this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
60 points (90.5% liked)

Games

16749 readers
985 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

At the start of this console generation, Microsoft made a surprising decision. Rather than split its consoles between disc and digital-only like Sony, it actually split them between power level. The Xbox Series S was cheaper, but lacked the horsepower of the more expensive Series X. It was meant to be a bridge between generations and a lower cost entry point, but Microsoft made an important promise.

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.

However, over time, that has become harder and harder to satisfy. Some developers have grumbled about the Series S requirements for a while, but now, we have a prime example of this parity demand actively hurting the Xbox ecosystem and its own players. Larian has delayed the release of Baldur’s Gate 3, currently on pace to possibly be 2023’s Game of the Year, until they can figure out how to make split-screen work on Series S.

Michael Douse, director of publishing, made the problem very plain:

“We’ve said many times in the past that the issue is getting split-screen working on the Series S, which is taking more time, but is in progress,” Douse said on Twitter. “This is a huge technical hurdle, but we are unable to release the game on the ecosystem without this feature.”

“We cannot remove the split-screen feature because we are obliged to launch with feature parity, and so continue to try and make it work. We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year.”

Microsoft’s demand for feature parity between Series X and S quite literally means that Xbox players may not be able to play 2023’s possible GOTY until…2024. Larian cannot simply cut the feature because Microsoft won’t let them. A feature that the majority of players of the game probably will never even use, mind you.

You can say “okay well, Microsoft just needs to end the feature parity demand between X and S.” In this case, Microsoft could give the okay to cut split-screen and the game could release. And yet, you can see how Microsoft has sort of trapped itself. For Baldur’s Gate 3 that means split-screen, and Xbox owners who are not following video game news every second of the day might find themselves buying a Series S version thinking they can play co-op with their friend and they…can’t.

You can extrapolate that out to any number of games. Various points of pain in Series S development could result in any number of cut features, and those would have to be explained away in fine print for Series S players, or they’d simply buy the games and be upset that those features weren’t there, not knowing any of this.

This is Microsoft not really thinking through the concept of the Series S from the start. The feature parity demand actually does seem necessary, but the further we get into this generation, the more modern games are pushing the technical envelope, and the more Series S is straining to keep up, and developers are straining to meet Microsoft’s demands. As we can see in this example, Microsoft has essentially handed PlayStation a console exclusive for one of the biggest games of the year, without Sony even needing to make any kind of a deal. That’s a disaster.

It's not clear if there’s a way out of this. Stopping the feature parity demand would be a mess. Stopping Series S sales wouldn’t solve the problem with millions out there already that cannot just be abandoned. Time traveling to not release the Series S in the first place to avoid all this is not possible. So, they’re stuck, unless they think of something else.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] woelkchen 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could just remove split-screen entirely on Xbox and then Series S would run it just fine (that's what they did on Steam Deck).

[–] yesterdayshero 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] woelkchen 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let's say that's something Microsoft would even allow

Games launch with different features between consoles all the time.

it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5.

Not getting the games at all even more so.

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?

Why would you get a Series X if games don't launch at all because of Series S parity mandate?

Nothing you wrote really is an argument for why launching BG3 without split screen on any Xbox is worse than not launching at all.

[–] yesterdayshero 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

-Microsoft

[–] woelkchen -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yesterdayshero -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's literally in the title...

Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands

And in the article...

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

xsx and xss have to have same features.

xss can't do split screen. it only needs to do split screen because the xsx can do it.

If devs remove split screen from xsx, then xss would not need split screen, because xsx doesn't have it either.

Microsoft can only demand feature parity for their consoles, not sony's

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] woelkchen -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's literally in the title...

Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands

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.

Really not that hard to understand.

[–] yesterdayshero 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] woelkchen 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've explicitly told us that Microsoft won't let them have feature disparity between the two, and that that's the reason it isn't there.

No one's speculating. We know that it's not there exactly because the S can't handle the most demanding feature of a moderately demanding game.

[–] woelkchen 0 points 1 year ago

Can't you read? I wrote about no split screen on all Xboxes, not to allow feature disparity between X and S.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I would just remove the co op feature from xbox versions and release the game, its an annoying thing to spend money and time on fixing