Forbes : Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands Are Now Handing Sony Free Wins

[iAMJeffy]

Ties into what Remedy said about having to take into account the XSS from the beginning of development and if you don't, you may have bit more difficulty maintaining that features parity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...e-now-handing-sony-free-wins/?sh=6cc661d13e61

"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."

 

[anonpuffs]

Calling PR ensign @adamsapple, red alert! Direct hit to the port nacelle, engage damage control measures stat!

 

[adamsapple]

We love Paul Tassi now

 

[Vertigo]

We love Paul Tassi now

Tassi is fine. He has such a casual and general industry take that he’s a decent example of just that. He legitimately does play games all day and I respect that he’s managed to bring that to the Forbes audience over the years. The “contributor” shade is somewhat bs as they’ve been paying his checks for like 10 years now.

The perception of the Sony hate is somewhat misplaced. He says inaccurate things and makes bad predictions just as much as anyone. I don’t see any fanboyism from his end. Destin is a bit different. He def likes to champion a team. That’s fine too.

 

[Gediminas]

Tassi is a sucker of m$, always was and always will be. Sugar daddy pays his bills, otherwise he would ditch that crap consoles and would play PS5, he was exposed before.

 

[ksdixon]

How is any of this news?

Series S has always been the "poor box", it's cheap and nasty to give a box for people to access their £1 GP on, or they redeem the code they got on their bag of oreo cookies....

MS always hampered themselves by having to run on S as well, and that parity clause has always been an albatross too.

Why's everyone acting like these couple of infos clumped together is brand new news?

 

[riesgoyfortuna]

Tassi is fine. He has such a casual and general industry take that he’s a decent example of just that. He legitimately does play games all day and I respect that he’s managed to bring that to the Forbes audience over the years. The “contributor” shade is somewhat bs as they’ve been paying his checks for like 10 years now.

The perception of the Sony hate is somewhat misplaced. He says inaccurate things and makes bad predictions just as much as anyone. I don’t see any fanboyism from his end. Destin is a bit different. He def likes to champion a team. That’s fine too.

Tassi is a idiot

 

[Fenton]

 

[ToTTenTranz]

I think we might be on a path where Baldur's Gate 3 manages to obfuscate Starfield while the Series consoles still can't play the former.
If that happens, it'll be hell for Microsoft.

And the chances for Starfield to become a more popular and critically acclaimed game than Baldur's Gate 3 seem to be decreasing every day.

How is any of this news?

Series S has always been the "poor box", it's cheap and nasty to give a box for people to access their £1 GP on, or they redeem the code they got on their bag of oreo cookies....

MS always hampered themselves by having to run on S as well, and that parity clause has always been an albatross too.

Why's everyone acting like these couple of infos clumped together is brand new news?

IIRC it's the first time a very high profile game gets delayed on the Series consoles specifically because of the Series S.
So far the worse we've had was lower than expected performance on the Series X because of the S holding it back, but now it's a 3rd party saying "we're unable to make it work on the S". This is totally different.


I guess what Lariat should have done is just launch the game for the Series consoles without split screen capability, though I guess adding such a feature down the road post release could prove to be a QA nightmare.

 

[Nhomnhom]

I love to see the Series S backfiring, what a terrible idea for a console.

The Series S is the last thing the Xbox brand needed now they are even more associated with low quality and cheapness.

Makes you wonder if MS didn't actually believe a lot of the FUD themselves, like the Series X being far superior to the PS5 or the Series S being able to compete with it due to some nonsensical reasons.

 

[Airbus]

Remember the amount of fud on series s on the other site

 

[Bryank75]

Long may it continue!

It's a tricky thing for MSFT.... if they double down on Series S, they hurt themselves, if they launch a Series X Pro, they also hurt themselves and complicate development.

What a mess for them.

 

[Darth Vader]

It's a tricky thing for MSFT.... if they double down on Series S, they hurt themselves, if they launch a Series X Pro, they also hurt themselves and complicate development.

They'll just release a Series X Pro and rename the Series X "Series S Pro".

Boom, problem solved.

 

[Entropi]

Sounds like a reversal of the PS3 era.

 

[flaccidsnake]

I don't see much punditry talking about how BG3 isn't on Nintendo Switch. Because the expectation is that Switch runs less than cutting edge games. MS should've ONLY done Series S, with really aggressive pricing, and a clear Game Pass bundle. It's the Series X that's holding Xbox back right now. If MS committed solely to the Series S, ironically they actually could get BG3 without split screen support. It's the feature parity requirement blocking Larian, not the feature itself. They disabled split screen on Steam Deck where performance is even tighter.

