twilo99
Member
The "Narrative". Let's guess who's narrative that is
Class action lawsuit by Monday!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are you ok with the Xbox Series S losing its parity agreements?
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
Class action lawsuit by Monday!
drotahorror
Member
As an owner of a series S, I think they get rid of the parity clause. Hell just pretend they’re 2 systems
Last edited:
svbarnard
Banned
I hope someone sues Microsoft over this to be honest because Microsoft said the only difference would be resolution. Personally I have always hated the Series S.
Microsoft: Yes we have the most powerful console this generation, but we will also have the weakest console as well.
Pilgrimzero
Member
Could not care less. Bought to play X-Box exclusives on the cheap and Retro games (which it does the latter in spades).
Heck, I've played more 360 and earlier games on it then anything else.
Heck, I've played more 360 and earlier games on it then anything else.
Last edited:
Aenima
Member
Wheres the should never had happened in the 1st place?
On paper the idea of having a low budget console was good, but the idea of having 2 consoles with diferent hardware was always terrible for the developers. And now Players are getting a taste of it as well with games being delayed. They should have gone the Sony path of having 2 consoles with the same hardware, just cutting some stuff like physical drive to sell it for a bit cheaper.
Discontinuing the S now would probably generate alot of backlash from the Series S users, so droping the mandatory parity in feautures seems the most sensible way to deal with the mess Phil Spencer created. If Series S already have games running at much lower framerates, resolution and is missing ray-tracing in some games, i dont see a problem in leaving something like split screen out too. Like they say, "You get what you pay for".
On paper the idea of having a low budget console was good, but the idea of having 2 consoles with diferent hardware was always terrible for the developers. And now Players are getting a taste of it as well with games being delayed. They should have gone the Sony path of having 2 consoles with the same hardware, just cutting some stuff like physical drive to sell it for a bit cheaper.
Discontinuing the S now would probably generate alot of backlash from the Series S users, so droping the mandatory parity in feautures seems the most sensible way to deal with the mess Phil Spencer created. If Series S already have games running at much lower framerates, resolution and is missing ray-tracing in some games, i dont see a problem in leaving something like split screen out too. Like they say, "You get what you pay for".
Last edited:
DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy
Member
Have a Series X, so I don’t really care.
Barakov
Gold Member
Same. Once you have a Series X, it kinda doesn't matter. If dropping the parity agreements helps make things easier on developers and gets more games on Xbox that's probably the right move.
It's not about running games it's about having the same game modes across all versions. Take for example the arcade and console versions of Street Fighter vs X-Men, in the arcade version you can actively switch between characters during matches while on consoles at the time it wasn't possible changing the dynamic of the game drastically. Now apply that to Series S and Series X and that's when you lose parity. Image quality and frame rate doesn't apply here because regardless if a game is 30fps or 60fps, 4K or qHD, you're still getting the same game with all modes intact.
Imagine booting up a fighting game on Series X and the modes included:
Single Player
Vs. 1x1
Vs. 2x2
Training
Now boot that same game up on Series S and you see:
Single Player
Vs. 1x1
Training
That consumer paid the same price for a game with less modes.
Moriarty1889
Member
Fine with me. The Series S was always a much weaker less capable system in the first place. Forcing devs to gimp a Series X version of a game for parity was rubbish.
MarkMe2525
Member
One can dream
In Cold Blood
Banned
I have a Series X, and so am totally unaffected by it.
If it loses split screen, I'm sure the 10 people who like playing split screen might well be upset.
If it loses split screen, I'm sure the 10 people who like playing split screen might well be upset.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
None of this matters, because nothing will make half of this forum happy unless MS gifts the entire Xbox division to Sony for the audacity of competing against them.
GAF has a pathological desire to pay $599 in 2006 money for their PlayStations.
GAF has a pathological desire to pay $599 in 2006 money for their PlayStations.
saintjules
Member
Edgelord79
Gold Member
It’s split screen. Put it into perspective.
What do you want them to do? Obviously their engineers told them it wasn’t going to be possible within any realistic timeframe. Imagine the message it sends out if they don’t put a potential GOTY blockbuster on their platform.
“We are deliberately putting out inferior game versions than our competition.”
That’s what it says. That’s game over and a much worse look than the other direction. Is it shitty they are doing this to Series S owners? Absolutely. Is it a deal breaker for many of them? Doubt it.
Microsoft made a mistake and they know it. This won’t be the first game either that this happens to.
twilo99
Member
So far, if you happened to purchase this low cost machine, you can and will be able to play some pretty big games..
Halo Infinite
Forza Motorsport
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Starfield
BG3 (no split screen at launch)
Now, if it wasn’t for Microsoft decision to produce a budget option, these games will be out of reach for a lot of people who simply can’t afford the more expensive consoles.
How difficult is this to understand and recognize as a positive?
Halo Infinite
Forza Motorsport
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Starfield
BG3 (no split screen at launch)
Now, if it wasn’t for Microsoft decision to produce a budget option, these games will be out of reach for a lot of people who simply can’t afford the more expensive consoles.
How difficult is this to understand and recognize as a positive?
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
That song is the cornerstone of the king of all entrances in Rocky IV.
P.S. Ironically, if Series S loses parity outside of local co-op and MS fails to update its backwards compatability catalogue, many will probably upgrade to PC and Series X owners will be the ones getting the shaft...
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Pretty funny considering Series S is most likely the larger install base. So, you're screwing over the larger install base.
Xbox fans won't admit it, and instead praise MS for a bad policy and then also praise them for doing a 180 on said bad policy, but MS screwed themselves this gen with the 2 tier systems. PS is, once again, going to outsell them 2+:1. I guess if Xbox fans would criticize them every now and again, like I see PlayStation and Nintendo fans doing for their respective parent companies, they'd actually have a shot at succeeding. Instead, it's shill, baby shill.
Xbox fans won't admit it, and instead praise MS for a bad policy and then also praise them for doing a 180 on said bad policy, but MS screwed themselves this gen with the 2 tier systems. PS is, once again, going to outsell them 2+:1. I guess if Xbox fans would criticize them every now and again, like I see PlayStation and Nintendo fans doing for their respective parent companies, they'd actually have a shot at succeeding. Instead, it's shill, baby shill.
ToadMan
Member
Assuming series S owners pay less for the titles... Or the GP sub anyway.
MS sold a next gen gimped console that was supposed to offer the same experience as the more powerful console.
It now won't offer the same experience going forward. So those titles shouldn't be the same price on S.
I think if this is a change of policy across the board, MS should just offer a minimal cost trade in of series s for x.
MS sold a next gen gimped console that was supposed to offer the same experience as the more powerful console.
It now won't offer the same experience going forward. So those titles shouldn't be the same price on S.
I think if this is a change of policy across the board, MS should just offer a minimal cost trade in of series s for x.
cireza
Member
People that bathe in money cannot understand this. They simply want the best experience for themselves, to hell people that have a small income.
Last edited:
Elysium44
Banned
And if it had been sold that way from the outset, there would be no problem. However, it was sold as being a level playing field with the Series X, the ONLY difference would be it would run at a lower resolution.
It is a bait and switch. It is not fair to say 'Customers should have known better! They had no right to expect Microsoft to be telling the truth!' That's gaslighting. When the Xbox leadership are telling you unequivocally that Series S is just as good as Series X, no compromises except it's a 1080p machine, not a 4K machine, then they MUST keep to that promise OR unequivocally apologise and offer compensation of some kind. Also games for Series S should be cheaper than Series X. Microsoft opened this whole can of worms themselves, the customer didn't.
Most Xbox customers this gen are on Series S only. It isn't a small minority who will be brushed aside. Microsoft needs to make amends.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
This interview with Phil Spencer from VGC leaves me baffled tbh:
www.videogameschronicle.com
If it isn't about some kind of feature parity then what is it?
Him going down the road of "Well, they should've known" is... quite something. Almost justifies anything when he puts it that way, like dropping the console support mid gen because "Well, you only payed half the price".
Phil Spencer ‘doesn’t see a world’ where Xbox Series S has to miss out on some games | VGC
Microsoft remains committed to releasing the same titles on both of its current-gen consoles…
www.videogameschronicle.com
If it isn't about some kind of feature parity then what is it?
Him going down the road of "Well, they should've known" is... quite something. Almost justifies anything when he puts it that way, like dropping the console support mid gen because "Well, you only payed half the price".
Last edited:
SenkiDala
Member
Seriously... It is becoming pathetic. The pill is hard to swallow for a lot of people here. Pure jealousy.
MisterXDTV
Member
radewagon
Member
It's pretty awful to be honest. The whole promise of S was that you would get essentially the same content but at a reduced quality. By breaking this promise, they are opening the floodgates. What will be okay to axe next time? And the time after that. And after that. We all know that the hype surrounding games will focus on a version with a full feature set, so people getting excited about a new release may end up bait-and-switched by simply having the less expensive console. It's a jerk move.
The only way I think this would be somewhat okay is if MS promised to put huge warning labels explicitly stating what content would be inaccessible on the S console. Otherwise, they are misrepresenting the games being released.
But that doesn't fix the bigger problem of them simply disregarding the mission statement of the Series S and what it it promised to offer gamers that purchased it. This is certainly not a one-off situation and will only get worse as time progresses. It's pretty shameless and if it continues to get worse, I could easily see a class-action coming their way. And they'd deserve it.
The only way I think this would be somewhat okay is if MS promised to put huge warning labels explicitly stating what content would be inaccessible on the S console. Otherwise, they are misrepresenting the games being released.
But that doesn't fix the bigger problem of them simply disregarding the mission statement of the Series S and what it it promised to offer gamers that purchased it. This is certainly not a one-off situation and will only get worse as time progresses. It's pretty shameless and if it continues to get worse, I could easily see a class-action coming their way. And they'd deserve it.
twilo99
Member
Up until now visuals have been the only difference and if they manage to add split screen at some point that will continue to be the case I guess.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Bloody hell, this thread.
One game.
One split screen option on that game is removed.
Gimped!
Sue them!
Series S owners: I don't care.
Phil Spencer must die!
If you think this isn't worse than [insert your choice] then you're a shill!
I'm not saying it's definitely console warriors trying to get excited about this, but it seems like people who actually have a Series S mostly don't seem to care. They can't all be paid shills.
One game.
One split screen option on that game is removed.
Gimped!
Sue them!
Series S owners: I don't care.
Phil Spencer must die!
If you think this isn't worse than [insert your choice] then you're a shill!
I'm not saying it's definitely console warriors trying to get excited about this, but it seems like people who actually have a Series S mostly don't seem to care. They can't all be paid shills.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
It’s a shitty attitude.
The xss is 40% cheaper than the more expensive boxes and it provides, for the most part, the same level of entertainment.
Elysium44
Banned
I have a Series S FWIW. You're right it's one game so far, and not one I was interested in anyway but that isn't the point, is it.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Well, it is the point.
It's one game, you're another Series S owner who doesn't care, and there's nothing on the horizon to suggest that Series S is being dropped, won't have feature parity or that Microsoft will be forced to give all Series S owners a Series X. On here, in console war central, sure, those things are suggested as quite likely, and worth making another Xbox/Series S concern thread about, but really everyone ought to be getting over this stuff by now.
MasterCornholio
Member
I believe it was Larian that confirmed its existence. But I haven't seen an actual link to the clause itself.
Elysium44
Banned
Time will tell if this is a one-off exception or the thin end of the wedge and the start of a new trend. It is logical to suspect it will be the latter but we'll see. I mean I'm not going to lose sleep over it either way, I have more important things going on in my life but I still think they shouldn't be let off the hook easily for yet again overpromising and under-delivering.