Microsoft's worst kept secret--the Xbox Series S--has finally gotten its long-awaited reveal. Following a multitude of leaks, most recently one involving a release date and price, Microsoft has stepped in to confirm that yes, there will be a next-generation Xbox that is less powerful than the Xbox Series X, while still offering strong performance and value. Though we still don't know the price for the Xbox Series X, the smaller and freshly announced Xbox Series S will retail for $299.99/£249.99, with more detailed information coming soon. We also get the tagline "next-gen performance in the smallest Xbox ever".

The previous leaks indicated that by contrast, the Xbox Series X is planned to be priced at $499, with both systems releasing on November 10th, though this information is currently unconfirmed and is being reported as an "insider tip" by Windows Central.

Source

 

[Veho]

Cute. I like this design more than the refrigerator. And I think having a cheaper version in their range will definitely give them an edge.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

I feel like this is Microsoft's way of finally implementing their "always on" DRM from the Xbox One.

"Can't complain about online checks because you don't have internet access if you bought a console to download games from the internet"

If they do that, they're screwed. Maybe you meant it metaphorically, but if they actually went full 1984 on these systems, not even the Xbox Series S being digital only would be an excuse. As long as the games are already installed on the SSD, why should my system, which may not be able to connect to the Internet for whatever reason because Comcast's monopoly is the worst, be locked out?

I just don't see them ever trying that ever again anytime soon. It, on top of everything else in 2012/2013, killed whatever lead Microsoft could have taken over Sony in this current gen.

 

[p1ngpong]

I feel like this is Microsoft's way of finally implementing their "always on" DRM from the Xbox One.

"Can't complain about online checks because you don't have internet access if you bought a console to download games from the internet"

In ten years every console will cost £100 and be a streaming only device anyway. No point fighting the wave, just ride it.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

In ten years every console will cost £100 and be a streaming only device anyway. No point fighting the wave, just ride it.

And that would be the end of gaming for me, personally. It's not like I spend as much time playing games as I used to, especially when having money (and not being in debt) allows you to do so much more than when one's in high school.

 

[MohammedQ8]

To be honest I wish this is the real Nintendo switch pro

 

[Ty_]

I'm getting a sinking feeling that either games are gonna be held back by the Xbox Series S, or that not every game will ultimately end up being supported by the former.

Why? Common sense says the X will be a 4k focused console (or 1800p or whatever), and the S will offer essentially the same quality but at 1080p etc. The gameplay itself doesn't necessarily need to change.

 

[Bladexdsl]

In ten years every console will cost £100 and be a streaming only device anyway. No point fighting the wave, just ride it.

so every console a shield TV

 

[|<roni&g]

Be sure not to buy or encourage this version of the console, consoles need to have a disc/physical media slot for many decades to come. All digital deprives the gamer of a return on their investment and freedom to buy games for $3 that digital stores sell for $50. It's not cheaper in the long run.

 

[tfocosta]

LEAKED... THIS WAS ONE OF THE INITIAL PROTOTYPES OF THE XBOX SERIES S.
- OH, WAIT ISN'T THAT A...?
- YES, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE THINKING... HOTTEST DESIGN, WHAT A WARM SURPRISE!

 

[Silent_Gunner]

Be sure not to buy or encourage this version of the console, consoles need to have a disc/physical media slot for many decades to come. All digital deprives the gamer of a return on their investment and freedom to buy games for $3 that digital stores sell for $50. It's not cheaper in the long run.

I think, at first, the disc versions of the systems will be preferred. These games, unless they really start compressing how much space they take up, are gonna eat up whatever unsatisfactory SSD they're gonna include inside of both of these systems. So if one can offload that storage onto physical media, then I think it will start off this way. But as SSD storage gets cheaper, with M.2 to follow, I think you'll be seeing more adoption of what is, ultimately, the inevitable, whether you or I like it or not.

 

[|<roni&g]

I think, at first, the disc versions of the systems will be preferred. These games, unless they really start compressing how much space they take up, are gonna eat up whatever unsatisfactory SSD they're gonna include inside of both of these systems. So if one can offload that storage onto physical media, then I think it will start off this way. But as SSD storage gets cheaper, with M.2 to follow, I think you'll be seeing more adoption of what is, ultimately, the inevitable, whether you or I like it or not.

It's inevitable if the customers accept it, like they accepted Sony charging for online, then Nintendo following & now fools who are blinded by the 100-200 dollar lower price tag will adopt this.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

It's inevitable if the customers accept it, like they accepted Sony charging for online, then Nintendo following & now fools who are blinded by the 100-200 dollar lower price tag will adopt this.

It all depends how comfortable console players are with abandoning physical copies of games.

 

[MadonnaProject]

No disc? no thanks.

 

[tfocosta]

Generally speaking, "new age" players are getting more and more used to have digital copies, since they take up no physical space (avoiding hoarding) and keep them at the height of the modern/digital era. It also keeps the games protected from becoming unplayable due to physical damage. Even though a HDD can stop working any time and you may lose your progress, you will be able to retrieve the game from your library while the online services are alive. You can't guarantee this on a physical copy. Once it is "that" damaged, you are done.

This can change the game for "old school" players, like myself, that would rather hoard/collect all the physical copies of the games they really enjoy in a beautiful collection than having a "depersonalized" collection stored in their HDDs, I would say. Just sharing my opinion. I'm not against digital collections. Just in favor of physical, that is.

If you look at it in terms of "portability", digital copies will win this battle. But at home, I don't see the advantages of having digital rather than physical copies, apart from the few points I have mentioned above. Maybe I'm not considering other points you could consider relevant in this matter, but this is how I see it as an end user.

I use both digital and physical, depending on the games we are talking about, but mostly physical, as much as I can and while I can afford it. And there's always the chance to get a physical copy from 3rd party sellers for a cheaper price, this being used or brand new.

But there will always be mixed feelings about this and as far as we know, gaming industry companies will always prefer the less expensive options that will still give them more profit, even though this will lead to some unsatisfied users/customers that will end up getting used to the new market trends established by the big companies like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Android, Apple, etc.

 

[Kioku]

Interesting... I'm more curious to see how it performs compared to the X...

 

[Silent_Gunner]

Interesting... I'm more curious to see how it performs compared to the X...

I'm gonna wager a guess that this is going to be the "Made-For-1080p-And-Only-1080p players" option. Which makes sense, as 4K, even with cutting edge PC's, you're usually making tradeoffs between refresh rate and other factors, at least in anything that isn't a more premium monitor (and if you're gonna pay a premium for a monitor, I kind of would like it to have be an ultrawide and have a high refresh rate, but that's just me).

 

[Moon164]

I never cared much for the Xbox, I always bought only consoles from Nintendo and Sony (and Sega too).

But that really caught my attention, $ 200 is a considerable price difference (it's $1059 around here, you can buy a used Xbox One for that price), I don't have a 4K TV and I never cared much for graphics, if the Xbox Series S really can run all PS5 and Series X games throughout the generation so it really is the best option for me.

I'm just afraid if it will actually be able to run all games during this generation and how it will affect the industry in general, 12 TFlops for just 4 TFlops and 16 GB of RAM for just 10 GB of RAM (not to mention differences in GPU) seem to me quite considerable differences, if a company wants to use the hardware of the PS5 and Series X to the maximum it will be able to port this game without problems to the Series S ?, will companies not end up preferring to use less of the hardware of the new consoles to facilitate the port for the weaker console ?

 

[LightyKD]

Should have gone with a cube shape -Oh well, the speaker look isn't so horrible but it really sucks that there is no disc slot.

 

[Trash_Bandatcoot]

That's still a lot of money for a stripped-down console.

Reminder that the Wii U was the same price. $300 is reasonable in my opinion.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

About what I expected price-wise, though I'll still be disappointed if the specs end up being true. I still expect Sony will match $499 on their physical and then $450 on digital, and this announcement kinda cements that expectation so that's nice.