What do you think about MS starting with 2 performance SKUs next gen?

Sounds like MS will launch the generation with a half-step console from the start. How do you see this playing out? Do you think it'll hurt them or is it actually a smart move? Providing cheaper models to boost your player base is good, especially at the beginning. But the more they commit to supporting less powerful systems, the more it seems Sony will be able to show off the strength of their 1st party studios, as well as providing a more consistent experience across the board. Never mind that MS is also looking to support XB1 for a year or 2.

Im more worried about the standards that it might put in place from the get go that developers will have to follow for an entire generation. MS supporting the XB1 for a year or two is something that is optional and they can eventually drop and third parties can completely forget about developing for and move on to the Series X/S if they want, but a Series S is something they are going to have to live with for some time. So it depends on how much of a lower spec it is vs the "standard" consoles. They kinda shot themselves in the foot with a no hard drive version of the 360 just to cut cost in the short term, making standards that later had to be changed. Things like file sizes for live arcade titles being limited to the memory card size, or even the policy of no installs having to change for GTAV to even work on there console. I think Phil Spencer has mentioned it here and there about how a short term move like that held them back in the long term, so hopefully it is more thought out this time.

Lower cost to entry is always welcome. If it is capable of doing everything developers want with just a resolution/fps/graphics cut then its fine. But if we start hearing about limitations that create policy standards that force less AI on screen or games cant load fast enough because they went with a standard hard drive (im assuming SSD is the new standard though) then it can be a problem. And its not going to be a problem for just Xbox, because third party developers are going to make games for the lowest tier hardware to maximize sales. And MS tying themselves to the XB1 for a year or so is probably fine, since launch games are when developers are still trying things out and seeing what works before they lean into the strengths of the hardware. It just that there games probably wont look as impressive as Sony games for a bit.

Microsoft doesn't think that the future of video games lies in powerful specialized hardware. Or at least it doesn't believe that entirely. It believes in streaming and multi-platform libraries, and a bunch of other stuff. Will all of that pan out? I don't know. But I don't think that it's crazy and if that's MS' goal then the two box approach makes sense. Ultimately the weaker box will play all the indie games and AA games and the backward compatible catalog and some version of the newer games, while it may stream the AAA games in high fidelity once that service is fully cemented.

Computers have been releasing games on platforms with widely varied power levels for decades and that's worked fine. I'm not sure what people are worried about. I'm sure that if there's a game that really can't run on the weaker box there will be a way to release it only on the more powerful one (like including a streaming version for the weaker box so it technically runs on that too.)

Weren’t the original rumors something along the lines of the S being essentially an X without the disc drive and lower tier GPU that targets 1080p/1440p? If that ends up being the strategy I don’t really see it impacting game development. Especially considering MS first party have to design to PC specs as well, a space that Steam surveys consistently show as being dominated by 1080p/60 FPS level hardware.

It seems like a good idea on the business side of things, as it gives MS room to establish two very different price points relative to Sony.

The concerning part to me is that it means the Series X GPU will only be useful for pixel shading, as that will be the only aspect that can scale up/down with resolution between the S and X. For instance, any kind of game logic that relies on GPU compute probably wouldn't be feasible with two very different GPU specs. It effectively makes the Series S the real console platform spec, while the Series X gives you the classic console->PC experience (same assets and game complexity but more FPS, FSAA, and resolution.)

i think it's commonly accepted the future of xbox lies in 'game pass' more than anything, and therefore it's smart for microsoft to give people as many paths as possible to hooking them with a sub.

but just speaking personally- i like the simplicity of sony's business model. i buy the box, it'll play their games. that's kinda where i'm at right now. i'm also just biased because i like sony 1st party output, and microsoft isn't giving me a reason to buy their hardware when i will more likely do a pc rebuild.

as to who (microsoft vs. sony) is taking the bigger risk? no idea- microsoft is the one with the new, somewhat unproven approach in a subscription-first model, but then again sony is relying on purchasing habits that date back to the 80s.

I think it's really hard to opine on this definitively with the little we know about the Series S. Frankly, Microsoft still hasn't shown their vision for the Series S and how it will accommodate the audience the device is for.

If we assume some of the early leaks are accurate—namely that the Series S is a budget unit capable of running current and future releases at a 1080p or 1440p, 60 frames-per-second cap—it looks like a really savvy move. Microsoft's Xbox division has been laser-focused on meeting players where they're at. Power needs, accessibility, flexibility across devices, maintaining a backwards-facing library—you name it, and it's probably a base Microsoft is trying to cover. And now we're talking about a device that gives people a gateway into next-generation gaming at a friendly price point.

Who knows how this thing will work with xCloud. That's, honestly, kind of a massive x-factor flying under the radar here. But in terms of horsepower, early leaks suggest the Series S has the same CPU foundation as the X and can support hardware raytracing the same way its X-class big brother can, which means this "half-step" will likely deliver a comfortable boost in visual fidelity, even if it doesn't mean sheer pixel-count, to a huge swath of non-4K players with power to spare.

This is, and always has been, a conversation about software. Sony has shown time and time again that their software lives up to expectations. That's a leap Microsoft still has to take. And I think it's fair to hold Microsoft accountable for that until it's proven differently. But I don't see the concern that a second model is going to impact game development, and I can't perceive any downside to multiple SKUs of the Xbox out of the gate, especially when they might very clearly appeal to different buyer segments.

Microsoft is playing the long game here. They know the idea of a ten year hardware cycle is dead, and they know many consumers aren't gonna tolerate their games being obsoleted because a new box comes out.

They've opted to become more like a PC. You can probably look at how Windows is supported to get a decent idea of how they will likely structure it. When a new box comes out, the old one goes out of print, and they'll keep supporting for a year or two. The reason there are two SKUs at launch is most likely to get rid of naming confusion by purging the name "Xbox One" off of everything, more than anything else. I expect the Series S is just an Xbox One X with a different shell on it. For development, I would hope they leave it up to them which box(es) they want their games to run on, but basic data collection telling them how many of each are active, giving them a good idea of their potential for sales.

With the Halo news and all, it doesn't look great for MS, but if Sony whacks people with a huge price tag on PS5, you could find a lot of people just...not buying either console. Especially in 2020, where the pandemic has really cut a lot of people's appetites for big ticket luxury purchases, particularly in the US.

For a little opinion:

You can objectively say "PS4 had better exclusives" but personally I am feeling a bit burnt out on third person world exploring games, which seem to be the bread and butter of AAA development now. For myself, Game Pass is probably a more interesting prospect purely because the range of games showing up on it interests me a lot more than most of Sony's big exclusives. Really this is just my growing disillusion with AAA titles in general, but also the fact is that my PC just runs things better and faster. I expect I will get a PS5 one day, but I don't really see anything coming that'll make me need it until the next chapter of FF7 Remake arrives.

I think it's incredibly smart as long as they can get the message across. Assuming the rumors, the Series S will have the same CPU and basically be in lockstep aside from having a GPU more tailored towards 1080p. If the Series S plays all the same games, but is locked at 1080p/60 I could see that going over fairly well with a lot of people. Price is very important, though. If The S is only $100 cheaper it may be a harder sell, but if they come in with a box that plays all future games just at 1080p/60 and maybe $150 or $200 cheaper I could see it taking off. 1080p still dominates and a lot of people just don't care, or see the difference with it and 4K.

If it's priced accordingly and they can actually message what it is, I think it it may be bigger than the Series X.

The Series S will probably be on parity graphics-wise early in the gen at 1080p vs same settings at 4k for the X. If they can price it $100-200 lower than PS5 discless version it will help them get an early sales lead.

I feel like mid-to-late gen, 3+ years into the cycle, the lower baseline RAM and maybe CPU will hold back Series X/S titles once devs max out usage of those resources for things other than pixel count and textures in games designed solely for new gen (i.e. larger world size, higher quality animation/sound, better AI systems, etc). They’re deciding to make a trade off between early market share and later game quality.

I recently grilled someone who has indirect knowledge on whats going on at Microsoft, and they said that all the evidence discussed in other projects (they were not on an Xbox game) is that they are not developing games for a step down console. They have no idea what will make it cheaper, but when I asked initially before discussing the rumors they said they expect it will just be missing a disc drive.

As far as they were concerned, Microsoft is gonna be putting out two identical consoles game wise. Nothing nerfed about it.

They have to be doing something else, somebody (Eurogamer?) did a hypothetical teardown around the time of the PS5 reveal (both drive and driveless versions) and noted that removing an optical drive only saves about $20 in manufacturing costs.

As to whether this will work -- I don't think anybody really knows, as this is the first time (as far as I know) that somebody has tried keeping so much backward compatibility on a console. Microsoft is essentially betting that cloud gaming and the back catalogue are strong enough incentives to buy either of their consoles within the first year. Sony is following a more traditional approach. And it doesn't help that we still don't know price points and machine availability, and we still don't know for sure what software is going to be available within the 'launch window' for both machines. (It sounds crazy to say that 3 months out, but in an era of COVID-19, who the hell knows what's going to happen? Seeing Halo Infinite get delayed into sometime in 2021 was a real WTF wake up moment. This console transition is going to be completely unprecedented.)