So a game could release an “update” with less content and charge for it, and that would be ok to call a DLC, because they charged for it?

Yet they still get around it through sound mixing. Any regulations against using jingles or having ads interrupt what you’re watching?

I hardly watch it either. Just found it funny all the complaints above could be applied to what free to air tv has been doing for decades.

Sounds like you haven’t watched a lot of free to air tv haha

It’s not a walled garden, it’s kind of the opposite. You can connect devices regardless of brand and it’s a server you can run locally. In theory you wouldn’t need to update it or ever connect it to the internet again, as long as your devices can run locally.

If you have an old laptop or a raspberry pi 4, you can always give it a try before scrapping what you’re currently using.

Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option? Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?

I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games? The entire point of the article is that Microsoft has boxed themselves into this corner. And your suggestion isn’t a good solution.

It’s literally in the title…

Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands

And in the article…

While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.

Hey guys, you should get a Series X because BG3 is coming out. Sure it will be missing features that you’ll get on the PS5 like split screen, but you guys understand we need to support the Series S and have parity between our two consoles.

So even though you spent more money on a Series X, that’s capable of running the full game that the PS5 is getting, you should just be happy that you’re getting the game at all. Don’t worry about having paid for a console that’s capable of more.

-Microsoft

Let’s say that’s something Microsoft would even allow, it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5. Why would I get a Series X if there’s a chance that some big game launches will have less features than other current gen platforms?

Microsoft really hamstrung this generation of consoles by releasing the S and demanding it runs feature parity with the X.

My comments are actually after seeing the local pricing. I still think it’s too expensive. Perhaps other locations are more affordable.

This post is asking what apps are worth paying for. Someone suggested Sync is worth paying for. I disagree and offered a different opinion. No one said you had to pay for it, just whether it was worth paying for or not.

I’m sticking with Voyager for now. Sync is too expensive for a beta app. There’s no post functionality in it yet. I’m also not sure how I feel about paying so much for an app to access Lemmy. I’d rather put some of that money into the instances themselves.

It could be worth cross posting this to !homeautomation@lemmy.world

It already has it. If you click on your account and then edit, you’ll have the option to add another account.

“Because Xbox mandates that any games launched on its current-gen systems run smoothly on both Series X and Series S” - from the article

So no, they don’t get to just pick the minimum specs they support like on the PC version. They have to build a game that runs similarly on S and X, or not launch on either. Hence, the S is always going to limit what devs will be able/willing to do on the current gen consoles. More so than if they could just focus on the X and PS5.

That article is from 2021 and doesn’t provide links or details to any data. The claim in the article says it’s 50/50. But again, no data is provided.

If it’s so straight forward, then what are the devs complaining about?

Microsoft requires they meet a specific standard on both the S and X, which is making it harder for them to do. They don’t build to every specific PC variant. But they have to build to both the X and S.

The article I shared was developers complaining about having to optimise for the Series S. But you’re saying that it should just be the same as PC optimising for PC. I completely agree with your answer in that Microsoft stipulates rules for the S. That’s the point. It isn’t the same as PC. Developers have to specifically work on getting games to run on the Series S. I’m so confused as to the point you’re trying to make to me, when in another comment you acknowledge that developers have different standards they’re required to meet for the S. We seem to actually agree.

How does any of that mean that “it’s very much the same as optimising for PC”? Are you saying that developers optimise for every PC configuration possible?

Someone else posted that you can run the game on a PC with weaker specs than a Series S. So clearly it isn’t the same.

But the Series S doesn’t run the PC game. Just like PC’s don’t run the Series S version of the game. I’m confused. If it was so easy, why isn’t every game available on every platform on day one?