• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Discussion What's your opinion of the Xbox Series S situation?

Lozjam

Lozjam

Don't Forget Me
Pronouns
He/Him
So, Gamescom is happening, and there are a lot of grumbling from developers about the Xbox Series S. The console has proved to be extremely underpowered, developers are kind of mad, and it has affected what games are coming to it.

Until today, the feature parity requirement has held back Baldurs Gate 3 from coming to both the Xbox Series S and X. Until today, where they have backed away from the parity requirement, and has allowed XSS to release without local multiplayer.

As a Series S owner myself, I actually think the Series S was a massive mistake. Xbox split their userbase between these two very different tiers, but are now in between a rock and a hard place. They have been repeatedly making developers more stressed, holding back their vision, by having these parity clauses. So that was a huge thing in itself, but as that occurs more and more, we have seen Microsoft back off from that. With their decision to dissolve some of those parity clauses, they really run the risk of making the Series S an awful system.

It's really damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Now, I am a huge advocate against more power in consoles being the end all be all. My favorite console is the Switch after all. But the thing is, the install base of the Switch is so big, and the amount of legacy software it has. You really don't expect the current generation stuff, but when it happens, it's a nice surprise. But since Series S touted itself as a next generation machine, it is far different. And I think as developers see how much Microsoft will blink with these parity clauses, the offerings available on XSS will get worse and worse.
 
Microsoft aimed too low in terms of hardware power though I kind of get the impression that developers would have grumbled even if Series S was closer spec-wise to Series X.

That said, having a digital only model like PS5 instead and taking a loss on it to sell at a lower price may have been the better play.
 
I wish it didn't exist. If it did have to exist it should have been more powerful.

Sony sucks but they had one right idea with the diskless PS5; a Game Pass only machine is called a diskless Series X.
 
Catsylvania said:
Microsoft aimed too low in terms of hardware power though I kind of get the impression that developers would have grumbled even if Series S was closer spec-wise to Series X.

That said, having a digital only model like PS5 instead and taking a loss on it to sell at a lower price may have been the better play.
Click to expand...
It's certainly weird to think about, but with the Switch 2's leaked specs, it probably will run circles around XSS, despite having having a way weaker processor and GPU. But the savings due to DLSS, more ram, and a better install base could make Switch 2's titles be of higher quality. Reconstructed DLSS 4K everywhere instead of 1080p, probably good performance if current switch titles are anything to go by, and dedicated developers who are experienced in porting things to a console like that, instead of the main team making a separate branch out of XSX to create the port will be quite interesting.
 
Maybe this is a hot and biased take, but I bought a Series S. It was within my means, it was avaliable when the Series X wasnt, and most importantly, it was under the assumption that this would be my Microsoft system for this generation.

I get that there are challenges, but I'd be very upset if Microsoft walked back on full parity between Series S and X games for the generation. I'm willing to accept comprimises like the split screen stuff in Baldurs Gate 3, or just lower performance in general, but the game is still there.

Like I said in the other thread, if Nintendo had came out in the middle of the Switch generation and said "Sorry, but due to technical hurdles... Tears of the Kingdom will be avaliable on the Switch OLED only", there would be riots on the streets. Either make it work with Series S, or make it PS5 exclusive, but when we have millions of Xbox owners, plus lower end PCs, plus potentially the Switch 2, I think very few publishers would sacrifice all that unless Sony is cutting them a big boy check for exclusivity.

I agree, they're stuck in a diffucult situation, and this is going to hold atleast a few games back from reaching their potential............ but for better or worse the Series S is what it is, and it's the burden of the devs now to figure it out.
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect it was terrible. A low cost version of an Xbox is a great idea for getting people on board but they went too low with it, to the point where it barely feels next gen. It also probably heavily frontloaded Xbox sales and ruined revenue, since the Series S was often the only version in stock for the first two years, and thus was the most sold version a lot of weeks/months, despite the fact that people usually prefer to get the more expensive version (PS5, Switch OLED). Then again, maybe it stopped people from just jumping to Playstation while waiting for a Series X, but that seems less likely given its a low cost model.
 
The Series S was such a bad move from the beginning that honestly, it boggles the mind why they did it, at least the way they did it (went too hard on cutting RAM, no disc drive). They're STILL losing money on hardware by insane margins while Sony started turning a profit in 2021, not even a year out from launch. Making the Series S that have different production from the Series X is going to keep that cost higher than it should.

Bending the knee to Larian is going to be a very funny slippery slope for them as now, the floodgates are opening. And Microsoft can't simply abandon the Series S because of how many people ended up buying it and it would destroy consumer trust if they did, so expect to see more accidental PS5 console exclusives if the Series S is still mandated and it's somehow too much for Switch 2.
 
I understand the idea behind it, but it makes no sense to go all in the power race with Sony while simultaneously chaining yourself to a heavy rock.
 
Maybe if MS held back on the S until down the line it would have fared better.

It feels like there is room for more pared back consoles later in a system's life like the 2DS or Switch lite, but whenever you give people the option during the beginning of the life, no one wants to pick up the """""inferior""""" machine.
 
The Series S rules, and if I can have my small Xbox at the cost of features I don’t care about anyway like coop or split screen, then I’m okay with it. I didn’t buy into it thinking I was going to get the top of the line experience, and I bet a majority of Series S owners didn’t either.
 
0
Like many folks, I also have a Series S, and I think I’m starting to regret not getting a Series X. But at this point, I have a PS5 and a decent gaming laptop, so the Series S is pretty redundant and upgrading to the X would be silly.

Going forward, when it comes to big third party multiplat titles, I’ll go with the PS5 version; unless the game is on Gamepass, where I’ll decide between playing it on the XSS or PC.
 
I love the series S and I think it's a great console for people on a budget. Badlers Gate 3 was early access for 3 years and released in a state that I would still call early access because of the number of glitches and downright unfinished aspects. I wouldn't blame the console for Larian being unable to get the game running.
 
0
By all indications the Series S makes up the majority of Xbox Series sales, so it's certainly not a mistake by market standards. Losing out on splitscreen mode in a game like BG3 is an acceptable compromise IMO and as the only real piece of evidence that the Series S is "holding back" the X (or the generation as a whole), it's telling how weak that argument is.
 
It is ok, I'm glad there are options for people to play wherever they want and can, now if developers and publishers don't like it, don't put your games there and that's it. Good on Microsoft for taking the risk.
 
0
I think a low cost console that’s essentially going to be the same as the premium model if your only display is a 1080p TV/monitor anyway is only really a good thing, and it really helped Microsoft out during supply shortages. So long as games remain available for both systems, minor features like split screen can be compromised as needed.
 
I love my Series S. If certain games need to scrap features to be playable, so be it.

The grumbling from devs doesn’t really matter that much when most games these days are still cross-gen. The games the XSS is seriously holding back is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, and the fact that a game like Starfield can seemingly run on it makes me even more skeptical.
 
Some developers don't care whether or not people have enough money to play video games, because from their point of view, it's not a problem.

The series S is a good idea because it makes video games less difficult and surely accessible in terms of budgets, and while I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion on a video game forum, if some developers aren't able to consider this from their bubble, thenthey are the one who would be more legitimate to complain about than the Xbox series S.
 
Series S is the Xbox baseline this generation and most people don’t even know what a series X is. Get over it and optimize devs. Also try to have more efficient and reasonable goals for your game design
 
From a pure business perspective for MS, its not a mistake. The Series S has gotten more people in thier ecosystem than otherwise.

For the games that I have been released, I dont see how the Series S has held things back overall. Afaik, we are talking about less than 5 instances where the Series S  might have a negative impact on the consumer side out of thousands upon thousands of games.

On the developer side, yeah it is more work because its a different SKU. Even if it only took two hours to optimize for the Series S, I would still complain if I was a dev, because more work is more work. So given that it probaly takes much longer than that, I get the complaints. But if thats where a good chunk of your consumers are then it it what it is 🤷‍♂️.

Now if the Series S starts ballooning devs budgets then thats another story. But I dint think that is the case right now.
 
If something's not working devs should be able to just drop it, no use in banging your head on a wall
 
0
I am not a developer and so I don't know what the actual challenges are. What I find hard to believe that a console more powerful with a more modern chipset than the One X is suddenly a potato incapable of running modern games scaled down.

I suspect that the true culprit is the deification of 4k resolution and 60fps, which Microsoft loudly proclaimed was a guarantee of this generation. Larian ought to be able to make 720p split screen work, but Microsoft won't let them and Gamers™ would riot that this isn't the Unreal Engine 5 future that they were promised by Keighley and others.

In short, I think the Series S (the cheapest next gen console) ought to be sufficient for developers, but they don't want the added work/burden of scaling games. Since the Series S install base isn't super massive, there's also a cost/benefit problem that's leading to these grumblings. I'm especially not going to complain about Microsoft trying to make a more accessible console bc a PC focused developer can't get a game running well.
 
0
I feel that its less the power that's the problem, its that deadlines are the same as if the devs didn't have to contend with this complication.

boodream said:
Some developers don't care whether or not people have enough money to play video games, because from their point of view, it's not a problem.

The series S is a good idea because it makes video games less difficult and surely accessible in terms of budgets, and while I'm sure this won't be a popular opinion on a video game forum, if some developers aren't able to consider this from their bubble, thenthey are the one who would be more legitimate to complain about than the Xbox series S.
Click to expand...
That feels awfully unsympathetic to devs who have to contend with a new SKU to work with. Especially when they may not even have a choice whether or not to support it. That's in the hands of higher ups.
 
0
I think the Series S is fine for what it is. MS sticking doggedly to the parity requirement made a certain amount of logical sense but was practically a pretty stupid position.
 
0
Lozjam said:
the feature parity requirement has held back Baldurs Gate 3 from coming to both the Xbox Series S and X. Until today, where they have backed away from the parity requirement, and has allowed XSS to release without local multiplayer.
Click to expand...
to clarify, the "feature parity" situation only applied to gameplay content. Microsoft had zero restrictions on removing graphical options to fit on the system. this was implied in a Phil Spencer interview shortly before Larian's annoucement.
In terms of parity, I don't think you've heard from us or Larian, that this was about parity. I think that's more that the community is talking about it. There are features that ship on X today that do not ship on S, even from our own games, like ray-tracing that works on X, it's not on S in certain games. So for an S customer, they spent roughly half what the X customer bought, they understand that it's not going to run the same way.
Click to expand...
it seems likely to me Larian is getting an exception here due to how massively popular their game turned out to be, and as such Microsoft wants to ensure it's on Xbox as soon as possible.

personally to me it seems like the rumoured concerns for it has been exaggerated over time, considering how many AAA releases have powered through it's limitations without issue. the CPU is only slightly weaker than the X, and that is really the biggest theoretical bottleneck. the GPU can be throttled through with visual downgrades, and said visual downgrades (such as lower resolution textures) will likely decrease RAM usage on top of that (not to mention the SSD decreasing the dependacy of needing RAM a bit)

though i doubt Phil's repeated insistence that a mid-gen refresh won't ever happen due to the two consoles already fufilling that setup of low and high-end systems, since we already know Sony is likely planning a PS5 Pro, there's no way Microsoft isn't going to barge in to ensure that they still are at the same level.
i do think they'll decrease the promience of the Series S by that point, but i doubt they'll ever commit to ending support for it earlier and seperately from the X.
 
I absolutely love my Series S. I picked it up last holiday season when Target had a deal where you got a $100 gift card with it. I spent that gift card instantly and easily, so it truly was a $200 console for me. I would not have an Xbox or even be considering it without Series S as an option. However, and I'm sure there are plenty of other people out there like me, my Series S is solely a Game Pass and a backwards compatibility console. If your new game isn't on Game Pass or eventually coming to Game Pass, I'm never going to play it on Xbox.
 
I got a Series S last holiday when it was on sale. It's been nice to go back and play some older Xbox games that I missed. If I couldn't get it for relatively cheap, I probably wouldn't even have gotten an Xbox this generation. Microsoft simply doesn't have the reputation or a good enough of selection of titles at the moment to warrant buying one over PS5 for $500. That might change in the future in which case, the S is a steal but until that catalogue gets big enough, being cheap is the best thing Microsoft has going for it.
 
Cheap gamepass machine, a lot the games I play look worse than my ps4 somehow (probably og xbox one last gen versions without upgrades, with a really poor upscale) but so be it. It cost me like $150 aud and I have a year of gamepass before the price increase. At least I got hifi rush, maybe I'll like Starfield. Makes sense for MS to finally make exceptions where series s parity is impossible.
 
