You say lockhart won't hold back games but I don't see how that's the case unless lockhart has the exact same CPU and SSD as Series X.
Also , there are certain aspects of graphics that just cannot be scaled back to a lower system. For example, a lighting model designed to take full advantage of Series X cannot work on lockhart, which means the only way is to design the visuals around Lockhart and then bump up the scalable parts for Series X hardware. Which means the Series X and PS5 versions could be compromised just because lockhart exists even if its GPU is the only downgraded component.
Honestly IMO lockhart is such a braindead idea that makes the whole thing way more complicated for both developers and gamers. MS gets to tap into the super casual market, at the expense of gamers that care more about what next gen should truly deliver.
Everything points to Lockhart having the same CPU and SSD so those aren't a concern from a technology POV.
I agree there's parts of the graphics pipeline can't easily scale down, but that's why alternative techniques exist. If there's a lighting model in the XSX version that can't scale down properly to Lockhart, a simpler lighting model would be used instead. Many engines these days have those type of contingencies built right into them, so choosing one or the other is as simple as setting a mode in the engine. For example, if something on Series X can get away with a strong RT effect but it can't on Lockhart, then the effect can either be "faked" or simply not utilized.
The whole point of a budget console, IMO, is to use it as a hand-me-down for people who can't afford the premium next-gen system. Which means if the gaming experience on the lower-end has to sacrifice a few bells and whistles, so be it, as long as it doesn't hold back the proper next-gen system via being the baseline. Which, again, I would never assume MS would do in this situation, as it would render all goodwill generated through XSX wasted.
Again though, we probably have similar reservations on Lockhart but due to different reasons. Mines are, pretty much, logistical and economic. They have to assume what the market demand will be for TWO systems now instead of just the one (XSX), meaning resources in production budget, unit allocation and marketing is split between two systems now. If they overproduce Lockhart but fall short on XSX production numbers, that could create a base of would-be XSX owners who, instead of settling for Lockhart, pick up a PS5 instead. That's a lost sale in the ecosystem simply because you undervalued demand for the higher-end system, and the worst time to potentially make that type of mistake is at the start of the generation.
Not to mention, BOM-wise Lockhart could end up either selling at a loss for $299, or at-profit for $350. Both would hurt Lockhart, though, because the former is MS losing money (potentially lots if they overestimate demand for it), and the latter because that could put it in a bad pricing situation compared to a potentially aggressive PS5 pricing of $450 or even $399, at which prices I doubt the traditional early adopters (who make up the vast majority of early adopters) will have issues paying a bit more for a PS5.
Trying to focus on Lockhart as the "price" part of the strategy also means they could potentially price the XSX at-cost or at-profit, putting it in a weaker pricing value proposition relative PS5, when the vast majority of would-be Xbox owners of next gen who are early adopters, would vastly prefer an XSX over Lockhart. In fact, that MS have focused on spotlighting XSX for SO long while basically hiding Lockhart like it doesn't exist, suggests they know this too, which is one strong reason I suspect Lockhart actually
isn't happening, at least for the first year or two.
But hey, maybe we are wrong about Lockhart in this regard. Maybe it is significantly scaled back, but is a streaming-optimized budget next-gen console. If that is the case MS could cut out a lot of the local hardware (disc drive, much smaller SSD, much smaller GPU, much less GDDR6 memory etc.) and maybe get it to $199 which would be great for budget-conscious gamers who want to get in early with next-gen albeit through streaming. And in that case, it absolutely wouldn't hold XSX back technically, either, since it'd just be streaming the games from servers. That would ALSO give an even bigger reason to increase XSX production numbers and benefit from cheaper prices through economies of scale, which would ALSO help with reducing XSX's BOM and making it that much more price-competitive with PS5, so they win out on "power" at the high end and "price" on BOTH systems, essentially.
That's the ideal situation for Lockhart imho, but I guess we will be finding out next month (June at latest) where things stand with it. If it's a 4 TF 1080p60 focused budget system for local gaming then I hope it
doesn't exist, but it'll be out of logistical/economic/financial reasons rather than technical. If it
does exist, I hope it doesn't come about until about two years after XSX, meaning they wouldn't need to reveal it this year or next year, either. If it
does exist,
and it's a streaming-only device, then that's
great, because it means the BOM will be very low, it can price very low, there'll be no angle for anyone to latch on regarding it holding back XSX from a technical POV (none of the game code would be running locally on the system), it'd give a reason for even more XSX production units which would also help that system scale down its BOM and be even more price-competitive with PS5.
What's worse is you get people like Matt from ResetEra that say the difference between the two systems is hardly anything and he has/working knowledge on both systems.
People won't believe that guy but they will believe this Grannel chap and like the reasons you stated he is not even in the loop at all.
People Like dealer really are like the gaming equivalent of Russian propaganda.
They do so much damage to gaming.
That's because Matt (Era Matt) immediately dismissed the Github leaks basically saying "disregard it" (or something to that effect), even though in hindsight they were pretty accurate in regards to both next-gen systems. He said that while at the same time, never once telling people to put away ridiculous notions of PS5 at 13 TF or other similar numbers; if he was uncertain enough to let those speculations float why did he feel so certain as to outright throw away the Github leaks (and downplay the testing data)? What, because they "didn't tell the full picture"? Well, obviously, but neither did the other speculations regarding PS5. Somehow those were implied being more worthy of genuine speculation, however.
It is kind of like with how some people, after the Road to PS5 event, still tried saying Github was wrong the whole time because it got the PS5 clock wrong (never mind Oberon C0/E0 did not list a clock for the GPU in that particular revision), or XSX CU active count wrong (forgetting that Scorpion devkit APU did the exact same thing, i.e all CU were active on the devkit, 4 were disabled for retail unit), or the fact some of the Oberon data mentioned RDNA1 (never minding that Oberon may've been running an Ariel iGPU profile, because it's either that or Oberon is not a "full" RDNA2 chip i.e RDNA1 is the base. I'm not mentioning that as my own speculation, just providing what choices there are as to why some Oberon testing data mentioned RDNA1 when Oberon is the PS5 chip and Sony have already confirmed RT), etc. At some point, you just have to accept what is most likely.
There were some insiders that were very close regarding PS5 specs, namely Heisenberg (10.5) and possibly O'dium (Sony may've tried having the full chip on and clocking it even higher than what PS5's GPU clock is currently at, which would push to 11.6 but that obviously wasn't sustainable and probably beyond the limits of the silicon and their cooling system). The one insider who got XSX general specs virtually on-point was Tommy Fischer. The insiders essentially got the SSD part correct (at least the paper specs of it), but I don't which one started that part of the rumor.
Point being, there are reasons to have some doubt in Matt's speculations; as long as it is healthy doubt I see no problem with it.