Xbox Series S Officially Unveiled at $299

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on August 10th, 2020 in the Gaming category.

 

Am i reading this correct. Its less powerful than the xbox one x??

If so what would be the point of that and who would buy a non 4k console at this time if you already have an XB1?

 

Not really. In terms of the Teraflop count, the Series S has a smaller figure than the One X, but when combined with the new processor and SSD (rumoured to be identical to the ones used in the Series X), the Series S comes out as the more powerful console overall.

The purpose of the Series S is to act as a low-cost direct replacement for the Xbox One S or to serve those who don't have a 4K screen. Games on this system are expected to perform virtually the same as they would on the Series X, just at a lower resolution.

 

Teraflop for Teraflop the Series S's GPU is less then the One X, but Teraflops are not a linear measure of performace. So a single Series S Teraflop could offer far better performacne then a single Teraflop of One X performance. Plus the Series S CPU is far better then the CPU in the One X. So performance should level out or even be better on the Series S simply due to a far better CPU and more efficient GPU.

 

That naming convention is so complicated and confusing.

Just call it xbox lite like a normal company.

 

We need healthy competition in the console market, Im not seeing it from Microsoft. They're all over the place with their hardware and crucially lacking in compelling software too...

 

I can't understand the marketing from Xbox yet.
The most powerful console ever made with 1000 teraflops, but your target is a console with lower potential.

 

XSS for 1080p, XSX for 4k.

 

Its a poor naming convention in terms of traditional next gen console releases. But as their wont be any first party exclusives for the first 18 months to 2 years it kind of makes sense I guess.

Still doesn't feel like we're approaching a new gen of console.

 

It's simple.

Replace the word 'One' with 'Series'.

Then we get what we have now;

S is the cheaper lower power variant.

X is the expensive high power variant.

 

I don't see the confusion, at least on the hardware side. The Series S replaces the One X and the Series X is the new flagship model, simple. The base One S will still be manufactured as a budget option. They are giving the consumer a lot of choice and (likely) price points.

I'm just wondering if this Series S is going to be disc-less, they might not have a direct competitor to the all digital PS5. I guess its down to the pricing, a Series S with a drive at a lower price point than a PS5 without one might be a good deal.

 

Everybody keeps complaining about the name. But the name isnt the issue here. Its how they have communicated it thus far. Its pretty bad marketing, the name itself makes perfect sense.

The new console family is simply called Xbox. You can choose between two versions. Series X and Series S. People who buy shiny 4K TVs and Smartphones should have no issue with that. Heck, even car companys use weird names all the time (Porsche Taycan Turbo S anyone?)

 

Every year 80% of the companies that make Android phones debut a new generation of naming schemes far more confusing than anything Microsoft has done. It's been half a decade since Samsung has renamed every mobile device they sell as some variety of "Galaxy" and then random numbers and letters; and last year they even started intermingling whether the Note series or the S series was the actual flagship phone of the company. Huawei has two different flagship lines that introduce their own combination of features on a staggered release in addition to a budget line that has most of the same features and sometimes have features that the flagships don't.




It's a new console. There's two versions. Do you want the best one? Get the one that costs more. Do you want the more affordable one? It should stand to reason that it won't be as good, but get that. The only confusing thing is how committed Microsoft actually are to their "all games will work on Xbox SeX and the Xbone for the first two years" policy and why they've tried to keep the two different SKUs ultra hush hush when they announced there would be two versions all the way back when they first announced another console was coming.

 

Its not that it isnt clear for most people. The communication of it and the iterative nature of the name are the issue.

The Samsung example might not be the best because its actually very simple and thats why they are best sellers. Galaxy pertains to Samsung smartphones, A is budget, S is flagship, Note is power user/max spec, the higher the number the better/more powerful within each range.

 

You mean like how X is the flagship model and S is the budget model, which is already how it works on the Xbone?

 

Yeah I didn't say it wasn't clear. I just don't like it personally. I would have dropped the series word as they're going for the generation being called Xbox. Just have Xbox S and Xbox X. Doesn't need Series jammed in the middle.

 

So they seemed to communicated it just fine for you, you just don't like the word they used.

I think following your opinion makes it a bit clunky. Like calling the Civic Type R just a Civic R. Is it necessary to have the word in the middle? No, but it just looks better with it than without.

 

The model naming system for their consoles has almost no continuity...

 

In the case of certain things yes. In this case no. TypeR is more than simply just words, its practically a brand now. In this case, Xbox is the brand. It didnt need Series in the middle in my opinion.

As for communication? Has the S officially been announced? Does anyone know what it is? Does anyone know why it exists? They communicated that this generation is just called the Xbox but they still attached the series part to it and refer to the console as that even dien to series X enhanced. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Its bad enough there's more than one console anyway in my opinion. As @Famine touched on, what is obvious for us may not always be obvious to the less knowledgeable people who don't follow this and go out to buy an Xbox. At least with Sony it's lretty clear, there's a PS5. You can have it with or without a disc drive. End.

 

Nintendo hasn't exactly had much continuity with their console names either, yet I don't see many people caring about that. Why is it a problem when Microsoft does it?

 

The WiiU got hammered for its name. It was too similar sounding, didn't roll off the tongue and wasn't clear enough to the genpop that it was a new console, and sufficiently flopped. The Xbox is actually a very similar case to this.

Every other Nintendo console has a distinctive name that clearly marks itself out.

 

They could possibly do with re-branding the One S, call it the Series T or something. Then the range will appear cohesive with low, medium and high choices.

 

Which is the exception. And as Tornado posted, Samsung especially has an absolutely labyrinthine naming system for Galaxy smart phones...yet in every thread on this forum regarding the next Xbox, people seem to think that Xbox Series S and Series X is confusing. It isn't. One is the 'budget' system for those that don't have 4K TV's, and the other is the top of the line model. People can make sense of that. Moreover, in what way is having two different models confusing to the consumer, if they are communicated what either model can do and is capable of? Is it no different then Sony offering models of 60 or 80 GB of space on the HDD when the PS3 launched?

Besides, who in their right name gives a flying **** about console names when 80% of the time, people's minds are already made up on what the next console they're going to by is? The rest are simply using it as easy fanwar bait in forums like this.

 

The Wii U's name, and poor communication/marketing about what it was, are two of the factors that crippled it. Alleged failures on Nintendo's part in collaborating with third party publishers and divided first-party efforts in developing software for the Wii U and 3DS (now finally rectified with the Switch) are other factors, but it is generally understood that the Wii U did not capture as much of the Wii audience as it possibly could have because it was mistaken for another Wii-branded accessory due to its name and form factor.

I still really like the Wii U.

 

DF compared 4.3TF RDNA1 with One X. The RDNA1 GPU performed better and lockhart has a RDNA2 GPU like XsX and PS5 with further optimization aka more bang for the buck/TF.

If the rumored specs are true then the console won't cause issues for developers.

The Wii U got hammered, because the product was uninspiring and took the wrong lessons from DS handheld success. Switch took the right ones.

 

They've got it. Nintendo have sold 61 million consoles. That beats the Xbox1 with no more than 40 million. (AMD sold 150 million chipsets for this gen consoles and 110 million of them are in PS4's)

They are not competition for anything.

 

And I would think Sony surely feels the heat in Japan. Considering the Japanese cultural preference for mobile/portable gaming and the failure of Sony's handheld efforts, they've got to convince their local market that a home console is worth it.

I found this interesting, too -- as a sort of forecast for how far the Switch could go, not to mention the position Nintendo is in compared to the Wii U days:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2...the_ps2s_the_best-selling_console_of_all_time