My theory is, that most people who don’t like the idea of Suicide Squad simply don’t buy and do not play. As there was enough warning before and lot of YouTubers hating on the game; even before it was playable.
I think people would be mad. Imagine you play a game at your friend’s home on his Series X, and then proceed to buy the game so you can play multiplayer online, only to then have a certain features or game modes missing (say you get team death match but not battle royale because it uses too much memory).
It’s not that easy to communicate feature disparity. Some people probably don’t even know which Xbox they have.
At some point, it’s on you to know what your machine can and can’t handle. They put big letters on the front of each game telling you if it’s able to play on the series X and series S. It is right there lol. 
Also, with smart delivery, it would probably be trivial for Microsoft to have a modal pop up saying “this game is not optimized for series S and will not play, do you still want to purchase?”
No, the real issue here is developers (not their fault mind you). The moment Microsoft says “you don’t have to make it playable on the S,“ they simply won’t. Because why would you? 
S is required if you want to release a game on X. This means you cannot leverage the technical maximum of X, ever, because the game and all it’s features must run on S.
Yes we know. The comment at the top of this chain is talking about whether or not Microsoft could stop allowing that requirement and the potential blowback. Scroll to the top and start from the beginning you’ll see. 
Are you really not comprehending what I said? To re-iterate: the cost-to-returns ratio to spend man hours for certain features is not feasible because of how much time would need to be spent. This, at worst means some titles will simply not have feature X, and at average means the “worst first” development method means some games will just be worse, than they could have been, if it were merely X, PS5 and PC to consider.
I think we agree that MS bungled their approach and overestimated that cloud powered gaming would take off. But the reality of it is that S has become a thing that holds down game development, and like with BG3, gives sony pseudo exclusivity on consoles. It’s also likely what caused 343 to never ship couch-coop on Halo. It worked to some extent, but simply wasn’t worth the hours to finish for S.
Sooner or later MS has to tackle the issue somehow, and if I had to guess, they’ll rather push for a 0.5 gen jump instead of just screwing with people who bought S.
It’s easier to say a game is “newest gen optimized” than to backtrack on their promise.
If you are talking about something completely different, then no worries, carry on. This was merely my 2 cents on the topic.
I guess not and frankly I just don’t feel like speaking further with you given the completely needless hostility over what is likely just our talking at cross purposes. Have a good one.
I did not mean that in a hostile way. I asked because you kept replying to my comments, but disregarding their content while telling me to stop talking.
Based on the vote ratio, other people got the point just fine and didn’t feel like they needed to tell me to be silent or scroll back up.
Yep and a lot of times, we won’t even hear about it. It’ll just be another game that happens to be on Playstation and not Xbox, a defacto exclusive of sorts.
If a game can’t run on the Series S it means it also can’t be ported to the PC. Turn down the resolution and graphics settings until you get the same fps target and continue in with your day.
I would expect any game from a developer that complains about this to be so poorly optimized that it runs like it would on the Series S on the bigger consoles, and likely have garbage gameplay as well because they spent all of their budget on graphics.
Ok, but game they’re talking about here, Baldur’s Gate 3, runs just fine on PC. But they can’t get a specific feature to run on Series S that can run on X. You might want to read the article before commenting?
Problem is that it can turn into a slippery slope. Where should MS draw the line if they start to allow Series X exclusive content? Can developers cut entire game modes from the S version if they just ask kindly enough? Or maybe ignore the S version completely? The risk is that developers are going to abuse this opportunity.
MS wants people to see the Series S as a viable purchase. Why should you buy it when you won’t be able to play the next big release in full?
Yes, they should be able to say "this game doesn't run on series S" because it's significantly worse than the other options and it doesn't deserve the work it takes. It doesn't even have CPU parity, which is a much bigger deal than less GPU cores.
That will just betray all the customers who bought Series S. Will they upgrade to a Series X to play the next big thing? No, they will probably just buy a PS5 instead. Why should they continue to stay loyal with MS?
How is it any different than the number of games coming out that betray all the things they promised?
As a series S owner, I never expected this thing to be able to play modern AAA games for 7-10 years like previous gens. It’s delusional. It was $300 with a controller ffs lol
Personally, I just don’t have time or energy to play big AAA games for the most part. I very much prefer smaller indie games nowadays, and Steam Deck has those in spades. I would wager a lot of older gamers are in the same boat.
“Zelnick is admitting that even though maybe this should be the case, that because of the nature of the market, there simply cannot be a pricing model like that, and the move to $70 recently is sort of the maximum they can hope for.”
There absolutely can be a market like that. We’re in a digital utopia where we don’t actually own anything. You could even have a cutoff, where playing more doesn’t charge you more. Gamers might even accept that, in a weird way. You rent it per hour up to 70 hours, and then you just “own” it.
But I suspect most of his stats show that there’s a huge number of people out there who will spend $70 on a game on day one, play it for 10 hours and never touch it again. RDR2 for example has a 30% completion rate on PSN. 31% didn’t even finish the first chapter. And he certainly doesn’t want to say goodbye to that money.
I don’t want a market like that because it will lead to even more time-wasting and busywork in games than there already is. But maybe that would backfire. If you played 10 hours of a game and it was mostly trudging about doing nothing, would you pay to play more of it?
Goes further back than that. In the late 90s early 2000s basically all 3 of the MMOs on the market were subscription models (Ultima, Everquest, and Warcraft are the ones that spring to my mind). Essentially a pay per time scheme where if you were playing the game you paid for it monthly.
This guy is just so far down the modern game industry rabbit hole he forgot that it wasn’t as profitable as the soul sucking microtransaction/whaling hellscape that’s become the norm.
This is Lemmy, nobody reads the article. They just react to the headline they know is cherry picked and find a way to work it into whatever circlejerk suits their fancy.
I’m still not going to buy games at $70. I don’t care enough about their BS to pay that much.
Plenty of great games in the $20 to $30 market all day long. I’ve put a few hundred hours into a handful of games that were that cheap over the last few months and have bought zero $50+ games. [EDIT: I did buy Zelda TOTK for $50, correction]
For example, I would like to buy Armored Core 6 but I’m not going to pay the “discounted” price of $53 that it’s available at now. I can wait until it’s further discounted, while I play lots of other games that I already have.
I bought the new Zelda game for $70, and while fun, didn’t feel worth $70. I won’t be paying $70 anymore. Most games just can’t put out the value required unless they actually build the game from the ground up with a phenomenal story, good replayability and (optional) co-op.
You guys are competing against Deep Rock Galactic, Baldur’s Gate 3, Subnautica, Battlefield 1, Risk Of Rain 2 / Risk of Rain Returns, and many other total gems. If you aren’t beating those high standards, you can’t charge $70.
I actually did buy the new Zelda but I waited until I found it on sale for $50 a few weeks after launch. It was a temporary deal but I knew it would likely be the best price on TOTK for a long time given the trend of high prices staying high for Switch games. My kid and I are still playing it so it was worth the high price considering the market status quo.
There’s a concept that should be familiar to a business owner called value based pricing where you charge based upon a (usually service) product’s perceived value rather than the cost of producing it. Make a game worth giving time and money to then you’ll have success. Fill it with pointless content to pad out the hours and it is neither worth the time nor the money
Yeah, the series s was a great decision in the short term, but was always going to create a lot of problems as the current generation progressed. Because while it kept consoles on shelves during the initial launch and chip shortage, and pulled in people who would ordinarily balk at the cost, the promise of next Gen support for the series s was always going to come back and bite Microsoft in the ass when more games started to push the consoles limits.
In this regard, Sony was way smarter in just extending the ps4 lifespan since developers can just drop it any time without the existing user base feeling like the got scammed since the ps4 never had promises of running concurrent to the ps5 like the series s does.
Let’s say that’s something Microsoft would even allow, it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5. Why would I get a Series X if there’s a chance that some big game launches will have less features than other current gen platforms?
Microsoft really hamstrung this generation of consoles by releasing the S and demanding it runs feature parity with the X.
Hey guys, you should get a Series X because BG3 is coming out. Sure it will be missing features that you’ll get on the PS5 like split screen, but you guys understand we need to support the Series S and have parity between our two consoles.
So even though you spent more money on a Series X, that’s capable of running the full game that the PS5 is getting, you should just be happy that you’re getting the game at all. Don’t worry about having paid for a console that’s capable of more.
Your comment makes zero sense. The decision not to release on Xbox at all is not Microsoft’s. It’s Larian who rather sacrifice an entire hardware base for a niche feature. You obviously didn’t read the article. It’s spelled out there.
While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.
Wow, I’m amazed on how bad you’re at grasping the basics of what I wrote.
I 👏 DID 👏 NOT 👏 WRITE 👏 ABOUT 👏 CUTTING 👏 SPLIT SCREEN 👏 FROM 👏 SERIES S 👏 ONLY 👏 BUT 👏 ALL 👏 XBOX 👏 VARIANTS 👏 SO 👏 THE 👏 GAME 👏 CAN 👏 LAUNCH 👏 AND 👏 NOT 👏 LEAVE 👏 XBOX 👏 USERS 👏 IN 👏 THE 👏 RAIN!
The article is about feature parity between Series S and Series X and not about how all Xbox variants can’t have feature disparity with PlayStation. If Larian were to cut split screen for all Xbox versions, the game could launch just fine.
Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option? Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?
I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games? The entire point of the article is that Microsoft has boxed themselves into this corner. And your suggestion isn’t a good solution.
Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option?
That is an option because exclusive features come to one brand all the time. Everyone with even minor insight in video game business knows that.
Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?
It’s not about happiness, it’s about what the rules allow and since there are exclusive features on other consoles all the time, it’s obviously allowed. That’s how the Spider-Man character ended up being exclusive on the PlayStation version of Marvel’s Avengers. Golden Eye 007 has online multiplayer exclusive to Nintendo Switch. Those are well-known facts and if you don’t know them: That’s on you.
I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games?
Yeah, you’re such a great business genius, you think not launching a game at all is better than cutting a niche feature barely anyone cares about. Yes, you totally convinced me.
I guess you gonna vote me down again because you cannot stomach that I’m right and you’re wrong.
I think you are misreading, they are refusing to launch because of the feature parity but, that’s because they are consciously deciding that split screen is a hard requirement for the game to launch, whereas with other consoles(steam deck) they just removed split screen and called it good.
I keep seeing the posts about OW2 where everyone is acting like blizzard is getting destroyed by the poor reviews, but, like you said, they still already made bank on these games in spite of all the complaints that have existed since launch. Blizzard just out here like:
In 2027 the current iteration won’t be legally able to be sold in the EU, since the EU will require portable devices to have easily replaceable batteries. (Which the Steam does not qualify for due to needing a heat gun). So an upgrade is almost certainly planned by then.
that’s always been nintendo’s MO though. with the exception of the N64 and GameCube, their consoles have all been very modest spec-wise. but the games they put out are made specifically for that hardware, so it’s usually fine.
and actually, the switch is underclocked in its stock configuration. if you have adequate cooling for it you can basically double its clock speed with a softmod, which at least for totk removed basically all stuttering for me!
forbes.com
Ważne