible for a device that play 9th gen games well enough.

I am unsure. I think there is a case to be made for a more affordable system, but I don’t like the idea of having two systems in a generation with different hardware, same goes for the “pro” systems. Think about it, in the 6th gen, developers had to worry about optimising a version for PS2, Xbox and Gamecube all with one fixed hardware, and then PC where there should be some scalability, but they could get away with a bit less optimization. The situation for PC is now more or less the same, but now developers have to optimise versions for PS5, PS5 pro, Xbox Series S, Xbox Series X, Switch 2 docked, undocked, maybe some last gen systems (s, x, standard, pro, undocked, docked) and they are also sometimes expected to make a performance and fidelity mode. They can then spend a year post-launch patching their games. And people wonder how video games take so long to make and have gotten so expensive…

I think Xbox should have picked a lane, either Series S or X, not both.

The state of Microsoft's console business answers this question.

It was a bad idea right from the start, but it got a big break during the semiconductor shortage which made it sell more than it would have otherwise. But even that has been a double-edged sword, because while Microsoft could sell all the S consoles that would have sat on store shelves otherwise, it led to the problem that the amount of Xbox Series consoles out there that have PS5-level hardware is quite low; under 20m through five years on the market. It makes third parties think if they should even bother with Xbox versions of their games when it's a hassle to get the game to work on the S as well.

While it did allow Microsoft to undercut the PS5 by $100 as far as the entry price is concerned, it came with the caveat of being a heavily gimped Xbox Series whereas the digital-only PS5 was still a proper PS5 with the exception of a disc drive.

Some people really hate the Series S for no obvious reason, like its mere existence just seems to irk people. I think it was a great idea, implemented well, that had the misfortune of launching during the generation in which Xbox hardware imploded.

If MS had went with just a Series X and a Series X Digital edition then they would be even further behind this gen, I’m very confident of that.

For consumers it’s great. A very cheap console that lets you actually play all next gen games(regardless of the resolution or FPS, some people are just happy to have that opportunity to play at all.)

I do suspect MS made quite a large loss per model though, especially at the start of the generation.

Aren't the two related... The Series S was always considered the gamepass machine. Gamepass led to the decline of XBox hardware, as the pursuit of gamepass everywhere made xbox hardware optional. 

Some games and features did get delayed because of Series S (Baldur's gate 3 for example) and the lower amount of RAM remains a challenge, which will only play up more now the Switch 2 is out and Switch will no longer be supported. Series S is still more capable than Switch 2 yet the split 10GB RAM in Series S will continue to become more of a bottleneck. Question is also how much the Series S has played a role in the decline of Halo and Forza. 

The 364GB capacity for games and expensive proprietary expansion drives were a bad decision as well. Good for smaller gamepass games yet further discouraging CoD/Fifa players to branch out. 


But can't deny XBox would be even further behind with Series S as pretty much the only alternative at the end of the pandemic. PS5 and Series X were severely supply restrained. The Series X is now finally outselling Series S or maybe was until the recent price hikes.
https://www.ign.com/articles/september-2024-sales-charts-xbox-series-x-is-finally-outselling-the-series-s
The split was up to 75% at the start for Series S.

So yeah it was a good idea in the short run, but with the Switch 2 launch it's now the console with the RAM bottleneck. MS banked on streaming to take off for the Series S to 'keep up' but that's still iffy and expensive. (US $240 a year)

That is the way I see it as well. 

I do not think worse performing versions of games hurt this gen's Xbox reputation more than it being a cheap, and quite competent for the price, entry point helped it.

But it also isn't enough on its own to counteract MS missteps this gen.

Good idea.

Good for people who want a cheaper option.