The thing is, PC games don't have this issue since expectations are different based on hardware configuration. A lot of great features have to be dropped from the end product since the Series S cannot support them, and Microsoft expects parity between console versions (whereas on PC you can just turn the setting off and put a minimum requirements section on steam for additional details so you can keep cool things available but disabled for the entry level hardware).

Also, the console subsidy is coming to a close, at least if Xbox's repeated corporate restructurings (they can't sustain a division making 50 cents on the dollar forever) and ongoing hardware prices are anything to go off of.

The switch 2 is a different animal due to the way Nintendo handles games, and I would argue expectations are also quite different compared to Xbox players (not to mention necessary concessions due to it being a portable platform with an emphasis on battery life over detail).

Regarding PC pricing, things are fucked right now, but the way to go on a budget is to ship of Theseus the thing by getting what you can with the money you have then upgrading your machine incrementally. It's the boots theory of gaming where buying cheap consoles repeatedly will make you worse off in the long run compared to paying for a modular setup that has more longevity. (Don't be scared of the used parts market either)

As a former games programmer who had the misfortune of working with that system, the problem with the S is that it had vastly lower performances than the X, but if you wanted to release on it you still had to find a way to make it run on that piece of crap, which was absolute hell for demanding games and kind of entirely defeated the purpose of releasing on console (where you can expect everyone to have the same hardware). As a sidenote, I'd love to talk to whoever was in charge of pulling that off for RDR2 because they clearly are a master of the dark arts.

That being said I totally agree with you on the lower costing hardware and optimization thing.

I get the feeling both the Switch and Deck benefited from the Series S.

If facing a PS5/Xx environment, console publishers that hear about performance issues would just shrug and go “Get a console or go home”. But they’re not just looking at those two targets anymore. They HAVE to account for the Series S, and maybe in future for the Deck, the Switch, phones, or even just the PS5 but in a “Performance” mode rather than Presentation.

It’s teaching devs scalability, even if that means they can’t laser focus on one system.

I agree. Dont release cutting edge hardware at a time when it's too expensive for anyone to buy. All it will do is build resentment in the community that won't have any games that take advantage of the hardware because developers aren't stupidly going to invest in game development for a platform they know nobody is going to buy.

Anyway, the shortages are obviously caused by the AI bubble, and that'll be popping in a year, so products will be cheaper, which is fortuituous, because people will also be a lot poorer

I don’t think any informed buyer had the expectation that a Series S would perform like the X. That’s like expecting a PS5 to have the same capabilities as a PS5 Pro.

That said, the naming really betrays the Series S. It would have been more clear to name it something like Xbox (gen) and Xbox (gen) Pro.

Anyhow, I think the Series S is especially critical to have on the market in a world where console prices are increasing with age. We are back to the early 2000s when Moores law collapsed and it’s no longer true that affordable hardware will double in capability year over year at roughly the same price point.

This dev is out of touch and making excuses for lazy optimization. Optimization is going to be critically important so that games run on cheaper hardware until prices drop again.