Also it's a lot easier to kill the Series X because the existing 10-15M X's will play upscaled S games, but existing S's could not play X games if MS removed the support requirement.

The reality is most developers aren't capable of pushing Series X or PS5 to the limit. Most publishers don't want to risk the cost of pushing these boxes to the limit. Series S is enough for like 80%+ of the AAA industry. EA hilariously deciding to make Jedi Survivor for last gen consoles is the latest evidence.

 

[FatKaz]

I don't see much punditry talking about how BG3 isn't on Nintendo Switch. Because the expectation is that Switch runs less than cutting edge games. MS should've ONLY done Series S, with really aggressive pricing, and a clear Game Pass bundle. It's the Series X that's holding Xbox back right now. If MS committed solely to the Series S, ironically they actually could get BG3 without split screen support. It's the feature parity requirement blocking Larian, not the feature itself. They disabled split screen on Steam Deck where performance is even tighter.

They did do series s agressive pricing for months, and bundled in gamepass. It was a total failure we have leaked npd numbers to show that. They actually relied heavily on series s last holiday.

MS having a significantly less powerfull console then sony would have ended in a bigger disaster then they are in right now. Can you imagine an entire gen where games are running significantly worse then ps5? People will be leaving in droves.

 

[flaccidsnake]

They did do series s agressive pricing for months, and bundled in gamepass. It was a total failure we have leaked npd numbers to show that. They actually relied heavily on series s last holiday.

MS having a significantly less powerfull console then sony would have ended in a bigger disaster then they are in right now. Can you imagine an entire gen where games are running significantly worse then ps5? People will be leaving in droves.

I can imagine it, because Nintendo did it for the last 3 generations with a lot more success than Microsoft. With the stable of IP that MS currently owns, they shouldn't have so much trouble driving customers to their box, particularly if it's < $299. And they can still support PC for the high end customer.

 

[FatKaz]

I can imagine it, because Nintendo did it for the last 3 generations with a lot more success than Microsoft. With the stable of IP that MS currently owns, they shouldn't have so much trouble driving customers to their box, particularly if it's < $299. And they can still support PC for the high end customer.

The whole stable IPs is only really after they own ABK and those other studios actually start producing.

If we look at the beggining of the gen when MS would have had to have implemented this series s only strategy. They IPs that they would have relied on would not have been enough.

Most MS ips are not what they once were, forza isn't really going to be pulling people into the ecosystem, halo was on it's deathbed even before infinite dropped, redfall was a dud. Eveything else has been a fart in the wind.

The last 3 years would have been even more brutal for xbox then it already has been. Not only do they not have the attractive games for the first 3 years but also no power narrative, and cheaper price of the series s hasn't really change consumer minds. It would have been an even bigger slaughter.

 

[anonpuffs]

Long may it continue!

It's a tricky thing for MSFT.... if they double down on Series S, they hurt themselves, if they launch a Series X Pro, they also hurt themselves and complicate development.

What a mess for them.

This gen is a wrap for them. If I were MSFT and I wanted to salvage Xbox division I'd start by firing Phil Spencer and the entire executive suite and bringing people in who actually understand the gaming industry and game development, and make sure the head of marketing isn't doing the CEO job.

 

[flaccidsnake]

The whole stable IPs is only really after they own ABK and those other studios actually start producing.

If we look at the beggining of the gen when MS would have had to have implemented this series s only strategy. They IPs that they would have relied on would not have been enough.

Most MS ips are not what they once were, forza isn't really going to be pulling people into the ecosystem, halo was on it's deathbed even before infinite dropped, redfall was a dud. Eveything else has been a fart in the wind.

The last 3 years would have been even more brutal for xbox then it already has been. Not only do they not have the attractive games for the first 3 years but also no power narrative, and cheaper price of the series s hasn't really change consumer minds. It would have been an even bigger slaughter.

personally i dont think xbox should continue existing. they've made too many blunders and are rightly being rejected by players. I agree their formerly hit franchises are fading fast. on the other hand, MS willingly paid 70B for activision, so clearly they intend to plow ahead. most likely they're just going to keep on with the 2-unit approach. but at this point i'd say the X is a bigger liability than the S. ms can't even make enough X's because they lose money. so a cost-cutting redesign would be a high priority, but they've actually increased the cost of the S so the value proposition gets muddy if they don't maintain a decent price difference