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

Xbox Series S on stage
(Image credit: Windows Central | Bing Image Creator)

The Xbox Series S has been a bit of a controversial topic since its inception. Designed for maximum affordability, the $300 RRP "next-gen" Xbox console has often been blamed for various things. Even I have speculated that some games might have skipped the Xbox platform entirely owing to developers building games for the PS5 first and then not wanting (or affording) to optimize the game for the weaker Xbox Series S. Others have suggested the Xbox Series S is "holding gaming back" by forcing developers to account for its system requirements. For sure, there have been plenty of headlines over the past three years borne of developers commenting on the difficulty of working with the system. 

It all came to a head this past summer when Baldur's Gate 3 developer Larian Studios candidly noted that it was having trouble porting the game to Xbox Series X|S. Larian couldn't reconcile Baldur's Gate 3's couch co-op, Microsoft's feature parity clause, and the Xbox Series S spec sheet. The episode led to a rightful correcting of Xbox policies, allowing for developers to be a little more flexible with how they optimize and target the Xbox Series S. Still, it was a sore point for Xbox fans initially. It seemed customers were destined to miss out on yet another game that could've easily counted itself among the best Xbox games of 2023

Publishers in particular are quite secretive about the reasons why games might skip a console, and speculation is often used to fill the gap instead. I've gone back and forth with myself over the Xbox Series S, and whether or not it was the correct strategy for Microsoft. I think in the end, some of my conclusions were wrong. Here's why I now think the two-SKU platform was the correct one for Xbox, and one that I hope Microsoft will continue exploring going forward. 

Xbox Series S and Steam Deck are incentivizing optimization, and getting results

The 1TB Xbox Series S in Carbon Black

The new Xbox Series S Carbon Black 1TB.  (Image credit: Microsoft)

After the Xbox Series X launch, I found myself temporarily stranded owing to pandemic lockdown rules, and was unable to travel back to my home where my Xbox Series X lived. While I waited for the world to reorganize itself, I picked up an Xbox Series S partially out of curiosity, but primarily because the Xbox Series X was totally sold out in Germany at the time. 

The Xbox Series X is the most powerful video game console in the world on paper, and is designed to power 4K resolution experiences on compatible TV sets. It is also $500, however, which is not a traditional video game console price point. Everything has gotten more expensive in recent years, yet still, Microsoft sought to offer a $300 price point in the form of the 1080p-targeting Xbox Series S. The Xbox Series S has a few compromises to get it down to that price point, including the removal of a disc drive alongside less RAM. Still, it matches the Xbox Series X on speed, and is often capable of hitting 60 FPS across a variety of games, at least generally speaking. 

I distinctly remember being disappointed by the fact Chivalry 2 couldn't hit 60 FPS on the Xbox Series S. This is a melee-oriented fighting game that practically begs to be 60 FPS, but the Xbox Series S didn't seem capable of it at the time. However, eventually, the developers did manage to squeeze 60 FPS into the thing, quite impressively. There are a few other success stories about Xbox Series S optimization, but perhaps more recently was this one below, shared by none other than Larian Studios of Baldur's Gate 3 fame. 

A little while ago, I wrote a critique about the state of Microsoft's Xbox hardware lineup. I opined that it would only get more difficult for developers to optimize for the Xbox Series S as we get further into the generation, as developers increasingly build games for PlayStation 5 and high-end PC hardware first, with the Xbox Series S as an afterthought. There are a few key factors I overlooked, however. 

Developers that ship on Xbox Series X also have to ship on Xbox Series S, per Microsoft's policy, as we established. Armed with this incentive, Larian was able to discover a huge optimization boost while exploring porting the game from PC to Xbox Series S. A boost of 34% is incredibly impressive, and not only for the Xbox Series S, but other platforms as well. It's in those other platforms on the low-end that are potentially going to further help incentivize Xbox Series S optimizations down the line, as a byproduct. 

I played a ton of Baldur's Gate 3 on the Steam Deck over the summer, and it was a bit rough initially. Eventually, I got my hands on the far more powerful ASUS ROG Ally PC handheld. Even with boosted hardware, the ASUS ROG Ally is a little notorious for VRAM bottlenecks, though, when games haven't made particular considerations. 

You can manually adjust the VRAM on the ASUS ROG Ally to give yourself boosted performance, but it doesn't always work out. Diablo 4 can be a little rough on the ASUS ROG Ally, owing to VRAM utilization, but things have gradually improved. Why is that? Well, Diablo 4 is on Steam now, and has joined the Steam Deck verified program. While it is a different platform, the Steam Deck has similar hardware constraints to the Xbox Series S. Its increasing popularity may make developers reconsider their optimization investments as a result.

PC game optimization has been a fraught debate over the past year, with various games launching with aggressive minimum recommended specs, designed for the high-end first with optimizations as an afterthought. People panicked at the Alan Wake 2 minimum recommended specs, but it turns out that the game is actually fairly well-optimized even on the lower end. It also runs impressively well on the Xbox Series S, despite its next-level atmospherics and environmental detail. The above analysis we shot was also before further optimizations Remedy has made since publishing. 

The fact remains that the vast majority of the world still plays on older, or cheaper systems. The high-profile discussion of the Xbox Series S over the past summer seems to have resulted in evidence that it can produce next-gen results at a reduced resolution. 

Perhaps the primary issue was one of inflexibility on Microsoft's part — flexibility Larian has now won, hopefully for other developers as well. Larian won't have to include couch co-op in Baldur's Gate 3 at launch on the Xbox Series S, which is in line with the fact it's disabled by default on the Steam Deck. Rendering the same game twice with two separate cameras is an intensive feat, and partially why couch co-op in these types of games is becoming a rarity. With Microsoft now offering developers more flexibility on how games ship on the Xbox Series X|S platform, hopefully, issues like the one we saw with Baldur's Gate 3 over the summer will be an exception.

A more accessible entry point for gamers, and Microsoft

Xbox Series S

The new Xbox Series S starter bundle comes with Game Pass for good measure.  (Image credit: Microsoft)

Valve announced the new Steam Deck OLED yesterday, and it remains incredibly affordable. On the lower end, you can grab a Steam Deck for a fair bit less than an Xbox Series X, and gain portability on top. Valve's little machine is an incredibly impressive feat of engineering but also demands that developers reconsider their approaches to building games. The handheld gaming PC space is very early days right now, but it's doubtless poised to grow exponentially in the coming years. These aren't full-blown desktop gaming PCs, they demand careful optimization to be utilized properly, much like the Xbox Series S. 

The Steam Deck might be affordable, but the Lenovo Legion Go and ASUS ROG Ally are significantly more expensive and may adopt more of a niche market. The Xbox Series S is also incredibly affordable, and will likely get some generous discounts as we head into Black Friday 2023. 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. Sourcing for the Xbox Series S seemed a lot more manageable for Microsoft, and its availability has kept Microsoft's install base at pace with PlayStation 5 in its primary markets. Without the Xbox Series S, Microsoft's current-gen console efforts would be in dire straits. 

Microsoft may have solved the stock levels for the Xbox Series X largely in its key markets, but I think it's simply a good thing that Microsoft has a more affordable option available for those who have to make tighter financial decisions. Post-pandemic inflation has shifted prices of various daily essentials skyward, but the Xbox Series S price has stayed put at $300 in most territories. It's a shame, then, that Microsoft wasn't able to keep the price down in Brazil and some other nations, which have seen price increases for reasons unknown. Hopefully, Microsoft will revise these prices back down as soon as it can, because it is that affordability and volume that makes it a great play. The more gamers out there with Xbox Series S, Steam Deck, and other similarly-priced endpoints should further incentivize developers to seek deeper optimizations, while also creating a wider audience for their products. 

Time to give the Xbox Series S its dues

Image of the Xbox Series S.

(Image credit: Windows Central)

It's easy to blame the Xbox Series S for some of the issues we've seen Microsoft have throughout this generation. It is a development sink to have to consider an additional platform while targeting the Xbox line-up, but hopefully, it'll be an increasingly worthwhile one. Having a game optimized for lower-end hardware like the Xbox Series S or the Steam Deck will hopefully become far more lucrative in the coming years, if Microsoft can keep pace with availability, and perhaps explore new paradigms too. 

Xbox Cloud Gaming might be on the back burner now, but I know for a fact Microsoft is deeply intrigued by handheld PC gaming. The future of gaming will be found in the flexibility to play wherever you want, however you want — but global internet speeds make cloud gaming too inconvenient. The dream of an Xbox Series S handheld could be fulfilled someday, and Microsoft would have hundreds of 1080p-optimized games ready to take advantage. 4K doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you're playing on a 7-inch screen, after all. 

So, in closing, I humbly apologize to the Xbox Series S. I hail Larian and other developers whose technical wizardry remains ever-inspiring. And I implore Microsoft to continue supporting the affordable end of console gaming. 

TOPICS
CATEGORIES
Jez Corden
Executive Editor

Jez Corden is the Executive Editor at Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by tea. Follow on Twitter (X) and Threads, and listen to his XB2 Podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!

  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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).
    Reply
  • 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".
    Reply
  • Jez Corden
    G Doggy Jr said:
    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.
    Reply
  • Jez Corden
    fjtorres5591 said:
    "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.
    Reply
  • Jez Corden
    kliffy 542 said:
    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.
    Reply
  • G Doggy Jr
    Jez Corden said:
    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 otherwiseI 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.
    Reply
  • Kaymd
    G Doggy Jr said:
    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 otherwiseI 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.
    Reply
  • G Doggy Jr
    Kaymd said:
    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:
    porting to weak hardware forces devs to expend more effort than porting to powerful hardware
    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.
    Reply
  • MantunesjrBR
    Excellent article. And above all, thank you very much for mentioning the absurd price increase of the Series S in Brazil.
    Reply