It's time to admit that Microsoft was right about the Xbox Series S — here's why

[Windows Central]

I was wrong about the Xbox Series S. Whether you're on Steam Deck, Xbox Series S, potato PC, or even Nintendo Switch, Microsoft's enforcement of the Xbox Series S as a target platform for next-gen games is boosting optimization across the board.

It's time to admit that Microsoft was right about the Xbox Series S — here's why : Read more

 

[kliffy 542]

I think you actually missed another huge benefit of the Series S: portability. I actually own both X and S, and when I go on trips I am able to take the S with me wherever I go. The thing is so small and light I could easily fit it into my backpack if I want, or in a checked bag, without adding a ton of weight or bulk. All I need is a controller and two small cables and I've got the full system available in any hotel room. This is especially nice when traveling with my kids, providing the full range of experiences (games and video apps) anywhere we are. While some hotels now offer TVs with Netflix, that's usually as best as you can get. I wouldn't do any of this with the X, it's just too big.

Another thing: not every game actually needs or cares about being 4K 60fps. Those AAA games are actually a tiny fraction of the Xbox game library, and for everything else the S does great. When I play games like Trivial Pursuit, or Slay the Spire, or Disc Room, or countless others, the power of the X is honestly just overkill.

 

[fjtorres5591]

"For reasons unknown, Microsoft wasn't able to acquire the stock levels Sony acquired for the PlayStation 5 in the early days of the generation."

Minor point: the reason is well known.
To start with, MS got *more* SX SOCs than Sony but used a large portion to build up the cloud gaming servers (remember the server features of the SOC?). Also, they dedicated another big chunk of the contracted production for the SS SOC.

Neither was a mistake but the chip crunch during the pandemic and aftermath derailed the schedule to grow the XBOX ecosystem with the SS attracting people new to consoles and cloud people without consoles (via mobile and smartTV). The plan is still good but lagging because of the pandemic game delays.

On the flip side, Sony's delays have kicked in and their pivot to GAAS complicated their own schedule just as MS added the ZENIMAX and ABK works-in-progress.

Things should be more interesting in 2024+.
And don't sleep on this holiday season. SS should hit $200 again and SX $400 (reportedly).

 

[G Doggy Jr]

I don't understand why Jez wrote this piece. Not that there's anything wrong with changing one's mind. But, I don't think Jez offers compelling reasons for doing so.

Jez used to criticize the Series S because he was concerned that it would make it costlier to develop for the Xbox platform, resulting in fewer games coming to Xbox. The case of Baldur's Gate 3 was, and is, evidence for that view. Jez doesn't offer a counterargument or an explanation for why he is no longer concerned about this.

The main insight Jez seems to have arrived at is that developing for weaker systems can sometimes lead to helpful innovations. Evidence for this? One piece of evidence, relating to the Series S port of Baldur's Gate 3. This does not strike me as enough to warrant a volte-face. Jez also discusses the fact that games can run well on the Series S and Steamdeck, despite not running well initially. Thus, the argument seems to be this:
"Weak hardware forces devs to make better games."

I don't think it is a good argument. Yes, porting to weak hardware will sometimes cause devs to stumble across useful solutions. But, Jez offers no reason to think this is generally what happens. Likewise, he offers no reason to believe that these innovations occur more often than when porting to other hardware, or that these innovations are better than what the devs would have accomplished if they spent that time on other things (e.g., optimizing for the Series X, PS5, or just producing new content). These points seem to require support if one is to claim that the Series S "incentivizes innovation".

 

[Jez Corden]

I don't understand why Jez wrote this piece. Not that there's anything wrong with changing one's mind. But, I don't think Jez offers compelling reasons for doing so.

Jez used to criticize the Series S because he was concerned that it would make it costlier to develop for the Xbox platform, resulting in fewer games coming to Xbox. The case of Baldur's Gate 3 was, and is, evidence for that view. Jez doesn't offer a counterargument or an explanation for why he is no longer concerned about this.

The main insight Jez seems to have arrived at is that developing for weaker systems can sometimes lead to helpful innovations. Evidence for this? One piece of evidence, relating to the Series S port of Baldur's Gate 3. This does not strike me as enough to warrant a volte-face. Jez also discusses the fact that games can run well on the Series S and Steamdeck, despite not running well initially. Thus, the argument seems to be this:
"Weak hardware forces devs to make better games."

I don't think it is a good argument. Yes, porting to weak hardware will sometimes cause devs to stumble across useful solutions. But, Jez offers no reason to think this is generally what happens. Likewise, he offers no reason to believe that these innovations occur more often than when porting to other hardware, or that these innovations are better than what the devs would have accomplished if they spent that time on other things (e.g., optimizing for the Series X, PS5, or just producing new content). These points seem to require support if one is to claim that the Series S "incentivizes innovation".

I admit the article was a bit rushed as I was trying to catch a train, but I was told that Diablo had been optimised further to prepare it for Steam Deck, among other things. There are more examples on Steam Deck, and I think I should have made that point more. Sorry about that.

