@letsgame82: While companies are willing to take some loss on the hardware, they aren't going to slit their throat as you are suggesting. No way they can come in at that price and remain in business as the cost of the components for the PS5 comes in right around the $500 mark - they aren't going to sell it at a 40% loss!

@bryanweary: They've confirmed the specs already. CPU is the same as the Series X but running at a lower clock speed, same spec SSD but only 512GB, lower power GPU at 4 TFLOPS (compared to 12 TFLOPS on the Series X), 10GB of RAM (down from 16GB on Series X). Capable of running games at 1440p/120fps, can upscale to 4k, and will display movies in 4K.

@lostn: Well for one you have to consider the penetration of 4K TVs, which most people still to this day have not upgraded to yet (myself included). So for those people this console makes sense (if you don't need an optical). I'm leaning towards one myself for a second console (to go along with my Day 1 Xbox One) for living room so the wife can play on it and with me on some of my games (One and 360), I'll stick with the One (as it has Kinect) for the time being and will add a Series X later to my game room (after I upgrade my projector).

The Series S will upscale to 4K, but not run natively at that resolution. It will support 4K movies (digital only of course). It will run at 1440p and up to 120fps.

@onehitta323: We obviously associate with a more educated crowd than your group of lazy stoners.

@onehitta323: I think the only one confused is you. Put the pipe down already while you have some brain cells left. Besides the name difference they look completely different, thus minimizing this confusion that fogs your brain but not the average person.

The attractive price will definitely put a hurt on SONY out of the gate, if not put them in the hole early on in terms of sales. I also believe the difference in the size and parts will put Microsoft at an advantage in terms of supplying consoles to sell whereas the similarity of the 2 SONY models will limit them.

@baral-o: Well for one COST as these SSDs that they are using are not cheap, retailing for about $200 for a 1TB one. It would have added approximately $100 to the price.

And your complaint that this somehow requires more space than the series X one because it has an optical drive is pretty hilarious. Do you not realize that (like this generation) the system will require ALL games to be installed on the internal drive and nothing runs directly from the disc? Because of this BOTH systems are equivalent in that regard since everything has to be installed on the internal.

@varmintx: And Nintendo did very little to remove that confusion which was of their own making.

@consolehaven: Right, and exactly how many games has Apple made since their inception in 1976? Let me help you on that....ZERO! Oh wait, they did have one...a chess game that was built into the older Mac OS X system software. But I am pretty sure they didn't make it either.

Apple has no game development division, never had and have not acquired any either over the years.

@bryanweary: Hmmm, did you not see that they also sued Google for doing the same thing (pulling Fortnite from the Google Play store)? You're only hearing more about the Apple side because they are being more vocal in their rhetoric on the issue than Google has been...and Android also allows sideloading of the game to bypass the Google Play store.

As much as I am a fan of many Apple products, I have not been happy with their business practices, design decisions and the direction Cook is taking the company in general. This greed and control complex they have is going bite them hard in the end.

@bryanweary: Even that is hypocritical as DC Online also has paid expansions. But they probably got a pass on that since they used to be owned by SONY.