Good things come in the small Series S package, just not next-gen’s best things

At only $300, it promises to deliver parity to the experience you’d find on the bigger brother Series X unit, just at a reduced rendering resolution capped at 1440p, as opposed to the X’s 4K image. It also makes an ambitious claim of “up to” 120 frames per second. This is the first time a major console generation has simultaneously launched with two different versions of the same experience at difference price points, and Microsoft’s hope is that it can lure in curious gamers who balk at a $500 investment, but are still lured into the Xbox ecosystem by the attractive, cheap Xbox Game Pass subscription service.

We spent the last week and a half on Xbox Series S, testing two Xbox Series X/S-specific titles, as well as numerous backward compatible older games. Here’s what we found.

Let’s address this first: It is very disappointing to see “Assassin’s Creed Valhalla” not run at 60 frames per second on the Xbox Series S. The budget-priced console’s biggest selling point is that it could conceivably hit “up to 120 frames per second,” but immediately, we’re seeing hints that this might be a case-by-case sort of thing. And this is “Valhalla,” the game that involuntarily and unofficially became the Xbox launch title after the delay of Microsoft’s own “Halo Infinite.”

It’s also worth noting that Ubisoft’s open-world games, like past titles in this or the “Watch Dogs” series are often poorly optimized for PC play, demanding a lot of CPU and GPU resources at the expense of higher frame performance. It seems that 60 frames per second gameplay on the Series S isn’t a promise every developer can keep.

But there’s hope, “Yakuza: Like a Dragon” runs at 60 frames per second on the Series S. And while we did not have a version of the game meant for Series X or S, the Xbox One version of “Dirt 5” also runs at 60 frames on the Series S, which means it should on the next-generation versions. The smaller device is clearly capable of hitting higher framerates, even if every title does not.

The 60-frames-per-second metric matters because it’s the most visually striking difference between this console generation and the last. It’s the performance metric that most games for the last two console generations have struggled to hit, while PC players enjoy the additional power of their systems.

On loading times, both Series S and X load games faster than I’ve experienced on console and on PC. “Valhalla” loads into gameplay faster than the 2-year-old “Assassin’s Creed Odyssey” on my PC with an i7-9700K CPU and 16 gigs of RAM. “Destiny 2,” a game that suffered from long loading screens on console, finally loads as fast or faster than its PC brethren; loading the game from home screen to a playable planet took under a minute. When it comes to loading, the Series S and X run basically even.

The great news for Series S is that the image resolution on “Valhalla” is sharp, likely holding to the promised maximum Series S resolution of 1440p. The bad news is that on two different 60hz screens, the Series S image had considerably more screen tearing (it’s when you see a break in vertical imagery as the image on screen shifts; just watch this).

The screen tear is less visible on Series X, thanks to the smoother framerate. A V-sync on/off toggle would alleviate the eyesore, but there is currently no way to turn on the feature in the console release. PC titles usually have this option — a stark reminder why the PC remains the most potentially powerful and customizable place to play games. This Series S-specific issue, coupled with sub-60-frames performance, gave me the impression I was playing a solid Xbox One X version of “Valhalla,” just with much faster loading. There’s parity in the “Yakuza” experiences not found in “Valhalla,” and that’s some comfort.

Both the X and S do feature “performance” and “fidelity” modes.

Your current Xbox One user interface will be the same one used in the Xbox Series consoles. Same app placement. Same folders as you made them. Same color schemes.

The new Xbox controller is largely unchanged from the last generation, using many of the same materials, build quality (which was always very high) and even retaining much of its form factor. It’s so similar, the new controllers can sit comfortably on stands created specifically to the contours of the 7-year-old Xbox One controller.

Once again, the biggest quality-of-life difference is how fast it all loads. Even on the Xbox One X, the user interface would sometimes stall and halt. After a week and a half, the Series X and S menu experience is about as snappy as … well, using an iPhone. It’s smooth, it’s immediate. Switching between games and apps also feels like switching between your Twitter and email app on your phones.

Storage is going to be an issue on the all-digital Series S. Both Sony and Microsoft will boast more storage data than players can actually use. While the smaller console as a 512 GB SSD, the Reddit leaks are correct: You can only use up to 364 GB. This means that after installing “Valhalla,” “Yakuza,” “Dirt 5” and “Destiny 2,” I only have 124.5 GB left.

The next-gen-specific titles, however, are considerably smaller than the last-generation files. “Valhalla” clocks in at only 47.5 GB, surprising considering it’s a massive title, while “Yakuza” takes up 37.2 GB. “Destiny 2,” a 3-year-old game, takes up 108.8 GB.

Regardless of which console you choose (PlayStation 5 included), it’s probably a good idea to start budgeting for external storage.

This is the Xbox’s biggest strength over Nintendo and Sony. Microsoft is the only hardware developer that’s taken great pains to ensure continuity in our gaming libraries. It’s the only manufacturer that’s making great overtures to retain its audience, and retention is key to any subscription service. It all makes some sense once you remember that its subscription service Xbox Game Pass is the centerpiece of Microsoft’s gaming strategy.

But backward compatible games will vary between the Series X and S. Games with uncapped framerates, like the Xbox One X version of “Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice,” are able to hit their target cap no problem for the Series X. “Sekiro” runs at a smooth 60 frames, a welcome bonus for a game that relies so heavily on player reaction time. On the Series S it is capped at 30, the same as the Xbox One version of the game. This is something Microsoft addressed previously: Backward compatible games for the Series S would be based on the Xbox One version, not the One X enhanced versions. (As an aside, apologies for any confusion about the similar console names, Microsoft has made a lot of Xbox machines in the last few years).

That doesn’t mean there aren’t improvements from playing on a Series S, however. “Red Dead Redemption 2” on Xbox One X was always a game in native 4K and capped at 30 frames per second, so the visual returns are minimal. But it’s worth noting that the game loads incredibly fast on the Series S and X. Regardless of the graphical fidelity and performance of older games, they seem to all benefit when it comes to getting us to our games faster.

The Xbox Series S, in my eyes, is the most attractive console out right now, and is in the running for best looking ever. It’s an attractive box that can fit essentially anywhere in the house, even a bookshelf, as Xbox CEO Phil Spencer demonstrated months before the console was announced.

Thanks to quarantine, I’ve been obsessed with creating different gaming spaces and comfort levels across my small studio apartment, so I have been moving consoles around the one room I have. I currently have the Series S on my nightstand, plugged into a small monitor by my bed. It’s a great addition for multiple-room households. At only 4.25 pounds, this lighter-than-cats machine would be a great purchase for travelers looking to take their console experience along.

Both the Series S and X do an amazing job of just disappearing into the background. Both run very silently, even for the most graphics-intensive games at launch. And all the early, fabricated controversy about the Xbox’s heat signatures were all for nothing: Both systems run cooler than the already quite chill Xbox One X.

When it comes to core gamers, the appeal of the Series S seems smaller, initially, than that of the Series X. You have to be comfortable with the idea that not every game may hit 60 frames per second. You have to really love the idea that loading games faster is enough to warrant an upgrade. So far, it loads just as fast as the Series X, but the games just won’t look quite as good. At $300 though, the console is attractive in both price and design.

The Series S is clearly the budget console, and it’s hard not to think of it as a half-measure into the next console generation. Xbox CEO Phil Spencer said he feels confident the Series S will sell better over time, and he’s likely right. After all, the older, cheaper, iPhone XR was 2019′s best-selling smartphone. But phone consumers are not core game consumers, and “fear of missing out” may be stronger in the gaming community than it is for people who just want a decent phone.

It’s not a massive leap forward — it’s more of an iPhone-like upgrade. It’s not a must-buy, unless you really don’t care about lower resolutions, buying more storage, and possibly playing games at lower framerates. And yes, that seems like a lot of caveats for a new console, but most of them were known, and likely includes a lot of people, including anyone who decided to skip out on the last generation entirely.

But also, at $300 (the same price as a far less powerful and future-proofed Nintendo Switch), the Xbox Series S offers far more value than its retail price suggests. It’ll be very interesting to see how this strategy evolves for Microsoft, and whether Spencer’s prediction will bear out.