• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Discussion What if Microsoft releases a refresh/revision of the Series S to address the developer complaints

ShadowFox08

ShadowFox08

Paratroopa
As we know, Last generation MS released the X Box One S as a revision to the original Xbone, but with some interesting features (besides being 40% smaller/ a smaller node/less power draw):

-monitoring the temperature so it doesn't overheat
-4k playback with blueray discs and streaming support
-HDR support
Higher GPU clockspeed (1.3 to 1.4 tflops) and ESRAM bandwidth (204 to 219 GB/a)

The higher GPU and ESRAM bandwidth are minor, but it actually does give better performance over the original in regards to framerate.

So who's to say they won't do it again? Release a refresh with a 4nm chip (TSMC) I can see them upping the RAM amount from 10 to 12GB, and/or increasing bandwidth speeds. Instead of the 8GB +2GB standalone, they make it 3x4GB or 2x6GB. 56GB/s extra bandwidth for games? The RAM increase is not as subtle of course, and might seem unlikely without an actual pro upgrade. I don't see MS highlighting these things in a press release, but it could be a subtle response to developer complaints about the current Series S bottleneck, which is the lack of RAM and bandwidth.

Tl;Dr MS refreshes the Series S but with with 12GB RAM total vs 8+2GB with the current model. 25% more RAM bandwidth + 2GB more R for games. Maybe a slight GPU boost, but it's not needed. Regular Series S will get support of course, but the higher RAM will give Series S refresh more stable framerate and resolution.


Thoughts? What did you think MS would do and what would you want them to do, if anything?
 
Last edited:
0
Honestly, the tone of the discourse around the Series S makes me want them to double down on their philosophy and sell a less powerful piece of hardware to really bottleneck matters.

Seriously, though, I think that would be gilding the lily a bit. Three different SKUs just seems confusing!
 
It wouldn’t matter because they’d still have to develop for the normal Series S. It can’t just be replaced without alienating half or more of their current Series install base. All this would mean is developers now have to account for three different skus instead of two, each with their own unique qualifications. Doesn’t sound very dev friendly.
 
OctoSplattack said:
Wouldn't that just be a third SKU? I feel like that would complicate matters and not really solve anything.
Click to expand...

yeah, the dev "complained" that they don't have enough resources and time to develop for 2 SKUs? How about 3 instead?
 
0
Rareware said:
It wouldn’t matter because they’d still have to develop for the normal Series S. It can’t just be replaced without alienating half or more of their current Series install base. All this would mean is developers now have to account for three different skus instead of two, each with their own unique qualifications. Doesn’t sound very dev friendly.
Click to expand...
Of course they would still be developing for her regular Series S. I think that in this scenario, they would stop selling the original ones and gameplay performance wise, the revision would get a boost in framerate or resolution.

In my scenario I wanted to make it somewhat subtle, but more impactful than the one --> one s where GPU and RM speeds was barely increased. And like the xbone one S, no intention of making an entire third profile.

Really just overclocking the RAM bandwidth only by itself would help the Series S refresh and be subtle enough that it wouldn't need explanation from Microsoft.
 
I think part of the reason Microsoft is holding on to the Series S is to make those who already purchased it feel like their console is supported and up to date. As soon as games begin to launch exclusively for the X, S owners might be tempted to buy something new. Whether that's a new Xbox or a new PlayStation is where the problem lies.
 
0
All that would do is alienate the users who already bought the current SKU.

Microsoft released the Series S with the promise that it would be their current gen system. For better or worse, the system is out there now and they are obligated to follow through on that promise for the current generation.

If not, they create the precedent that any console you buy can be rendered obsolete at the drop of the hat because some developers wanted more juice and aren’t capable of coloring inside the lines.

The bottleneck sucks, but if they could throw out the Series S on a whim, What’s to stop them from saying the Series X isn’t enough next? The PS5? The PS6?

The burden and cost would be on the Console Manufacturers and Us, the consumers, to keep up with them. Which is fine every couple of years as has been the case with every generational transition, but certainly not as short a time as Series S has been out.

Also, It’s not like the Series S is a toaster, We’re on the eve of the Series S getting a game that has literally a thousand explorable planets. They can figure most games out
 
Last edited:
ShadowFox08 said:
Of course they would still be developing for her regular Series S. I think that in this scenario, they would stop selling the original ones and gameplay performance wise, the revision would get a boost in framerate or resolution.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they would stop selling the original ones in favor of the upgraded ones, but there are still enough of those original ones in the wild that I doubt Microsoft would just allow developers to ignore the lowest common dominator of the original Series S devices. It isn't like all of those older Series S users will automatically upgrade; a lot of people don't upgrade their system during a console generation unless the old one gets damaged in some manner and/or they fall into some extra cash they're willing to spend on games over food/utilities (or they get it as a gift). You can't just leave those millions of players in the lurch, lest you risk losing them to the competition.
 
0
Introducing a new system would be as much of a precious waste of the Earth’s resources as a prospective PS5 Pro is - Nobody needs either of these things. They won’t have anything exclusive to them, OR any kind of special treatment, AND they only serve to complicate questions about what’s really needed for their successors. A third performance profile on one platform won’t be helpful for developers - I’ve been saying the same about the “Switch Pro” rumour mills, and why it was never going to happen.

BTW, the XSS wasn’t a mistake. It was very deliberate, and the introduction of an Elite Model at their summer conference serves as a reinforcement of that point. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if split screen mode came to BG3 on XSS at a later date. But what’s lost on so many regarding the discourse around this system is that it won’t get worse because multiple developers were consulted during the product development process, and they also returned feedback before Microsoft greenlit it. With its 4th Holiday Season on the horizon, they doubled down with the Elite Model (Something the XSX hasn’t had yet) - That is to say, developers had ample time to state any grievances, and collectively, they haven’t. So, the state of affairs is this: It’s getting Starfield. It’s getting all of the Assassin’s Creeds, the CODs, the next Witcher title, all the Sports, the next Mass Effect and Dragon Age, GTA6, and by the same token, Red Dead Redemption 3. It’s holding nothing back, and anybody who believes in that narrative is indulging in fanboyist fantasy. There’s a reason why you haven’t heard such noises from Ubisoft or EA or T2 or Bethesda or Bandai Namco or Sega or Square-Enix or Capcom. Contrary to wild speculation and social media armchair narrative, AAAA developers and publishers are fine with it. I suspect the same is true for lower budget tier developers.
 
fuck over people who already had Series S? that'd be a bad move, especially given how a large chunk of the xbox population is on that.
 
0
Abandoning the Series S would probably cause as much damage to the Xbox brand as the RROD did. This isn't like the Kinect 2.0 on the Xbox One, this is an entirely separate console sku that has sold millions of units worldwide. Microsoft themselves announced a new version of the Series S just a few months ago with more internal storage out the box. They're not abandoning the Series S, the time to have done that would have been within the first year if the Series S had been a mega flop. Maybe in a non covid world it would have been, but we can't look into other timelines to find out.
 
0
That would be a pre-Saturn SEGA-like mistake. It would hurt Xbox' imagen both in the short and in the long run.
 
0
Yamanoi said:
Can you share the Circana / NPD link or Mat's X?
Click to expand...
www.gamesindustry.biz

Ampere: Xbox Series S outselling Series X in key markets

Data analysts Ampere says that Xbox Series S is out-selling Series X across several key markets.GamesIndustry.biz has a…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Yes this is from November 2021, but unless you have some kind of evidence the Series S sales dropped off a cliff, there is no reason to think Series isn't around 50:50 between the Series S and Series X. Mando's 80% isn't accurate, but the idea they'd cut off half their install base is absurd and nobody should even remotely entertain it.
 
BassForever said:
www.gamesindustry.biz

Ampere: Xbox Series S outselling Series X in key markets

Data analysts Ampere says that Xbox Series S is out-selling Series X across several key markets.GamesIndustry.biz has a…
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz

Yes this is from November 2021, but unless you have some kind of evidence the Series S sales dropped off a cliff, there is no reason to think Series isn't around 50:50 between the Series S and Series X. Mando's 80% isn't accurate, but the idea they'd cut off half their install base is absurd and nobody should even remotely entertain it.
Click to expand...
Series S is such a beast when it comes to sales
 
0
Angel Whispers said:
Introducing a new system would be as much of a precious waste of the Earth’s resources as a prospective PS5 Pro is - Nobody needs either of these things. They won’t have anything exclusive to them, OR any kind of special treatment, AND they only serve to complicate questions about what’s really needed for their successors. A third performance profile on one platform won’t be helpful for developers - I’ve been saying the same about the “Switch Pro” rumour mills, and why it was never going to happen.
Click to expand...
No-one "needs" any console ever but plenty of people would like and enjoy consoles such as a PS5 Pro or Switch Pro, I'll be buying a PS5 Pro on day one.
Allow me to not have to choose between resolution and performance mode and have the best of both worlds? Yes, please.

I also don't get why you are so insistent on loads of journalists and reliable websites being totally wrong about Switch Pro, it looks most likely to me is that it was very much planned, as stated and became reduced in scope to become the OLED Switch, due to component shortages, COVID etc,
 
That sounds like a PR nightmare in any scenario.

If they did it without dropping support of the original Series S, they make things more complicated to the developers, since they have one extra SKU to take into account.

If they did it and dropped support of the original Series S, they would be telling a huge chunk of their current customers that their not even three-year-old console is already outdated and they need to buy a new one.
 
0
Armoured_Bear said:
No-one "needs" any console ever but plenty of people would like and enjoy consoles such as a PS5 Pro or Switch Pro, I'll be buying a PS5 Pro on day one.
Allow me to not have to choose between resolution and performance mode and have the best of both worlds? Yes, please.

I also don't get why you are so insistent on loads of journalists and reliable websites being totally wrong about Switch Pro, it looks most likely to me is that it was very much planned, as stated and became reduced in scope to become the OLED Switch, due to component shortages, COVID etc,
Click to expand...
Plenty of people? Nah. A vocal Internet minority? Perhaps. The evidence doesn’t hold up - Vanilla PS4s and XB1(S) continued to outsell their respective Pro/X variants. The existing machines already put games out at up to 4K resolution at 60FPS. A point will come where it’s the will of developers to move on because the conditions are right, their ambitions are attainable, and their creations more accessible. At the moment, most people are fine with 1080p and their HD Ready, 720p TVs - They’ll use them for their home gaming. So, even the push for 4K is very forced currently. In portable systems, many will lower the resolution to preserve battery life and increase gameplay time. If a game is that dependent upon a 4K resolution, it’s probably a rubbish game, to keep it 100 with you. A good game is still good, regardless of the resolution - Case in point? The majority of people are enjoying the Red Dead Redemption remastered release right now. The people who already played it enjoyed it at 720p on X360 and 640p on PS3. Conclusion? R* made the right call. Coming back to the “Pro” systems, No, they’re needless. Vanilla PS5/XSX already gives people the performance options that are available to most people. They even have “Up to 8K” on the box. A “Pro” device doesn’t offer any more options there because 8K sets aren’t mainstream, AND developers aren’t there in any capacity to make them matter enough. So, I am totally on point when I tell people it’s a waste. That’s BEFORE getting to the fact that we’ve had these “Pro” devices before, and they, too, overpromised and underdelivered. We could talk about how PS and XBox have done this for decades now, but pointing out such facts would be framed as “console warring” when it’s more a case of “reali-tea being spilt”. It’s also stretching resources needlessly at the expense of prospective Switch, PC, and even Mobile versions of games, which would be more fruitful for all people. So, No, I don’t see it for “best of both worlds”. Not in the traditional home console arena. Never there. On PCs, however… Go off. Sure.