0
My casual impression is that Microsoft may have misjudged when they designed the console, specifically its RAM configuration. I don't know what kinds of limitations they had to deal with, but through listening to Digital Foundry and looking at the specs, it seems like that may be the primary bottleneck. I don't think the concept of a 1080p/1440p sibling to the 4K flagship is a bad idea, but it seems like they fumbled it somewhere.

If the console didn't have whatever quirk it has that causes headaches for developers while still being a budget box (is that even possible?), or even regardless of that, I think the system is a win for consumers by making more gaming experiences accessible to more people. I think it's also a win for Nintendo (as discussed in the future hardware thread). No matter what, I don't think it was ever going to be a win for developers unless it increases the install base and leads to more purchases to a degree that offsets the development cost.* In general, I imagine very few developers get excited about the idea of having to develop for additional SKUs.

*On this note, I wonder what Series X sales would look like right now if the S had never existed. I also wonder what the software attach rate on Series S is. I've heard suggestions (maybe especially on Digital Foundry) that Series S is a great Game Pass machine. I also imagine it's typically for a more casual audience or one with a more limited Xbox gaming budget. Do greater hardware sales thanks to Series S lead to comparably greater software sales? Do Game Pass and the deals Microsoft makes to get games on the service make that a pointless question?
 
0
It wasn't a mistake. You can grab an XSEX for less than 4000 pesos in Mexico and nothing else will give you such an affordable access to modern console games for that or less money. If the business model isn't panning out great for Micro for the reasons being put forward, that would be a shame because the machine is great.
 
Theoretically, the Series S is more powerful than "Switch 2".
That's said, the Series S is powerful enough for me to really wish Switch 2 is as powerful as it.
So Series S is a great machine, no doubt.
What really shocked / confused me is that,
if Series X / PS5 could run a game at 2160P 30FPS / 1440P 60FPS, why would Series S not hit 1440P 30FPS / 1080P 60FPS with the architecture is basically the same. In my assumption, I believe Microsoft did perfect calculation when developing Series S and they would have had delivered easy development kits / tools for studios to achieve Series X & Series S simultaneous release without any features being cut off.
And apparently, it's not the case even with Head of Xbox engaged in the matter.
 
I think it's fine, especially since Switch 2 will probably be weaker than it in some key areas and developers are going to want to include Switch 2 wherever possible. Microsoft should let more developers compromise on features like they just did with Baldur's Gate 3, though.
 
0
It is what it is. I got a Series S more because of its size than price and I expected some compromise anyway. The issue is more with how Microsoft handled the situation. Touting vague parity only to turn around and give Larian preferential treatment because of BG3 while everyone else has to deal with the headache... have fun putting that genie back into the bottle.
 
The parity thing was always going to bite them in the ass and it's going to get worse further in the future, just let developers ignore the S (or ignore the parity thing and let them cut features) and release on X exclusively if they can't work it out. Putting the full burden of optimizing for the thing on the devs is just going to lead to more products skipping Xbox entirely depending on the game.

Dardan Sandiego said:
It is what it is. I got a Series S more because of its size than price and I expected some compromise anyway. The issue is more with how Microsoft handled the situation. Touting vague parity only to turn around and give Larian preferential treatment because of BG3 while everyone else has to deal with the headache... have fun putting that genie back into the bottle.
Click to expand...
This too. You can't just let one developer ignore this parity rule and expect others to have to follow it, it's super messy.
 
0
AngryAlchemist said:
It seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect it was terrible. A low cost version of an Xbox is a great idea for getting people on board but they went too low with it, to the point where it barely feels next gen. It also probably heavily frontloaded Xbox sales and ruined revenue, since the Series S was often the only version in stock for the first two years, and thus was the most sold version a lot of weeks/months, despite the fact that people usually prefer to get the more expensive version (PS5, Switch OLED). Then again, maybe it stopped people from just jumping to Playstation while waiting for a Series X, but that seems less likely given its a low cost model.
Click to expand...
I was gifted an XSS because it was the only console available. Still had PS4 games coming so it didn't make sense because of that too. And I was very positive of the system at first, but it very quickly began to lose its luster.

Mer.Saloon said:
Maybe if MS held back on the S until down the line it would have fared better.

It feels like there is room for more pared back consoles later in a system's life like the 2DS or Switch lite, but whenever you give people the option during the beginning of the life, no one wants to pick up the """""inferior""""" machine.
Click to expand...
XSS had far many more sales than XSX in the beginning of its life.

ethanswift said:
Theoretically, the Series S is more powerful than "Switch 2".
That's said, the Series S is powerful enough for me to really wish Switch 2 is as powerful as it.
So Series S is a great machine, no doubt.
What really shocked / confused me is that,
if Series X / PS5 could run a game at 2160P 30FPS / 1440P 60FPS, why would Series S not hit 1440P 30FPS / 1080P 60FPS with the architecture is basically the same. In my assumption, I believe Microsoft did perfect calculation when developing Series S and they would have had delivered easy development kits / tools for studios to achieve Series X & Series S simultaneous release without any features being cut off.
And apparently, it's not the case even with Head of Xbox engaged in the matter.
Click to expand...
This is a simple one. Even on PS5, which has some of the best optimized third party and first party games, they don't run on perfect 4k30fps or 1440p60fps. Since modern development techniques use variable resolution instead of frame drops, and then using up scaling.

For example, one of PS5's best looking games runs at 1080p-1440p most of the time in quality mode, and 720p in performance mode. This is Final Fantasy 16, and it's by far not the outlier when it comes to next generation games.

I guess Xbox thought developers would put the power of consoles into simple resolution or framerate. But instead they are putting the extra power into texture quality, higher quality polygons, lighting, load times.

Thinking about it, SE might have a hard as hell time porting FFXVI to the XSS if it runs like it does on PS5.
 
Since I don't own anything but a Switch, my opinion comes from someone on the outside looking in.

But I do feel that if the parity clause is already causing some trouble this early in the gen, things are bound to get even worse as time moves on. So I think this decision will prove to have been a mistake down the line.
 
0
Might be a hot take but I absolutely agree with this comment under the "developers despise it" tweet :



I wished the studios would focus more on framerate than on outstanding photorealistic graphics. Let the Series S run games at 30fps and then the Series X and PS5 can push for 60-120fps. With that said, Microsoft should be more lenient on some stuff, like co-op.
 
blue2425 said:
From a pure business perspective for MS, its not a mistake. The Series S has gotten more people in thier ecosystem than otherwise.
Click to expand...
Considering Xbox is dead last in sales this gen, I can’t imagine whether they’d be in a better position or an even worse one without the S
 
0
I don't mind it. They should accept more and more differences in game versions. Normalize people to it. I think they had good reasoning to have the Series S with how semiconductor manufacturing and demand has progressed. The pressure for feature disparity will increase if they make a Xbox Series X/Y/Z/Pro/Super. Multiplatform and PC devs have always developed for multiple configurations. Only problem I see with the Series S are feature parity requirements
 
0
Series S should’ve been the base specs to aim for for this “high-end” generation. Devs are being overworked trying to deliver the top of the top experiences and end up falling short due to player expectations changing over the long dev periods. They should be limiting themselves more and developing for smaller hardware like the Switch and the Series S, and then scaling up with the X and PS5 versions.
 
0
Party Sklar said:
Might be a hot take but I absolutely agree with this comment under the "developers despise it" tweet :



I wished the studios would focus more on framerate than on outstanding photorealistic graphics. Let the Series S run games at 30fps and then the Series X and PS5 can push for 60-120fps. With that said, Microsoft should be more lenient on some stuff, like co-op.
Click to expand...

This is exactly where I’m at. The best looking stuff on my Series X for me so far has been Xbox 360 games running at 4K60+AutoHDR. The constant death-treadmill of exponentially rising graphical fidelity is completely unsustainable, and is going to result in overworked underpaid employees working 80 hour weeks to make 8K dirt textures for a live-service game that will get shut down in 6 months for video game machines that cost way too much to make and even more to buy with components that are unethically sourced that use hundreds of dollars a year in pollution-producing electricity, all because “good graphics”

Insert that picture of Sonic the Hedgehog saying “I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people paid more to work less and I’m not kidding” here
 
Party Sklar said:
Might be a hot take but I absolutely agree with this comment under the "developers despise it" tweet :



I wished the studios would focus more on framerate than on outstanding photorealistic graphics. Let the Series S run games at 30fps and then the Series X and PS5 can push for 60-120fps. With that said, Microsoft should be more lenient on some stuff, like co-op.
Click to expand...

This is where I stand.

Development at this scope isn't sustainable for all but a few high-end developers. The Series S could be a needed excuse to aim lower, but instead it has become a boogeyman for an industry obsessed with its own excess.

How executives see the success of mobile and everything on the Switch and still think that pure horsepower is the way is a testament to the naivety of suits (and the insufferable Gamers who won't pipe down when a puddle isn't as pronounced as they want it to be).
 
Lozjam said:
XSS had far many more sales than XSX in the beginning of its life.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I misunderstood what the situation was.

Seems to me like a bit of a rock and a hard place situation, but frankly MS made a consumer friendly choice.

I wonder who are the devs slating the Series S and what positions they hold? There's a lot we don't know.

do the devs feel pressured to keep pushing these high fidelity graphics and thus feel the need to make games that collide extra hard with S development?

Are these devs higher positioned people who have to make potches to publishers? Or are these on the ground devs who want to push themselves?
 
0
The obsession of the industry with AAA cinematic games will be the end of it. Talk about a PS5 pro is already in the news.
 
I'm very out of the loop with console discussion generally, but the vibes I'm getting (especially with some of the comments here) is that infinitely scaling games = big bad things for later. We gotta wind down, bro.

But it's a shame cuz XSS seems like a neat little console.
 
0
It's a good idea even if it leads to one game that has issues working on it. 80% of consumers on PC have a system that has lower specs than the S and PC games are designed to scale a lot based on the system.
 
ethanswift said:
Theoretically, the Series S is more powerful than "Switch 2".
That's said, the Series S is powerful enough for me to really wish Switch 2 is as powerful as it.
So Series S is a great machine, no doubt.
What really shocked / confused me is that,
if Series X / PS5 could run a game at 2160P 30FPS / 1440P 60FPS, why would Series S not hit 1440P 30FPS / 1080P 60FPS with the architecture is basically the same. In my assumption, I believe Microsoft did perfect calculation when developing Series S and they would have had delivered easy development kits / tools for studios to achieve Series X & Series S simultaneous release without any features being cut off.
And apparently, it's not the case even with Head of Xbox engaged in the matter.
Click to expand...
@Lozjam gave you the correct the correct answer, but I'd like to point out that we've already seen this play out on the Switch. Nintendo sculpted the power gap nicely for docked 1080p games to scale down to 720p in handheld. But by and large, no one's actually running games at 1080p on the Switch; even Nintendo only generally gets there with their Wii U ports (and not all of them!). This has led to native res games in handheld being quite the rarity, despite the fact that on paper the system was designed for it to just work out; instead, resolutions in the 540p-600p range are quite common. I'll note that Nintendo even kinda cheated at the last minute and threw in a higher clocked handheld mode that they use for a lot of their stuff (contrary to initial reportings, this happened before launch; even BotW uses it), but it's still not enough.

There's other parallels with the two consoles' technical struggles too. RAM bandwidth needs don't always scale with resolution, and the Switch has rather low bandwidth to start that goes even lower in handheld mode (though, notably, it often does scale with resolution - which leads to interesting instances where the paltry 25% speed bump going to docked isn't enough to keep up with a ~50% resolution bump, and handheld mode ends up with a higher framerate in some scenarios). The Series S bandwidth is roughly half that of the Series X - which might be fine, might not, depending on the game. Similarly (and unique to the Xbox situation), the way the RAM size is cut back isn't going to nicely translate for every game. Some games need a lot of RAM for non-graphics data, and that's often not going to shrink with resolution.

The TL;DR is that the Series S cutbacks make a fair degree of sense on paper for some games, but there's always going to be ones that break the mold - and given how much devs like to push the boundary on performance, that ends up being quite a lot of them. The games still run, but it's evidently a pain to get them where they are.
 
0
S and X split, good idea. Seems they cheaped out on the RAM a little too much to make things painless, but what's done is done. What Baldur's Gate 3 is doing seems like a good compromise, as long as it's always made clear to S owners what they'll be missing.
Mer.Saloon said:
Maybe if MS held back on the S until down the line it would have fared better.
Click to expand...
This leads to either a bunch of games incompatible with it until/unless developers patch for it, or a system which is totally specced out years early, while developers have to support a machine that doesn't yet exist for people to buy.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom