An Xbox community for Lemmy!
UNIVERSAL XBOX SUBSCRIBE LINK - CLICK HERE
Click this to open this community in your Specific Instance, then click Subscribe
Rules:
QUICK START GUIDE AND RULES:
New to Lemmy?
View the Getting Started Guide
Attributions:
Xbox Logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XBOX_logo_2012.svg
Banner : https://www.xbox.com/en-us/wallpapers/
I mean the article answers it, but this is not the first time that devs have complained that they MUST launch software that runs on the X and it's sibling, the S.
Like, it's a requirement that the game runs well on the flagship console and it's potato brother.
It's hardly a mystery why a dev might not want to spend time building a game that looks great on PS5, Series X, and PC and then also have to make a 2nd lobotomized version since Microsoft decided they wanted two consoles this time around.
Are there any indie studios complaining about the S? It's usually a throw 100 ~~monkeys with a typewriter~~ unmotivated developers at an AAA game type of problem.
The main difference is the GPU and target output resolution, the second is storage size. CPU is identical. If Microsoft can figure out how to run MSFS (including MSFS 2024) on both, so can others. It’s not a potato, it’s an HD console vs the XSX at 4K.
The main difference is the most important thing for gaming. Less than half the CU's of the X (just below 6600 and 6800 desktop GPUs respectively).
Plus there's the ram 8gb vram on the S vs 10 on the X is not that much of a deal but having the remainder for CPU usage being 2GBs is shocking.
Especially since it appears system software on the X occupies around 2,5 GB. Obviously they must have restricted that for the S but still the RAM available is ridiculously low.
Finally third party developers are not required to figure out how to run their games on Xbox unlike Microsoft. For all it's technical marvel FS2020/4 is not a killer app, especially on consoles.
And the problem is further compounded by the Series S outselling the X by around 3:1, and the PS5 outselling the Xbox Series X And S combined by around 2:1. So the series X install base is 6 times smaller than the PS5.
So having to spend extra dev time to get it to work on the Series S if you want to release on Xbox at all, along with only a fraction of those players getting to experience the intended look and feel of the game, it's no wonder they're skipping it.
This all does indicate an issue for Sony though, with the price of the PS5 Pro. People were told that the Series S would play all the games the Series X can, and they flocked to the cheaper console. Now Sony are pushing a console for £800. I don't think it's going to do very well.
Considering recent reports of MS not returning communications with developers that they already have working relationships with... They might want to see if their emails are going to real people at MS in the first place.
That seems to be the most specific issue the article is citing.
Maybe their firing wave hit too many departments.
I went into this article being like yeah this makes no sense why, but reading other comments and the article made me realize yeah it's a no-brainer that developers are skipping on microsoft. They need to get rid of the requirement of if you launch on one you must launch on both, it's basically needlessly increasing the cost of the platform.
I worked retail during the latest generation release and it was very clear that if you wanted to use your system as a system you had to go with the series x. We had customers buying the series s who would come in afterward and be like yeah I returned it, I wanted the ability to have physical Media or I looked up the differences and the x just made sense. The reason anyone ever got the cheaper model was at launch date when the X was not available anywhere.
This combined with the fact that the cheaper model had lower end Hardware which further restricts the games that can go on it and the capabilities basically means that you have to two different branches that have more changes than just changing what platform it's releasing cuz you have to make sure that your defaults are at lower quality for the s.
gamepass is one topic that I was wondering when it would come to light/backfire. It's not an unheard of fact that Microsoft heavily prefers games to go on to their Game Pass Program which in the process of doing so heavily reduces the amount of sales at a game has.
Sales on Xbox (in terms of physical and digital copies) as a whole dropped with the addition of Game Pass becoming mainstream, and while developers are getting paid for having their game on the program, this metric is decided based off a sign up payment, and then based off of how many people actively play the game, so for a developer going on Game Pass you gain a lot of money up front while the game active in being played(which is super helpful for Indie style Developers who really have much money to begin with), there is a steep drop off as the game loses interest which is more severe than if the game had just sold normal game copies.
This drop off in sales while combined with the ever increasing ideology Microsoft Gamers tend to have where if it's not on Game Pass it's not worth playing because they are already paying a monthly subscription for it really makes it so if you weren't planning on enrolling in The Game Pass Program in the first place it's not really all that worth launching on the platform as a whole.
From the beginning I was saying the Series S is a boat anchor that needs to be cut loose. The writing was on the wall when it couldn't even run last gen Xbox One X enhanced games because of the memory bottleneck.
Add to that the bottomless pit of Game Pass and no way to guarantee a steady revenue stream on the platform and the only wonder isn't "why aren't they developing?" but more "why is ANYONE developing?"
Things are going to get really interesting if the PS5 Pro supercedes the Xbox Series X the same way the Xbox One X did all others in the last generation.
What is the latest Xbox even called?
Series X or Series S for their budget 1080P model
Ah, so I guess I did know, thanks. But still, my doubt isn't good.
Yeah the naming is pretty dumb, especially given the fact that the “Series X” replaced the “Xbox One X”.
They’ve brought so much brand confusion just because they didn’t want to have a situation where “Xbox 2” had to go up against “PS3” back in 2005. I still don’t know why they didn’t just skip a number to have parity with Sony.
They had many options, could do Xbox 4 after 360, that would have been easiest, but maybe they didn't want people asking why they skipped 3.
They could also do 720, then 1000, then 2000, and so on. Would still be a bit confusing when compared to 1, 2, 3, 4 but you would still know that largest number is the latest.
After Xbox One, they could go Xbox Two, but maybe they felt it has same connotations as PS3 vs Xbox2.
What I am really curious about is, what will they name the next Xbox? It also makes me feel for them. Just because they came a generation late, they have to spend don't know much resources every generation just to come up with a name, whereas PS can just increase the number (and no, we aren't going to talk about Nintendo in this 😀 )
