this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
89 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30568 readers
39 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Should put this whole issue to rest (for a while, at least πŸ˜‰).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aaronstc@lemm.ee 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

I don't care about split screen but more evidence that the Series S was a mistake. At the very least Microsoft is going to have to ease up on the requirements.

Edit: It has come to my attention that I need to improve my reading comprehension. This only affects the S. πŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈ

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The most popular Xbox this generation was a mistake?

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most popular Xbox this generation, as opposed to... the second most popular Xbox this generation?

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The point being it's hardly a mistake if most are buying it over the X.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that because people actually want an S... or because they settled because they couldn't find an X? Everywhere I go there's tons of S's available and almost no X's available. Obviously anecdotal, but maybe it's not so much buying it over the X as buying it because the X just isn't in reach... either because of price (though if you can't afford a hundred dollars extra for a console... you can't really afford the console at all, and you're just justifying it to yourself) or because of lack of availability in general.

[–] Omegamanthethird 7 points 1 year ago

Just a note, it's not $100 difference. It's $200 difference ($300 vs $500). Having said that, the only reason I got the SS was because I couldn't get the SX. I tried and failed. I would have preferred a $400 digital version of the SX even. Settled for the SS. Had to get an SSD expansion card, feature parity is apparently not a thing, had to rebuy a couple games digitally.

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, does that mean the X was a mistake since the S has more sales? What is your point

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it means there's clearly more demand for the S. My point is you claiming it was a mistake could not have been any less accurate.

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I never said it was a mistake? I'm just saying what you said was meaningless...

The dreamcast is the most popular SEGA console of its generation. A raging success!

[–] Venutianxspring@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it was a mistake, it brought next gen gaming to people that can't afford, or don't need the highest spec machines. I have a series S so I can play Xbox games with my son, I also have a gaming PC and steam deck. The price of the S allowed me to justify buying this, but I wasn't about to drop the dough on an X just to play a few Xbox games

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X. I think the problem is that they didn’t really think through what a console generational leap would actually consist of.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they thought through just how important hitting that price point was, because it's done very well for them.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

PS5 outsold both versions combined by around 2x. I don't think it was nearly that big of a deal.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And do you think that would have panned out better if the cheaper console option wasn't available? Not to mention it would only leave them with the console that shared a lot of the same components as the PS5 during supply shortages as well.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Microsoft should really ask themselves why they couldn't have procured more components, despite being one of the most profitable companies on Earth.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, unless their goal is to lose even more money on each console sold, I doubt they were interested in that. But that's not their goal. Their goal is to get people subscribed to Game Pass.

[–] any1th3r3@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Yes, thank you!
Microsoft has historically never been profitably selling consoles, which is certainly part of their shift towards different business models, including Game Pass and a focus on more than just Xbox, but PC and Cloud as well. They don't really have much of a financial incentive to sell consoles for that sake alone, they have to get people to subscribe to Game Pass and/or buy games (possibly digitally whenever possible) and the Series S is their best console for that, as the consumer is very much locked in.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Game Pass includes PC gamers. It's probably not that profitable either.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Game Pass does include PC gamers, which is why they're probably more interested in opening up that service to more people with a cheap console SKU than to sell Xbox consoles, likely because outselling Sony by doing the same thing Sony is doing is a very steep hill to climb.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then why even bother with a console? Just define the minimally specced PC box needed for Game Pass and call it a day.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One day they might. PC has taken a larger and larger market share as time has gone on. PCs became easier to game on, consoles became less streamlined, and perhaps even the closed-off nature of consoles compared to the open nature of PCs has played a role. But as of 2023, you're still not making a $300 PC that plays games as well as an S. While consoles have become less streamlined, they're still more streamlined than a PC.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We've already established that the $300 box is not viable for much longer. And since it sold around 1/3 the numbers of the PS5, it didn't even work as advertised.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did we establish that? Most of the biggest games are not the hardest on system requirements. And while Microsoft would obviously prefer that they sold more Xboxes and reached more Game Pass subscribers (the 25M-30M is impressive regardless), I'd be surprised if they expected the majority of those to be Series S; but they probably did recognize that that customer base is still worth reaching. We're just not at a point in the history of consoles where they all have the same business model anymore, like they did 20 years ago.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They compromised their higher end system with their lower end system. It's time to admit they made a mistake here, and they are only now starting to fix it.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I've got a really hard time calling it a mistake when it's been more successful, but you do you.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X

Lmao, bruh, no one who has played games on both would ever claim that. It has slightly more raw graphical compute power while having a drastically weaker CPU, slower SSD, slower memory, and slower overall throughput.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It has faster memory than the Series S. More importantly, it has more RAM. A few improvements here and there doesn't make the Series S a real next-gen console.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As someone who has a One X, a Series S, and a Series X, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The One X doesn't get used anymore and the Series S gets used ballpark more often than the series X. Pretty much all games play a very comparable experience on it compared to the series X, something that cannot be said about the One X.

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

It just isn't though.

[–] aaronstc@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I guess calling it a mistake is a bit much but it's clearly holding the Series X back especially in this case.

[–] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Not everyone is able to afford a gaming PC, let alone a current gen gaming console.

Series S offers them a great opportunity. It is far from a mistake.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] hypelightfly@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The console itself wasn't a mistake. Their promises of feature parity was the mistake.

Not making it have the same amount of RAM was also a mistake, it could have been just a weaker GPU which would have had less issues.

[–] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Whoever made that decision obviously never worked in gamedev.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it was a mistake, how the game now coming to Series S proving that? The only thing it proves is that split screen is a demanding feature and MSFT shouldn't impose parity of that, which they shamelessly accepted after the success of BG3. It's still a good console to play modern games, of course not at best fidelity, but I don't think that matters.

Edit: just realised you're saying that with an incorrect conclusion that split screen wouldn't be coming on Series X. Well, that isn't the case, and probably brings the game to more people with least amount of harm.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Nechesh 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought Microsoft was the one requiring feature parity. It sounds like the real story is MS caving.

[–] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. It's in the Xbox Requirements, as in, the checklist of stuff you need to fulfill if you want to release a game on Xbox. To be precise, it's test case 130-04: Featured Game Modes.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

The right decision due to how it runs. It's basically two copies of the game going at once. None of this players not being able to stray too far from each other nonsense like other local co-op games.

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

This is great news. Glad to see Xbox players will get to play this fantastic game!!

[–] theangriestbird 5 points 1 year ago

I remember split-screen being real shaky for D:OS2 on the PS4. Not surprised that they struggled to get it working for this even-more-demanding game on a resource-limited console.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί