Microsoft Xbox Series X | S OT - Power Your Dreams, update: FTC case unredacted documents leaked, including XSX mid-generation refresh, new gyro/haptic-enabled controller, and next-generation plans for 2028

[number305]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

And that’s the rub.  Xbox One S is getting poor looking and performing SKUs that either overshoot what the hardware is capable of, or just aren’t getting the needed optimization work to shine at whatever resolution and frame rate is targeted for it.  This has been happening since the X1X came out, and has gotten progressively worse.

 

There’s a marginal gap between the Xbox One S and the PS4.  Think about how much wider that gap is going to be with the Series S to whatever is above it.

 

It’s anyone’s guess how much that holds back developers’ plans versus them outright not giving a shit (like Crystal Dynamics most recently).  Or maybe Microsoft themselves pushes that along with a new S model mid generation.

 

Series S owners should really hope for a Switch successor that’s roughly as powerful.  Maybe that would encourage more optimization effort.
 

Sliding scales on PC won’t.  It didn’t alleviate the One S’s troubles.  Why would it salvage the Series S later on this gen?

I'm a simple caveman, but from what I have taken from people smarter than me is that comparisons between the one s vs x1x and the series S vs series x are not valid. The one s and x1x were not developed together. The series S was specifically designed to scale down from the series x. It should be much easier for developers to design for the series x and scale back to the series S. 

[JPDunks4]

But isn't the main difference with the Series S vs the One S, and even base PS4, is that those base systems launched with really old CPU's to begin with, and old GPU architecture?

 

Xbox went full RDNA2 for their GPU's on both boxes.  I know Nvidia maybe pushing the envelope more with GPU Tech, but these are cutting edge GPU's in today's market, right?  Using tech that is only now starting to be utilized.

 

Then there is DLSS and ML, and how it can drastically save resources.

 

 

This was an example in a thread I saw from 2018 using ML DirectML, and they said they've gotten better since then.

Quote

Yep, it gives a 3-10x perf improvement. You can see on the blue car 1080p native on the right and on the left, 4k upscale using DirectML and this was in 2018, so they've likely made even more progress since.

 

So I do think there's a lot of what if's going on right now without really knowing the full details and breakdown of exactly how the entire system works together, including utilizing Velocity Architecture as well.

 

I've always been of the belief that developers should be allowed to make the games they want to make without mandates from Microsoft.  I didn't like the mandate to make cross gen games for a few years, but it seems they went that route cause they knew their timelines and most of their 1st party was still early in development and wouldn't need to do a cross gen game.  If it does indeed hold back game development and design then I wouldn't be a fan of it.

 

I think MIcrosoft is much more open to changing the entire business model around consoles though, and a continuous cheaper upgrade cycle may not be out of the realm of their plans.  But they would need to be up front and open about it if it were, and they haven't said anything yet, and would need to before Sept 22.

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, number305 said:

I'm a simple caveman, but from what I have taken from people smarter than me is that comparisons between the one s vs x1x and the series S vs series x are not valid. The one s and x1x were not developed together. The series S was specifically designed to scale down from the series x. It should be much easier for developers to design for the series x and scale back to the series S. 

In theory.  In practice, you can expect raytracing effects and general efforts to hit performance targets on both consoles to gum up the works.  Especially after the cross gen period.

 

We also can’t talk about this as if the Series XX won’t exist at some point.

[crispy4000]

16 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

But isn't the main difference with the Series S vs the One S, and even base PS4, is that those base systems launched with really old CPU's to begin with, and old GPU architecture?

That was last gen.  I don’t think you can simply say ‘problem solved’ for Series S with the corners it’s cutting elsewhere.

 

[Duderino]

3 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

In theory.  In practice, you can expect raytracing effects and general efforts to hit performance targets on both consoles to gum up the works.  Especially after the cross gen period.

 

We also can’t talk about this as if the Series XX won’t exist at some point.

Agreed.

 

A quick glance at PC RTX requirements illustrates just how RAM hungry Raytracing can be:
 

	Min RAM	RAM RTX
Minecraft	2 GB	8 GB
Cyberpunk	8 GB	16 GB
Control	8 GB	16 GB
BFV	8 GB	12-16 GB
COD: Cold War	8 GB	12 GB

The ID engineer is not wrong.  The Series S's RAM presents major challenges for Raytracing.  Even by the most generous estimates, the Velocity Architecture and ML Super Sampling are not likely to free up 4-8 GBs of RAM on the S.

 

All that said I do think we will see some games with Raytracing on the Series S, starting with Crysis Remastered.  These titles however will need to target a much lower RAM baseline to make it happen.

[JPDunks4]

2 minutes ago, Duderino said:

Agreed.

 

A quick glance at PC RTX requirements illustrates just how RAM hungry Raytracing can be:
 

	Min RAM	RAM RTX
Minecraft	2 GB	8 GB
Cyberpunk	8 GB	16 GB
Control	8 GB	16 GB
BFV	8 GB	12-16 GB
COD: Cold War	8 GB	12 GB

The ID engineer is not wrong.  The Series S's RAM presents major challenges.  Even by the most generous estimates, the Velocity Architecture and ML Super Sampling are not likely to free up 4-8 GBs of RAM on the S.

 

All that said I do think we will see some games with Raytracing on the Series S, starting with Crysis Remastered.  These titles however will need to target a much lower RAM baseline to make it happen.

There seems to be footage of Ray Tracing already, with Watch Dogs.

 

[Duderino]

3 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

There seems to be footage of Ray Tracing already, with Watch Dogs.

 

Hard to tell how much of this shot is Raytracing vs screen space reflections, but if Ubisoft is indeed leveraging Raytracing in a notable way on the S, the Watchdogs team deserves major props.

[crispy4000]

31 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

There seems to be footage of Ray Tracing already, with Watch Dogs.

 

It means there’s hope.  But I think we need to see what DF and the like have to say about when and where SSR is relied on.

 

It’s why I always bring up Control as a benchmark.  It does all sorts of fancy stuff with its multiprong RT effects to make them performant.  It’s the first killer app, so to speak. But as a package, it’s still really heavy on the GPU, with or without image reconstruction.  We need to see what Series S does with it to have an idea where it can be taken in the future.  All the next gen consoles, really.

[Dodger]

8 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So we're just going to pretend that Nintendo doesn't exist and as long as they do and their consoles continue to sell as well as they do that THEY aren't the lowest common denominator? I mean third party games are selling on the Switch for the simple fact that folks want to be able to play games on the go, right? How many people have I seen on this very board rebuy games for the Switch for the portability? So if Nintendo is a viable platform and they continue to release systems that DON'T push tech forward, how are THEY exempt from "holding the generation back?" Last I checked MS was THIRD this gen behind Nintendo and Sony as far as Hardware sales go. Why the Series S is ALREADY being scapegoated for "holding the next gen back" when the next Nintendo system will almost CERTAINLY be the weakest powered console of the bunch but will be toom lucrative for devs to ignore is beyond me. And this is me following YOU guys' logic. 

 

Developers have always pushed tech regardless of what the LCD has been or at least that's what PC gamers have been telling me the last 15 years. The Series S is being released with a specific consumer in mind and that's not a lot of the folks that posters on this board... cool. But you guys seem to resent the fact that it even exists  and this is in spite of the fact that some devs are saying that it WON'T hold the generation back... ah gamer logic 

 

 

 Pretty much most of the games released in the last two years have been borderline unplayable on the base PS4 and Xbox consoles by the standards of the discerning connoisseuerss of D1P. Jedi Fallen Order and Control are two that spring to mind. 

 

It’s not just here, you can see it all over it Era too. Mention the XSS and it’s all concerns that it’s going to hold back next gen, but go to a Nintendo thread and it’s all hey guys does anyone know where I can find a switch, and everyone is going crazy over a possible Switch Pro which probably won’t be any more powerful than a PS4.

 

If you don’t want a XSS don’t fucking buy one. They have a product if you want a more powerful console. Or just buy a PS5 since the Xbox has “no games” anyway. Or go show us how rich you are and get that 3090 card or whatever.