 

[Jez Corden]

"For reasons unknown, Microsoft wasn't able to acquire the stock levels Sony acquired for the PlayStation 5 in the early days of the generation."

Minor point: the reason is well known.
To start with, MS got *more* SX SOCs than Sony but used a large portion to build up the cloud gaming servers (remember the server features of the SOC?). Also, they dedicated another big chunk of the contracted production for the SS SOC.

Neither was a mistake but the chip crunch during the pandemic and aftermath derailed the schedule to grow the XBOX ecosystem with the SS attracting people new to consoles and cloud people without consoles (via mobile and smartTV). The plan is still good but lagging because of the pandemic game delays.

On the flip side, Sony's delays have kicked in and their pivot to GAAS complicated their own schedule just as MS added the ZENIMAX and ABK works-in-progress.

Things should be more interesting in 2024+.
And don't sleep on this holiday season. SS should hit $200 again and SX $400 (reportedly).

The cloud server stuff was always speculation and not necessarily substantiated. The delta between PS5 stock and Series X stock vs. the amount of slots in cloud doesn't seem to line up. I think it was a factor sure, but I've been hinted at previously that something else went wrong.

 

[Jez Corden]

I think you actually missed another huge benefit of the Series S: portability. I actually own both X and S, and when I go on trips I am able to take the S with me wherever I go. The thing is so small and light I could easily fit it into my backpack if I want, or in a checked bag, without adding a ton of weight or bulk. All I need is a controller and two small cables and I've got the full system available in any hotel room. This is especially nice when traveling with my kids, providing the full range of experiences (games and video apps) anywhere we are. While some hotels now offer TVs with Netflix, that's usually as best as you can get. I wouldn't do any of this with the X, it's just too big.

Another thing: not every game actually needs or cares about being 4K 60fps. Those AAA games are actually a tiny fraction of the Xbox game library, and for everything else the S does great. When I play games like Trivial Pursuit, or Slay the Spire, or Disc Room, or countless others, the power of the X is honestly just overkill.

Aye I was rushing a bit when I wrote it. I almost included a photo of the upsec screen attachment to make that point. I probably should have done lol.

 

[G Doggy Jr]

I admit the article was a bit rushed as I was trying to catch a train, but I was told that Diablo had been optimised further to prepare it for Steam Deck, among other things. There are more examples on Steam Deck, and I think I should have made that point more. Sorry about that.

No need for apologies! My comment was intended in the spirit of good-natured debate. While I disagree with your views on the Series S question, I welcome your article in its providing a venue for interesting discussion. In short: regarding the arguments you put forward, I have many criticisms; regarding your publishing the opinion piece, I have only praise.

Reiterating my earlier post, I think the argument in favour of the Series S (XSS) boils down to the following claims:

• weak hardware results in developmental innovations
• those innovations are better than what would have been achieved otherwise

I agree with the first point, and I disagree with the second. If you study chess all day, you might accidentally get better at maths. But, if you want to get better at maths, it is better to study maths, not chess. Likewise, working on the XSS port might result in occasional innovations that benefit XSX players. But, those are the exception. I think devs know what they are doing, and thus, if you want them to improve X, then you should want them to work on X.

Suppose you wanted to continue to claim that the Series S has a net positive effect on Series X gamers. Based on my reasoning above, I don't think the argument from development innovation is viable. But, perhaps there are other ways to defend the view that the Series S benefits Series X owners. For example, you could argue that even though Xbox has a smaller install-base than PlayStation this generation, things would have been far worse if not for the Series S. And the smaller the install-base for a platform, the less incentive devs have to port to that platform. Perhaps, when PlayStation announces its "pro" console, Xbox could retaliate not with its own upgraded console, but by slashing the price of the Series S, hoping to argue that there are more customers to be gained at the low end of the market.

 

[Kaymd]

No need for apologies! My comment was intended in the spirit of good-natured debate. While I disagree with your views on the Series S question, I welcome your article in its providing a venue for interesting discussion. In short: regarding the arguments you put forward, I have many criticisms; regarding your publishing the opinion piece, I have only praise.

Reiterating my earlier post, I think the argument in favour of the Series S (XSS) boils down to the following claims:

• weak hardware results in developmental innovations
• those innovations are better than what would have been achieved otherwise

I agree with the first point, and I disagree with the second. If you study chess all day, you might accidentally get better at maths. But, if you want to get better at maths, it is better to study maths, not chess. Likewise, working on the XSS port might result in occasional innovations that benefit XSX players. But, those are the exception. I think devs know what they are doing, and thus, if you want them to improve X, then you should want them to work on X.