A “Switch Pro” was never happening. Something like that doesn’t get cancelled without a word of dissent from somewhere, notably developers and publishers of prospective projects for the damned thing, if we entertained the idea that it ever existed. A new system for a new generation was always coming - that much is a statement of the obvious. A roadmap for product development would’ve existed. Developer feedback for a prospective “Pro” device would’ve, too. Just as no grievances were put forth for the XSS before getting the green light, I suspect that developers wouldn’t have been happy with a third performance profile, one that split the userbase, and stretched their resources thin, all the while having their own reservations about how their games might sell on said platform. So, I’m insistent and once more on point about this because there are logical, practical and pragmatic reasons as to why that idea would’ve been stopped in its tracks. The same journalists and influencers had a ton of clicks from keeping the rumour mill in motion. A story about cancellation is convenient, given the timing, and it covers up the grift. Once more, I come back to the lack of dissent, and reporting on the consequences of a cancellation happening. Hell, we never got as far as leaks for games for a “Pro” device. What we DID get instead was a series of insistences that every new game announcement couldn’t possibly be running on the existing Switch… until the game was released on the existing Switch AND functioned competently. “Mon Dieu!! Miracle Ports!!”, the same ones said. So, Excuse Me when I say I don’t believe in it, and there is nothing which can be traced back to the horse’s mouth, unlike the Nvidia leaks on Nintendo’s next system, which you love to insist are impossible in the face of multiple receipts, perhaps to be contrarian, or to try and police expectations. Oh… Let me step back one moment… Maybe I shouldn’t go there because I would be embracing my “Inner Bitch”, and because that’s another topic. Buonanotte. 💕✨
 
Maybe but even if they do, they will have to keep supporting series s for at least two years, they can't just say to the owners "from now on some games may not run on your console"
 
0
That's not going to change anything. The Xbox One S existing didn't mean things could skip the original Xbox One VCR. Unless Microsoft just straight up says "we will no longer support the Series S anymore" and therefore burn all their goodwill, they are stuck with the Series S until this generation ends.

It's kind of like how some people were trying to peddle a potential Switch Pro around as a way to get more third-party games, where you still need to support the original platform anyways and making it exclusive to such a Pro deletes any advantage of even having a large install base.
 
0
Angel Whispers said:
Plenty of people? Nah. A vocal Internet minority? Perhaps. The evidence doesn’t hold up - Vanilla PS4s and XB1(S) continued to outsell their respective Pro/X variants. The existing machines already put games out at up to 4K resolution at 60FPS. A point will come where it’s the will of developers to move on because the conditions are right, their ambitions are attainable, and their creations more accessible. At the moment, most people are fine with 1080p and their HD Ready, 720p TVs - They’ll use them for their home gaming. So, even the push for 4K is very forced currently. In portable systems, many will lower the resolution to preserve battery life and increase gameplay time. If a game is that dependent upon a 4K resolution, it’s probably a rubbish game, to keep it 100 with you. A good game is still good, regardless of the resolution - Case in point? The majority of people are enjoying the Red Dead Redemption remastered release right now. The people who already played it enjoyed it at 720p on X360 and 640p on PS3. Conclusion? R* made the right call. Coming back to the “Pro” systems, No, they’re needless. Vanilla PS5/XSX already gives people the performance options that are available to most people. They even have “Up to 8K” on the box. A “Pro” device doesn’t offer any more options there because 8K sets aren’t mainstream, AND developers aren’t there in any capacity to make them matter enough. So, I am totally on point when I tell people it’s a waste. That’s BEFORE getting to the fact that we’ve had these “Pro” devices before, and they, too, overpromised and underdelivered. We could talk about how PS and XBox have done this for decades now, but pointing out such facts would be framed as “console warring” when it’s more a case of “reali-tea being spilt”. It’s also stretching resources needlessly at the expense of prospective Switch, PC, and even Mobile versions of games, which would be more fruitful for all people. So, No, I don’t see it for “best of both worlds”. Not in the traditional home console arena. Never there. On PCs, however… Go off. Sure.
Click to expand...
Right, so Sony already launched a Pro version of the PS4 and after that experience have decided to do it again, with their hundreds and hundreds of millions of consoles, endless knowledge of the market, they've got it wrong on demand because apparently everyone is happy with 720P. Really?
Can I have a source for "most people are fine with 1080p and 720p" please?
You keep repeating this, please show some receipts.
Last time I pointed out how 90% of all new TV sales are 4K, PS5 is selling gangbusters, look at the Gaming PC market, you think the top selling cards such as the 3060 are used for 720P?

You also keep repeating "overpromised and underdelivered" when referring to any non Nintendo console, could you explain this?
What resources will be stretched by a PS5 Pro?

You seem to think that because you're anti-tech (unless Nintendo) that that applies to everyone, it doesn't, the entire gaming market confirms this.
 
Nothing would change. As they would still need to make OG series S games. Another console to optimize for would make the situation worse. Realistically I don't see them dropping too much of the parity clause stuff until closer to 7 years in. Rare exceptions will be the way for now.

Maybe if next gen goes the same way, they will find a slightly healthier pared down console, if they don't just go PS5 digital style anyway.
 
grobla123 said:
Nothing would change. As they would still need to make OG series S games. Another console to optimize for would make the situation worse. Realistically I don't see them dropping too much of the parity clause stuff until closer to 7 years in. Rare exceptions will be the way for now.

Maybe if next gen goes the same way, they will find a slightly healthier pared down console, if they don't just go PS5 digital style anyway.
Click to expand...
they're already breaking that parity clause with Baldur's Gate 3. of course, Phil said there wasn't one in the first place, so who knows it that's the case or it was changed recently
 
When the Nintendo 3Ds released a revision that upped the specs and improved game performance. Only a small handful of games were actually exclusive. The remaining games just made two SKUs and continued to use the weakest version as the baseline. This is exactly what would occur if they released a new revision of the Series S as there are enough sales of it to justify a Series S base version.
 
0
Armoured_Bear said:
Right, so Sony already launched a Pro version of the PS4 and after that experience have decided to do it again, with their hundreds and hundreds of millions of consoles, endless knowledge of the market, they've got it wrong on demand because apparently everyone is happy with 720P. Really?
Can I have a source for "most people are fine with 1080p and 720p" please?
You keep repeating this, please show some receipts.
Last time I pointed out how 90% of all new TV sales are 4K, PS5 is selling gangbusters, look at the Gaming PC market, you think the top selling cards such as the 3060 are used for 720P?

You also keep repeating "overpromised and underdelivered" when referring to any non Nintendo console, could you explain this?
What resources will be stretched by a PS5 Pro?

You seem to think that because you're anti-tech (unless Nintendo) that that applies to everyone, it doesn't, the entire gaming market confirms this.
Click to expand...
I'm not educated enough to even pretend to discuss anything else here, but isn't that likely a result of most television sets offering 4K nowadays? I didn't really want it, and yet I have two 4K sets in my house because finding anything else would have been prohibitively difficult.
 
ILikeFeet said:
they're already breaking that parity clause with Baldur's Gate 3. of course, Phil said there wasn't one in the first place, so who knows it that's the case or it was changed recently
Click to expand...
Still there as of today.
learn.microsoft.com

Xbox Requirements for Xbox Console Games - Microsoft Game Development Kit

Xbox Requirements (XRs) consist of the policies, technical requirements, and product component-related requirements to which all developers and publishers of Xbox console titles must conform.
learn.microsoft.com
"Ensure that identical game modes are offered across console types within the generation."
So, Phil's still a liar.
 
ILikeFeet said:
they're already breaking that parity clause with Baldur's Gate 3. of course, Phil said there wasn't one in the first place, so who knows it that's the case or it was changed recently
Click to expand...
Exception that proves the rule. BG3 devs had to fight for what is functionally a no brainer decision for Microsoft (alternative is making defacto timed/permenant exclusives for Sony). Further exceptions may be made, perhaps. But probably not that many in the next couple of years. I doubt Microsoft want people to be afraid to buy the console which is probably selling better, and devs want to appeal to a bigger install base. S support isn't going anywhere in the short/medium term.
 
ngpdrew said:
I'm not educated enough to even pretend to discuss anything else here, but isn't that likely a result of most television sets offering 4K nowadays? I didn't really want it, and yet I have two 4K sets in my house because finding anything else would have been prohibitively difficult.
Click to expand...
Below 50” it’s easy, above 50” it would be prohibitively difficult.
Out of curiosity, why didn’t you want it?
 
grobla123 said:
Exception that proves the rule. BG3 devs had to fight for what is functionally a no brainer decision for Microsoft (alternative is making defacto timed/permenant exclusives for Sony). Further exceptions may be made, perhaps. But probably not that many in the next couple of years. I doubt Microsoft want people to be afraid to buy the console which is probably selling better, and devs want to appeal to a bigger install base. S support isn't going anywhere in the short/medium term.
Click to expand...
Only reason why the Baldur's Gate 3 devs even got it is because of the game blowing up big time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom