Xbox fans debate whether Microsoft should drop the Xbox Series S 'feature parity' clause

[Windows Central]

Should Microsoft change this policy? Xbox Series S feature parity rule has been blamed for the delay of Baldur's Gate 3 on Xbox Series X|S, owing to the added development time to get certain features working on it. One of the biggest games of the year is a defacto PlayStation exclusive as a result.

Xbox fans debate whether Microsoft should drop the Xbox Series S 'feature parity' clause : Read more

 

[JampackSam]

I think now Microsoft has an obligation to continue supporting the Xbox Series S throughout this generation with that full game release parity.

The only two options I see here are for Microsoft to be more lax and allow some features - like co-op/split screen - to be dropped from the Series S version while the Series X gets all of the bells and whistles. Alternatively, Microsoft should have an entire team dedicated to helping get those more graphically intensive/power hungry games to the finish line alongside developers bringing games to the platform.

 

[Wisak]

I think Microsoft shot their own foot once again this generation. Creating a cheaper console that was only digital was a great idea, but forcing developers to have to support both equally for releasing games was a bad move. When the generation begins, it can be done, but once devs get more used to the hardware, the weaker Series S will be the things that makes, or breaks the generation.
I think there is no easy way forward for them, because they can't just toss the console aside.
I think they should lift that rule if they want to see other games in the future done by third party publishers as I know right now it's a huge problem for some of them and they even consider dropping Xbox completely because of it.

 

[ZioRenovatio]

Solution n. 4: offer a great trade in opportunity for all (I mean, ALL) xbox series S owners to get a series X for just a few dollars.

The series S situation is a disaster, not just about Blu ray drive lacking (and I got the point herr: try to force people to join digital market so used market can be avoided). Series S is poor in performance and xbox series x owners will suffer this situation as well. Also, series S it's not a Nintendo Switch: devs don't have to support it cause they don't have their return.

It's the only thing they can do: trade in for series X for all.

 

[ItIsNatty]

So, Series S is a great entry point into Xbox eco system and for Microsoft to do anything to damage that would be a bit of a mistake. That said, the "parity clause" should maybe be re-evaluated. If, in Baldurs Gate 3's case that it is the split screen co op that's stopping the full release then yeah, maybe MS need to rethink things like that. If we're talking about MS basically allowing devs to ship to Series X and not S I don't think that's a great look, the three people I know who went in on Xbox this gen because of the cheaper console then those people are gonna feel burned.

 

[Vermillon]

There might be another lead to solve this issue. Since the series S has no disc drive, it is basically useless without an internet connection. Why not follow something along the lines of what's done with the switch then and rely on cloud gaming from the series S only for the games that would lack some select features in their native versions? In other words, release a native series S version of BG3 without split screen, and should you want to play this mode, you would rely on cloud.

 

[Julian Cristian]

When I was at the Brazilian game show where some sale numbers were disclosed; I had a strong impression that with Brazilian, Mexican and Asian markets all together Series S actually represents a larger amount than the Series X.

Some takes about this matter are very American/European biased. Leaving Series S fall behind may actually hurt must of Xbox install base.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Solution n. 4: offer a great trade in opportunity for all (I mean, ALL) xbox series S owners to get a series X for just a few dollars.

The series S situation is a disaster, not just about Blu ray drive lacking (and I got the point herr: try to force people to join digital market so used market can be avoided). Series S is poor in performance and xbox series x owners will suffer this situation as well. Also, series S it's not a Nintendo Switch: devs don't have to support it cause they don't have their return.

It's the only thing they can do: trade in for series X for all.

You can choose to go with the X for the drive, but you can't blame the S for not having a drive. That's a choice a customer makes: do I want to pay for one with a drive or choose to save money and get one without a drive? Choice is good, especially given that there is a significant portion of the market that doesn't care about discs. That's all fair and completely separate from the effect on game development, where the mere existence of the S could be hurting both S and X.

Now, if they didn't offer a model that takes discs at all, that would be a different story and I might agree with you (much as I'm annoyed they no longer offer, at any price, a model with an HDMI like the Xbox One had).

 

[GraniteStateColin]

There might be another lead to solve this issue. Since the series S has no disc drive, it is basically useless without an internet connection. Why not follow something along the lines of what's done with the switch then and rely on cloud gaming from the series S only for the games that would lack some select features in their native versions? In other words, release a native series S version of BG3 without split screen, and should you want to play this mode, you would rely on cloud.

I like the distinction. Clever.

 

[fjtorres5591]

There might be another lead to solve this issue. Since the series S has no disc drive, it is basically useless without an internet connection. Why not follow something along the lines of what's done with the switch then and rely on cloud gaming from the series S only for the games that would lack some select features in their native versions? In other words, release a native series S version of BG3 without split screen, and should you want to play this mode, you would rely on cloud.

Good point.

Yes, a dual release approach is easy to implement: an *initial* release without local coop plus a license to access the SeriesX version via cloud without requiring Game Pass ultimate is a workaround until the local feature is implemented.

Looking further, the issue doesn't have a simple answer because it isn't just a matter of the hardware. The developers are part of the problem with their choice of tools and workflow management. It should be noted that it isn't that the Series S *can't* do split scren coop, but that it takes extra work to implement. And LARIAN, like most studios needs to maximize revenues as soon as possible, hence their staggered release.

That said, what a lot of the griping from developers really means is that their tools and techniques aren't as resource efficient as those used by the developers who have no problem developing for the SS. Most of these gripes come from developers that target PC or PS5 as lead platform so blaming the SS is easier than optimizing for the consoles.

The only viable solution for MS is to offer case by case waivers for *delays* along with better education on how to code for console to PC developers.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I very much agree with fears on the slippery slope of allowing games to drop split-screen co-op from Series S. If the promise of general game parity between S and X evaporates, there will be a lot of angry former S buyers.

However, in spite of that, I think (somewhat similar to Vermillion's idea of tying it to cloud-support) that it's OK, possibly even necessary, to drop a requirement that will cause overall sales harm, provided they can do it in a logical way. BG3 delays as a result of S requirements (if that's why) is indeed a perfect example of something potentially causing overall sales harm.

This is a similar argument to: customers should want the companies they do business with to be profitable, because if they're not profitable, they'll go out of business (or drop that line of business in pursuit of profitable alternatives) and won't be around to support them in the future. Companies owe it to their customers to run responsible businesses that turn a profit so they can be there to support their sales and continue to grow and innovate (in industries where those are important).

Specifically, I would suggest tying this to the resolution and screen size, which is already a known distinction between S and X. Split-screen works best on large displays. Those are more likely to be 4K displays, and the Series S is really the small-screen system (I know, there are a fair number of older large screen 1080p displays, but at least with new sales, that's a reasonable distinction). That's what the S stands for right, Small Screen? As such, of course it makes sense to allow developers to leave out features that are not intended for smaller screens.

In revisiting the specs between S and X, I'm more concerned about the CPU and RAM differences (3.8GHz vs 3.6GHz CPU and 16GB vs 10GB RAM, unless that's purely the difference for the GPU). Those seem like they could cause problems for games that can't be solved simply be dropping resolution.

 

[YuthfulPorpoise]

Baldur's Gate 3's PC min spec is a GTX 970 w/ 8GB Ram, which is aligned with the Series S specs (Series S has 10GB actually). Most PC min specs are similar for other games as well. This is not a case of developers can't get games to run in parity on the Series S. They just need to prioritize Series S performance earlier in the development cycle so it stays in parity with their PC min specs throughout. When you prioritize it too late in the development cycle, it is VERY HARD to go back and optimize every little thing in the game that can be optimized to hit the numbers you need to hit, it is an all engineers on deck situation at that point, and it's hard for studios to commit the amount of resources needed late in the dev cycle when there are so many other needs.

 

[mjsztainbok]

I think Microsoft shot their own foot once again this generation. Creating a cheaper console that was only digital was a great idea, but forcing developers to have to support both equally for releasing games was a bad move. When the generation begins, it can be done, but once devs get more used to the hardware, the weaker Series S will be the things that makes, or breaks the generation.
I think there is no easy way forward for them, because they can't just toss the console aside.
I think they should lift that rule if they want to see other games in the future done by third party publishers as I know right now it's a huge problem for some of them and they even consider dropping Xbox completely because of it.

The thing is that having a digital only version didn't necessarily mean having a lower spec version. The PS5 is a good example of this. The only difference between the disc version and digital version is the lack of a disc drive. Other than that spec wise they are identical. Price wise the models are similar to Series S and X too.
I have very few discs for my Xbox was going to buy a Series S until I found out it had lower performance which made me buy the Series X even though I didn't need the disc drive.

 

[Kaymd]

Baldur's Gate 3's PC min spec is a GTX 970 w/ 8GB Ram, which is aligned with the Series S specs (Series S has 10GB actually). Most PC min specs are similar for other games as well. This is not a case of developers can't get games to run in parity on the Series S. They just need to prioritize Series S performance earlier in the development cycle so it stays in parity with their PC min specs throughout. When you prioritize it too late in the development cycle, it is VERY HARD to go back and optimize every little thing in the game that can be optimized to hit the numbers you need to hit, it is an all engineers on deck situation at that point, and it's hard for studios to commit the amount of resources needed late in the dev cycle when there are so many other needs.

Thanks for this reply.
I've been seeing everyone blaming the Series S. But its specs are actually superior to the min PC specs. I wonder how the game has been running on the min PC specs?

 

[Kaymd]

The developers did not prioritize the Series S.
There is no reason Baldur's Gate 3 can't run on a Series S. That would automatically rule out a huge number of PC gamers going by raw specs.
If Elden Ring and Halo Infinite can run on the Series S, so can Baldur's Gate 3.

 

[*kaotisch*]

Microsoft made the right choice. It is too much buzz around de duo-console choice just because a game. If want so bad to play a game that is not available on the console, just buy another one.
But it is completely unreasonable to ask for a drastic change of principles just because of that.

My kid is a 6 years old that has 3 close friends. One of them plays on a Playstation 5, because his father is a long term PS gamer, bought a PS5, and shares it with the boy.
The other 2 kids, plus my kid, all of them have the Xbox Series S. There is a good reason: apart from that father that is accustomed to Playstation, all the other fathers were not gamers. They have seeked the most price advantageous deal, and that is Series S + Game Pass.

So all the old PS gamers are buying PS, and that explains why PS outsells Xbox FOR NOW. But there is a bunch of new kids coming freshly into the scene, whose fathers have no preferred platform, and those new consumers are Xbox consumer. I'm one of those, and my kid.

The lower Series S specs are not a problem, since you don't have to have killer specs to do make games. And it is a smart move that allows people that don't want to spend a lot of money on a console to play too.

So this discussion is useless. I fully support this strategy, the only reason I chose spending money on gaming hardware was because Series S is a good deal, and if a developer cannot or don't want to deal with this, so be it. There a lot of other developers that can work on that, and plenty of other games at an affordable, reasonable deal, and I'm happy with them.

 

[King0fchickens]

I think they could continue to keep their policies of releasing on both consoles but what if they allow for a time window to do so? Allow for a longer date for release the Series S, if the Series X version is done then release it but with the stipulation there will be a Series S version in a maximum of 3 months?

Offset the time waiting by allowing a cloud version on Series S via Xcloud.

 

[ShinyProton]

It was a necessary evil when the two consoles released.

Meanwhile, Microsoft should have set a 1 year only mandatory rule. Then, the consoles should have gone their separate ways according to market rules. In the end, gamers decide.

By remaining stubborn, Microsoft created the conditions for a market shift that, once again, have them losing at a 2:1 ratio in console sales versus the PS5. By their fault. Again.

Anyone should have predicted the outcome. Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft did not.

 

[outlast2023]

imagine asking Xbox to drop support for a console that is 70% of Series consoles playerbase lol, that means giving up on 70% of revenue.

 

[joequincy]

This article talks a lot about the Halo Infinite situation without acknowledging that particular title has an additional parity requirement of supporting the Xbox One, all the way back to the 2013 launch day hardware. That's a whole new tier of limitation beyond the Series S that they were trying to solve for. The mentions of Redfall are also not particularly relevant, as the same issues on Series S are also present on Series X in that title, and many stories have come out that Arkane just wasn't prepared for making a multiplayer live-service title (that was forced onto them by Bethesda). And for Forza, Turn 10 made it clear that was a priority thing for them... that they'd focused of graphical fidelity first and are having more difficulty than anticipated dialing it back for split screen.

It's easy to imagine that these are all due to challenges with Series S parity and that the entry console is holding them (it'd be a perfectly rational explanation, if true)... but there's no real evidence they actually are. Only Larian has outright linked their issues to Series S parity, and when they've done so they've been careful to emphasize that there's elements of their game design and the level of freedom afforded split screen players which make it particularly hard.