According to documents from Microsoft’s recent case against the FTC, the Xbox Series S is more popular than the Xbox Series X

  • ForgetReddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who doesn’t own an Xbox I have no idea what the difference is and that’s a huge knock on their marketing and product teams.

            • Vordus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              34
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It becomes even more confusing when you think about the fact that the Xbox One is not the Xbox 1, which was just the Xbox. And that the Xbox One X, the souped up version of the Xbox One, can be abbreviated as the XBOX, which again, is not the original Xbox.

            • beefcat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They thought people would be confused by the Xbox 2 going up against the PlayStation 3 so they deliberately adotped even more confusing names.

    • bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. If you were going to buy an xbox, you would either just buy the cheaper version, the more expensive version assuming its just better, or look up the difference.

  • 2000mph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    It makes sense. It may suprise a lot of people on here but their biggest market is not the people who demand 4k 60FPS in all games and will riot if they don’t get it. Their main market is kids playing FIFA and Minecraft and other casual gamers who just enjoy fun games at a reasonable budget. For that they really got it right with the Series S.

    • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope they don’t take this as a sign that physical media is dead. Personally, I still like to have the physical media, especially for single player games, so they can’t pull the rug out from under me if they decide to close their digital store, or lose the rights, or whatever. Digital only means you never really own your games.

      • Weirdfish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I agree with you, the fact that no game has released in the past 10 years without major patches and updates means what’s on that physical media is useless

        • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It depends on how impactful those updates are. I have at least 200 hours in to Tears of the Kingdom, and I’ve been avoiding updates since very early days so I can use some item duplication glitches. I haven’t run into anything that makes the game unplayable, just some glitches that I have to put effort into doing, and I think make the game much better. But Nintendo is a company that would rather push back a release date than release a broken came “on time”.

          I do think the ability to push updates has made companies pretty lazy when it comes to making sure things are really solid before they ship.

          If I have to choose between a game with no updates, or no game at all, I’m going to pick a game with no updates. At least I have a sporting chance.

    • Grangle1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nintendo understanding this market is a big part of how they’ve been outselling MS and Sony in the Wii and Switch generations despite being behind on hardware power.

    • Phanatik@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue that the Steam Deck’s emulation capabilities surpass the Xbox. It might not play the latest games at amazing quality and performance, but it covers a wide breadth of games, far wider than what Xbox supports.

      • Vordus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends on whether you’re willing to spend $20 to turn your Series S into a devkit, at which point the S can be an utter beast for emulation.

      • Desistance@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam deck is a mobile PC. That’s infinitely more valuable than a locked down platform device.

        • tal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, I would rather have a Steam Deck too, but then we’re getting into how much people value openness versus price, and that’s definitely not a constant; some people aren’t going to care much about openness.

          That said, if I were trying to compare Valve’s offering and Microsoft’s offering, I’d probably compare a desktop PC running Steam to the XBox, as they’re more-physically-comparable in terms of what they can do; the Series S doesn’t have one having to pay for mobility. If one were comparing to a mobile console, then sure, the Deck is a legit comparison.

          I still would say that the XBox Series S is going to be cheaper on the low end, though, than a desktop PC. You can get a $279 PC that can play games and a comparable controller, but I’d bet that it’d be more-limited than a Series S.

          That being said, Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, and then makes it back by jacking up the price of games:

          https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-says-xbox-consoles-have-always-been-sold-at-a-loss

          As VGC points out, Wright was also asked if there’s ever been a profit generated from an Xbox console sale, which she confirmed has never happened. To put that in context, Microsoft has been selling Xbox consoles for nearly 20 years now, including the original Xbox, the Xbox 360, Xbox One, and now the Xbox Series X and Series S. In all that time, every single console sale cost Microsoft money.

          The reason game consoles end up being profitable is through a combination of software, service, and accessory sales, but it’s still surprising to find Microsoft has never achieved hardware profitability. Analyst Daniel Ahmad confirmed that the PS4 eventually became profitable for Sony and that Nintendo developed the Switch to be profitable quickly, so Microsoft is the odd one out.

          We know that consumers weight the up-front price of hardware disproportionately – that’s why you have companies selling cell phones at a loss, locking them to their network, and then making the money back in increased subscription fees. I assume that that’s to try to take advantage of that phenomenon.

          If you wanted to compare the full price that you pay over the lifetime of the console, one would probably need to account for the increased game price on consoles and how many games someone would buy.

          Now, all that being said, I don’t have a Series S or a Series X, and I’m not arguing that someone should buy them. I have a Linux PC for gaming precisely because I do value openness, so in terms of which system I’d rather have, you’re preaching to the choir. I’m just saying that I don’t think that I’d agree with the above statement that the Deck is as cheap as the Series S.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The “S” had a good two years lead in availability, so anyone who needed to replace their console got that. Anyone impatient got that.

      Personally I gave up after two years not being able to get my kids X’s, and instead built gaming computers with them. No more xboxes

      • Protoknuckles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been waiting for a game that will be worth it, that I can only play on a new console, and so far I haven’t seen one. I’m closer to upgrading my graphics card than getting a new console at this point.

  • Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well yeah, most people are still using 1080p TVs. Your average console gamer doesn’t need 4K, nor do they care about framerates. They just want to play games*.

  • lorty@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The S is very popular in the rest of the world precisely because of its cheap price and gamepass.

    • legion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m 95% a PC gamer, but if I was a broke college student, a Series S plus Game Pass would keep me busy all the way through school.

  • analisys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have both X and S and love the S. It’s almost portable, small, slick and gives enough power to enjoy games when I’m not in front of huge tv.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I own a Series X, but I also own a 4k TV. So, for me, it made sense to spend the extra $$$ and get a console that could truly utilize my TV’s capabilities. If I had a 1080p TV, I probably would have gone with the Series S.

    • scottywh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I own a Series X and a 4k TV but I actually use it to game on my older 1080p TV.

      I bought the Series X for the disc drive & larger internal storage primarily with the better overall specs and performance just being a bonus.

  • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s an absurd value. I have two that I just use as media centers and the house. You can also travel with it very easily. About the same size as my switch one you put a travel case on it.

    • TrustingZebra@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t buy one just for media. Even premium media players like NVIDIA SHIELD TV or Apple TV cost less than Xbox Series S.

      • Grangle1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Heck, a Roku Streaming Stick is enough for me in that regard and many smart TVs have that stuff built into them by now.

  • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither is very popular…lol

    I know of 3 people in my life that have owned or do own an xbox.but almost everyonw i know own or have owned a playstation

    Generally theyre not super popular outside of the US.

    • learningduck@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Especially in Asia, which is a shame. My country doesn’t has a game pass and no official store. At least now we have a GP on PC, but not on the console yet

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        nah, this was true during launch when both were constantly sold out, but now that availability has grown this has not stayed linear. the PS5 currently makes up around half of all consoles sold in the UK, followed by switch and eventually xbox. xbox sales are actually down 20% or so year-to-date.

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The X is trying to compete in a premium space, long with the PS5. The X falls short of the PS5 in almost every category that a premium consumer cares about, and I don’t think premium consumers are interested in value-oriented subscriptions like GamePass.

    The S is competing with… Well definitely not the Switch. I wouldn’t say the Steam Deck either. It was competing to an extent with the PS4 and Xbox One, but not anymore. The S has kind of been left in its own market, so this news makes sense.

    Maybe the Switch 2 will have some overlap in that market, but assuming it’s a hybrid handheld it might still be differentiated enough to leave the S on it’s own. Sony has been working on lowering the cost of the PS5 but I can’t see that getting anywhere near S territory. So unless something else drops I don’t see the S having competition any time soon.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The X falls short of the PS5 in almost every category that a premium consumer cares about…

      What are the other categories aside from exclusives?

      • paultimate14@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Controller features, VR, non-proprietsry storage.

        When you’re talking about a premium market in particular, I think most high-end consumers who care about the aesthetics of their living room would prefer the official, matching Dualsense charger/stand over Microsoft’s charging kit.

        The exclusives are huge, especially factoring in backwards-compatibility. Xbox is undoubtedly a better value if you already have a library of older Xbox games or you are shopping used. But if you divide consumers up into Budget, Value, and Premium tiers, I don’t think the Premium tier consumers care about playing games that old. The PS4 had way more big-budget AAA exclusives than the Xbox One did, so I think PlayStation has the advantage there.

        Weirdly, I think there’s some dissonance with this around disc drives. I would think premium consumers would care less about physical media: they aren’t buying used games and probably have concerns for the aesthetic of storing physical media. I personally prefer physical media, but I consider myself a value consumer who has no qualms buying used and can handle a little bit of clutter. So I think disc drive versions are valued less by the premium segment, but costs more to manufacture. So I think that boosts the sales of the diaclsss PS5. Premium consumers aren’t interested in the Series S at all though, so if they do go Xbox they just get the X and don’t use the drive. I kind of wonder how the market will react if the rumors of Sony selling an external drive end up true.

        • Goronmon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m unsure of these “premium” consumers caring about proprietary vs non-proprietary storage. Or caring about VR in the context of consoles instead of PCs. Or that the charger stand being a concern when the PS5 looks like it does.