 

If the XSS flops no one will make games for it and you don’t have to worry about it. If it sells well then you’re an outlier in the market and companies aren’t worried about catering to you.

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Series S owners should really hope for a Switch successor that’s roughly as powerful.  Maybe that would encourage more optimization effort.

Why? I was just told a couple of posts up that Nintendo doesn't matter despite having the second highest selling console this gen which also happens to be the weakest. Also despite the fact that third parties are increasingly supporting Nintendo consoles more and more, the Series S is going to hold back the generation despite the fact that GTX 1060 is the most popular Graphics card on the majority of PC's today and that most PC gamers game in 1080p.

 

 

[crispy4000]

24 minutes ago, Dodger said:

If the XSS flops no one will make games for it and you don’t have to worry about it. If it sells well then you’re an outlier in the market and companies aren’t worried about catering to you.

As this industry has proved, it’s never been this black and white.

 

Nintendo has been the king of best-selling hardware that the major publishers ignore, underplay, or come fashionably late to.  The Nintendo DS.  The Wii. 3DS.  They might sell a ton, but by and large, western publishers weren’t interested in them outside of a few exceptions and general cash grabs.

 

I think what makes Series S different is that Microsoft is telling devs they must support it to put games on Series X.  For the entire generation presumably.  Nintendo never had that power.  Not even with the Switch.  But it shouldn’t convince anyone that devs will universally agree not to overshoot it, or to design to it either.
 

The norm in this industry is to cater to the best console hardware, not the one that sells the most.  At least as far as multiplatform games are concerned.

 

[crispy4000]

14 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Why? I was just told a couple of posts up that Nintendo doesn't matter despite having the second highest selling console this gen which also happens to be the weakest. Also despite the fact that third parties are increasingly supporting Nintendo consoles more and more, the Series S is going to hold back the generation despite the fact that GTX 1060 is the most popular Graphics card on the majority of PC's today and that most PC gamers game in 1080p.

 

 

Nintendo matters here mainly because having them in the same power rung could only help, not hurt.  Would that materialize in most developers optimizing well for either machine long term?  Who knows for sure.  I still wouldn’t be optimistic.

 

The GTX 1060 won’t be the most common GPU for much longer.  Neither will 1080p monitors for the crowd buying GPUs.  You already know this.

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Nintendo matters here mainly because having them in the same power rung could only help, not hurt.  Would that materialize in most developers optimizing well for either machine long term?  Who knows for sure.  I still wouldn’t be optimistic.

 

The GTX 1060 won’t be the most common GPU for much longer.  Neither will 1080p monitors for the crowd buying GPUs.  You already know this.

I don't know this at all... why do I know this and why haven't 4K monitors been adopted already?

[Spork3245]

13 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

why haven't 4K monitors been adopted already?

The same reason 4k TVs haven’t

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

The same reason 4k TVs haven’t

But I thought that PC gamers were at the cutting edge of tech  aren't 4K monitors cheaper than 4K TV's for the most part? Don't PC gamers adopt more advanced technology at an earlier rate than the unwashed masses? MAYBE it's that today's PC gamers don't give a shit about 4K as much as message board posters would have you believe?

 

[Dodger]

37 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

As this industry has proved, it’s never been this black and white.

 

Nintendo has been the king of best-selling hardware that the major publishers ignore, underplay, or come fashionably late to.  The Nintendo DS.  The Wii. 3DS.  They might sell a ton, but by and large, western publishers weren’t interested in them outside of a few exceptions and general cash grabs.

 

I think what makes Series S different is that Microsoft is telling devs they must support it to put games on Series X.  For the entire generation presumably.  Nintendo never had that power.  Not even with the Switch.  But it shouldn’t convince anyone that devs will universally agree not to overshoot it, or to design to it either.
 

The norm in this industry is to cater to the best console hardware, not the one that sells the most.  At least as far as multiplatform games are concerned.

 

Devs could always tell MS to go pound sand, and MS just doesn’t have the first party IP portfolio to withstand devs abandoning their platform like Nintendo does. Though if the XSS sells devs will make games for it since everyone likes money.

[crispy4000]

3 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Devs could always tell MS to go pound sand, and MS just doesn’t have the first party IP portfolio to withstand devs abandoning their platform like Nintendo does. Though if the XSS sells devs will make games for it since everyone likes money.

The Series S and X would both have to bomb for devs to have that kind of leverage.  They all know a substantial portion of their audience will be there.

[Spork3245]

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

But I thought that PC gamers were at the cutting edge of tech  aren't 4K monitors cheaper than 4K TV's for the most part? Don't PC gamers adopt more advanced technology at an earlier rate than the unwashed masses? MAYBE it's that today's PC gamers don't give a shit about 4K as much as message board posters would have you believe?

 

Monitors are much more expensive than TVs per inch. Non-crappy 4k monitors are $1200+ for 27”. Not sure where your information is coming from.

[crispy4000]

20 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

But I thought that PC gamers were at the cutting edge of tech  aren't 4K monitors cheaper than 4K TV's for the most part? Don't PC gamers adopt more advanced technology at an earlier rate than the unwashed masses? MAYBE it's that today's PC gamers don't give a shit about 4K as much as message board posters would have you believe?

 

Why did you jump straight from 1080p to 4K?  What about 1440p?  There’s always been an arguement that 4K on a small screen is a bit of a waste for the price. 

 

Either way, 1080p monitors will be phased out eventually.  Even the variety with variable refresh rates.

[JPDunks4]

Why will 1080p monitors be phased out?  Hardly any of the PC gamers I know want to give up the performance for 1440p.

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Why will 1080p monitors be phased out?  Hardly any of the PC gamers I know want to give up the performance for 1440p.

Yea, ASUS just released 360hz GSync 1080p monitors in the past few months. Some people chase framerate for that feeling of playing on a 20+ year old no-input lag CRT  

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Why will 1080p monitors be phased out?  Hardly any of the PC gamers I know want to give up the performance for 1440p.

For the same reasons that 720p monitors got phased out.  Give it time.

[skillzdadirecta]

27 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Monitors are much more expensive than TVs per inch. Non-crappy 4k monitors are $1200+ for 27”. Not sure where your information is coming from.

So there aren't cheap 4K monitors out there? I may have been wrong about the comparison to 4K tv's, I'll eat that. But 4K monitors can still be found relatively cheap and PC gamers HAVEN'T adopted them widely is my point. Why? Because resolution isn't that imoportant for most of them especially given how close they sit to their screens.

 

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

For the same reasons that 720p monitors got phased out.  Give it time.

We're waiting...

[crispy4000]

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

We're waiting...

 

Not long enough.  Most computers today aren't even being run at 1080p.  There's still plenty of sub 1080p monitors still in circulation.

 

For gaming, I expect we'll see 1440p monitors increase in popularity as we see the 1060 dethroned as the most popular gpu.

[JPDunks4]

How would a 4TF GPU with Machine Learning, Variable Rate Shading, Sampler Feedback Streaming compare to a 9.2 TF GPU without those features.

 

And would a next gen console launching without these features hold back games?

[Spork3245]

20 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So there aren't cheap 4K monitors out there?

 

Bad ones, sure. But that’s like buying a Hisense or Insignia TV. A typical PC gamer would rather a good low-response time, high refresh rate monitor with proper color accuracy and a clear panel as opposed to having a bad 4k monitor for the sake of pixels.

 

Quote

But 4K monitors can still be found relatively cheap and PC gamers HAVEN'T adopted them widely is my point. Why?

 

I already stated why. 

 

Quote

Because resolution isn't that imoportant for most of them especially given how close they sit to their screens.

Not quite. Until semi-recently 4k monitors were stuck at 60hz as well as fairly poor response times which made them unattractive compared to a high-quality lower-resolution monitor, not to mention the majority used TN panels and not IPS. 4k monitors also still do not have real HDR unless you spend $1200+. There’s also a not insignificant amount of PC gamers who don’t want to go 4k until they can get 240hz monitors (because 120-144 clearly isn’t enough for some  ), others simply don’t wish to upgrade until (real) HDR is widely available at a non-ridiculous price.

I’m not totally following the “tiny screen” argument as you still want something like 40” for 2-3 feet away for 4k, and that’s also ignoring the other issues present with most current 4k (gaming) monitors:

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what point you’re trying to make here? 

[Xbob42]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Except they don’t. We’ve seen this especially clear with the mid cycle refreshes and some really poor performing titles on the base consoles the last couple of years. The poster child for this is Control.

But they released it on the base consoles. It's not like Control was the post child for performance on ANY console. The thing is, devs seem to have spent the last 15 years not giving a shit about how their games perform on consoles, caring less and less, because as we see on this very forum, "it's fine" is often echoed as an excuse for poor performance. So why not push it a little further? And a little further still? If no one cares about performance, why do we keep spending so much on optimizing these games?

Now, obviously it's not as simple as that, but I imagine it doesn't slip the mind of these devs and publishers, either. Ratchet and Clank finally gave up 60 FPS "because 60 FPS doesn't sell games."

Titles like Bloodborne are out there proving you don't even need good frame pacing, BotW sold just fine despite hitting 10ish FPS at times. You see that enough times and maybe you wonder if it's worth spending dev time on optimization when zealots ardently defend the game as though their honor was on the line, and reviews almost never seem impacted in any serious way.

When I say they "cater" to the lowest common denominator, I don't mean they somehow make base versions of games great performers, I just mean the base consoles still get the games and the games are shackled to the limitations of said platforms. Just like the Series S.

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

How would a 4TF GPU with Machine Learning, Variable Rate Shading, Sampler Feedback Streaming compare to a 9.2 TF GPU without those features.

You're talking about a GTX 1080, right?

Unanswerable question until we get a better idea of what games will utilize Machine Learning and SFS for.  VRS is a relatively small gain.

 

We do know that there isn't the RAM available to the Series S' GPU to natively run X1X versions.

[AbsolutSurgen]

The fundamental challenge being raised by the game engine creators with the SeS is the memory, not the GPU.  Lowering rendering resolution does not compensate for this -- at least according to the programmers at iD.  It's easy to turn down the sliders on a GPU, but if the game doesn't fit in RAM, you need to turn down features.

10 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So we're just going to pretend that Nintendo doesn't exist and as long as they do and their consoles continue to sell as well as they do that THEY aren't the lowest common denominator? I mean third party games are selling on the Switch for the simple fact that folks want to be able to play games on the go, right? How many people have I seen on this very board rebuy games for the Switch for the portability?

 

Huh?  The big AAA multi-platform games aren't on Switch.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Bad ones, sure. But that’s like buying a Hisense or Insignia TV. A typical PC gamer would rather a good low-response time, high refresh rate monitor with proper color accuracy and a clear panel as opposed to having a 4k monitor for the sake of pixels.

 

 

I already stated why. 

 

Not quite. Until semi-recently 4k monitors were stuck at 60hz as well as fairly poor response times which made them unattractive compared to a high-quality lower-resolution monitor, not to mention the majority used TN panels and not IPS. 4k monitors also still do not have real HDR unless you spend $1200+. There’s also a not insignificant amount of PC gamers who don’t wanna to go 4k until they can get 240hz monitors (because 120-144 clearly isn’t enough for some  ), others simply don’t wish to upgrade until (real) HDR is widely available at a non-ridiculous price.

I’m not totally following the “tiny screen” argument as you still want something like 40” for 3.5 feet away for 4k, and that’s also ignoring the other issues present with current 4k monitors:

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what point you’re trying to make here? 

I guess the point I'm making is that resolution just doesn't seem to a priority for even most PC gamers if A. the most commonly used graphics card is a 1080p card and B. most PC gamers aren't gaming in 4k, this concern that the Series S (which won't even be the lowest common denominator) will hold things back seems overblown to me. THAT'S what I'm getting at... there's all of these examples of lower powered tech being more prevalent even in the PC gaming ecosystem yet folks are concerned about the Series S. Which isn't even out yet 

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Huh?  The big AAA multi-platform games aren't on Switch.

Doom isn't? Mortal Kombat isn't? The Witcher 3 isn't? Doom Eternal isn't coming? 3rd parties are gonna support Nintendo consoles because there's so many of them out in the wild. They would be fools not to.

[crispy4000]

44 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I guess the point I'm making is that resolution just doesn't seem to a priority for even most PC gamers if A. the most commonly used graphics card is a 1080p card and B. most PC gamers aren't gaming in 4k, this concern that the Series S (which won't even be the lowest common denominator) will hold things back seems overblown to me. THAT'S what I'm getting at... there's all of these examples of lower powered tech being more prevalent even in the PC gaming ecosystem yet folks are concerned about the Series S. Which isn't even out yet 

If resolution wasn’t a priority at all for PC gamers you’d see people playing at 720p still.  
 

Its more that 1080p strikes a balance with the hardware at current.  A 1060 can run most current gen games at a solid 1080p60fps, sometimes at 1440p even, and higher framerates if you opt for low settings.  I’d expect the next widely adopted GPU to do the same for next-gen games at a higher resolution.

 

With the S, there’s plenty of reasons to think 1440p won’t be standard for it for long.  Is it going to be more capable than an RTX 2060?  That’s poised to be the bare bones, low end next gen GPU that *might* hold 1080p throughout the gen if RT is commonplace. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

If resolution wasn’t a priority at all for PC gamers you’d see people playing at 720p still.  

 

I didn't say it wasn't a priority. I said it wasn't as HIGH as a priority as message board posters (particularly the ones on THIS board) would have you believe. 

 

Quote

With the S, there’s plenty of reasons to think 1440p won’t be standard for it for long.  Is it going to be more capable than an RTX 2060?  That’s poised to be the bare bones, low end next gen GPU.

 

When is that going to happen? How long into this next gen will the RTX 2060 become the PC standard? and if so, who's to say that MS won't either A. offer an upgrade path from the Series S to the Series X, or B. Refresh to Series S much like the did with the original X Box One to match whatever the standard will be on the PC or to at least keep up. 

 

You guys are speculating worse case scenarios and its truly mind boggling especially given that the speculation seems to be entirely centered on MS who isn't even the market leader in the console space. They are THIRD. And they won't even have the weakest console on the market because WHATEVER nintendo does next will undoubtedbly be underpowered compared to Sony and MS especially if it iterates on the immensly popular Switch.

 

#concerntrolling

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

When I say they "cater" to the lowest common denominator, I don't mean they somehow make base versions of games great performers, I just mean the base consoles still get the games and the games are shackled to the limitations of said platforms. Just like the Series S.

But they don’t. The exact opposite has been proven true with this generation and the mid cycle refreshes. The same is true of third part titles in the 360/PS3 era where they most often made them around the abilities of the 360 and then cut things back on the PS3 to make it work. 
 

So the most likely scenario here is that the Series X will be the target and the PS5 and XSS will have lesser versions until the mid cycle refresh, then whichever of those is more powerful will be the new target and things will be scaled back for the rest. I would even wager that the XSS will eventually have titles that are only supported via xCloud and not native on the hardware.

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

When is that going to happen? How long into this next gen will the RTX 2060 become the PC standard?

I think we’ll see one of the new or currently released RTX cards become that within the next 2 years.  It didn’t take the 1060 too long.

 

22 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

and if so, who's to say that MS won't either A. offer an upgrade path from the Series S to the Series X, or B. Refresh to Series S much like the did with the original X Box One to match whatever the standard will be on the PC or to at least keep up. 

Microsoft can’t just snap their fingers and make all the old Series S’s go away.  They’d still be introducing additional SKU’s to optimize for.  Think of it on the developers end.

 

22 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You guys are speculating worse case scenarios and its truly mind boggling especially given that the speculation seems to be entirely centered on MS who isn't even the market leader in the console space. They are THIRD. And they won't even have the weakest console on the market because WHATEVER nintendo does next will undoubtedbly be underpowered compared to Sony and MS especially if it iterates on the immensly popular Switch.

The Switch gets ported to by outside teams because of the power gap.  What’s going to happen with Series S ports over time?

 

This isn’t concern trolling, because there isn’t precedent.  We’ve never had a console like the Series S come out at launch.  It occupies a space unlike any other.  All you can do is speculate on way or the other based on history and the spec sheet.