Suppose you wanted to continue to claim that the Series S has a net positive effect on Series X gamers. Based on my reasoning above, I don't think the argument from development innovation is viable. But, perhaps there are other ways to defend the view that the Series S benefits Series X owners. For example, you could argue that even though Xbox has a smaller install-base than PlayStation this generation, things would have been far worse if not for the Series S. And the smaller the install-base for a platform, the less incentive devs have to port to that platform. Perhaps, when PlayStation announces its "pro" console, Xbox could retaliate not with its own upgraded console, but by slashing the price of the Series S, hoping to argue that there are more customers to be gained at the low end of the market.

I would argue that the second claim is also absolutely true: The optimization innovations that the existence of the Series S is forcing are far better than would have ever been achieved had the weakest console been the PS5/XSX.
This is natural and quite self-evident. Human beings typically default to the path of least resistance in all things, not just game development alone. Followed by the path of greatest return on investment.

Take a hypothetical example. Let's assume the top consoles from Microsoft and Sony on the market today was the equivalent of a current top-spec PC - say a 14900k CPU and a 4090 GPU. And further assume the weaker console was the equivalent of the current XSX/PS5. There is no doubt that the new complaint would be that the XSX and PS5 were holding development back. Simply because developers will suddenly (un)optimize for the top-end console spec, provided it has enough market share. Ironically, the graphical fidelity of the games may not necessarily improve in proportion. Just poorly optimized code that powerful hardware can easily mask. Happens all the time.

The case of Baldur's Gate 3 now 'miraculously' finding significant optimizations for performance on Series S is a classic example. You can be sure they would NEVER have gone this length, if not for Microsoft forcing launch on the Series S. Larian had to make a call between forgoing the entire Xbox install base or putting in the optimization effort for the Series S (that should arguably have been there from the beginning).

Same with Alan Wake 2. I was really impressed by Remedy's work getting Alan Wake 2 to work on the Series S. Solid delivery there. Not a trivial achievement for sure, but that's the nature of things. If we are not forced to, in 99 out of 100 cases, we will not really stretch ourselves for our best output. We'd mostly just settle for good enough. Pretty sure everyone has first-hand experience of this in daily life.

 

[G Doggy Jr]

I would argue that the second claim is also absolutely true: The optimization innovations that the existence of the Series S is forcing are far better than would have ever been achieved had the weakest console been the PS5/XSX.
This is natural and quite self-evident. Human beings typically default to the path of least resistance in all things, not just game development alone. Followed by the path of greatest return on investment.

It seems worth distinguishing between these two claims:

1. porting to weak hardware forces devs to expend more effort than porting to powerful hardware
2. owners of the Series X get a better gaming experience than they would if devs didn't have to port to the Series S (i.e., if the entire Xbox Series install-base was Series X)

You have argued for the first view via the "path of least resistance" consideration. I don't have any quibble with that. You may also be arguing for the second claim. I find that one implausible.

Ways that the Series S might benefit owners of the Series X:

• it forces developers to innovate (evidence: Larian's recently publicized case)

Ways that the Series S might not benefit owners of the Series X:

• it could lead to games being delayed (evidence: Baldur's Gate 3)
• it makes developing for Xbox cost more, which reduces profitability, leading to publishers/developers skipping the Xbox platform (evidence: Baldur's Gate 3 shows that porting to X+S costs more than porting just to the X; I know of no examples of games skipping the Xbox platform due to this increased cost, but this seems like a reasonable possibility given that publishers like more profit rather than less. Also, Microsoft relaxed the parity requirement for Larian, but they probably wouldn't have if the game weren't such a phenomenon. In that case, it seems plausible that Larian would have had to either skip the Xbox platform, or cut split-screen co-op from both Series consoles).
• developers might have spent more time optimizing for the X if they didn't have to focus on the S (evidence: this is a plausible explanation of why the PS5 regularly outperforms the Series X despite the Series X being more powerful on paper. Might you claim that while the PS5 sometimes outperforms the Series X, it would outperform the Series X even more if devs didn't have to port to the S? That sounds absurd.)

The claim that you and Jez are defending is that the benefits outweigh the detriments: you are saying that Series X owners get a better gaming experience than they would have if the entire Xbox Series install-base consisted of Series X consoles. Based on the evidence I have considered, I don't find this credible.

Earlier, I considered that perhaps the Series S has helped secure a larger install-base for Xbox Series consoles than would have been the case if there was only the Series X. If that is true, then Series X owners benefit from the existence of the S, because the S makes it more profitable to port games to that platform. That seems like a more promising line of argument.

 

[MantunesjrBR]

Excellent article. And above all, thank you very much for mentioning the absurd price increase of the Series S in Brazil.

 

[chiron69]

That's not correct! I have bought and sold the Series S, because of it's terrible storage options and space and reverted back to my trusty Xbox One X instead! I won't buy anything that requires proprietary memory upgrades,that costs almost what the console does! I will instead switch to PlayStation for the first time in my life. I have owned EVERY Xbox model,some several times, since the original Xbox,and was so disappointed with the Series S,that I hope that Microsoft will take the community seriously next time!
Best wishes from Ronny, Norway