I'll tell you why, it's called incentive.
Shadow of mordor came out a year after PS4/XB1 launch. That means the install base was a measly amount and they required the PS3 and xbox 360 version sales. Just as MS require the xbox one game sales now. They released for that system by cutting this feature out because they were still in the gen transition where people were still playing their old console and only some had upgraded.
Series S games are not the same situation as shadow of mordor. If series S completely outsells the series X the incentive to create (some complex AI system or anything else pushing innovation) for the lower install base is not there and you will get the same games with increased fps/resolution. That's it.
Interesting, because in a way we saw how that incentive worked for 7th gen when the Wii was completely outpacing both PS3 and 360 in sales. 3rd parties did not, in fact, start targeting development of their multiplatform games for the much weaker Wii simply because it was the best-seller.
That may not be a completely comparable example but it's the closest we have. Clearly there are factors other than sales which will influence devs and publishers. Additionally, MS is probably more than keenly aware that if they forced developers to make games for the Series S as the baseline and simply scale up resolution and graphics to Series X, they would
lose developer support. When they are very clearly trying to
gain developer support, such an idea runs completely opposite, hence why it isn't going to happen regardless of how Series S sells compared to Series X.
How are we not getting rumors pointing to such? All MS's been talking about is 4k/60fps or even 120fps and it does make Series X pointless for those who don't own a 4k tv. They might not be able to force it on 3rd party developers, but except for AC Valhalla, has MS announced any game that isn't going to 4k/60fps on Series X?
In the end it will all come down to installbase and if Series S sells the same or more as the Series X, 3rd and 1st party developers will be using the lowest common denominator as the base platform.
So what has Sony talking about in comparison? SSD (which from every single argument I've seen so far, has mainly been from a point of increasing graphical fidelity. Graphical fidelity != game design shift), Tempest audio, and...oh yeah, they stressed native 4K 30 FPS in their big PS5 reveals at the event!
By your own logic then, a PS5 would be equally worthless to someone who doesn't have a 4K television, because 4K and some other graphical features like RT are the main things Sony have been talking about the past few months plus again the SSD, which (again) every argument I've seen has only boiled down to increasing visual fidelity regarding unique texture assets. Yet that is simply more "graphics are good", not the game design shift people hype up (which the XSX and Series S will also be able to provide, through their own methods. They aren't using platter drives).
People are now clinging to install base, as if somehow a system selling very well is now a weakness xD. Sounds like another goalpost shift IMHO. I already explained in my response to Three how this isn't as big a factor as you guys want to magically conjure it into being.
False equivalent, though. (As has been pointed out.)
What Microsoft have NOT said they're doing (and goddamn them if they do) is making a crippled shell of a product for the old console just to say it's on there, the way you're talking about with Shadow of Mordor. That would be fucking ridiculous if Halo Infinite wasn't just about feature-complete with its cousin (especially since we're assuming the PC, One, and Series X versions will be cross-play.)
They haven't said this because what company in their right mind would use the exact words you've used here, if that were the case? Additionally, anyone who is honestly expecting massive game design shifts within the first year of next-gen should know better by now. Not a single first-party game from Microsoft or Sony (yes that also includes the new Ratchet & Clank) will be doing anything in terms of game mechanics or systems, AI, logic, etc. that wouldn't be possible on the previous generation consoles. They'll just be doing some or most of those with a bit more efficiency, and much prettier graphics.
That is generally how the Year 1 period of new consoles play out historically. The only oddballs to this were the N64 (Mario 64) and, arguably, the Wii. Even the DS's first year were mainly just prettier GBA titles. So this is an unfounded fear.
Shadow of Mordor on next-gen wasn't held back by it's past-gen versions because those aren't the same game; those PS360 versions are the equivalent of PSP ports of the game, ported down by an external studio (Behaviour Interactive, the same studio that made the not-at-all-the-same PSP version of Dante's Inferno, so yeah, pretty equivalent.) Different boxes of the game, different builds of the game inside the box, different studios making them each. SoM isn't relying on scaling or optimization or anything like what we're talking about with the One/Series X transition because it was handed off to some external studio who were told, "Here, this ain't our problem, you go shove it into the old shitboxes somehow, we're too busy making the real game." It couldn't have been hurt by the prioritization of versions, because developer Monolith in their Washington studio was 100% prioritized on the only version of the game that they made, and all they had to do was share some assets and design docs and builds with the studio in Canada that had 0% affect on the core product because they were miles away working on their facsimile.
Again, you're concerned over nothing. For starters, we already have prior evidence of MS outsourcing versions of next-gen games for older hardware. They did this Forza Horizon 2, for example. They haven't NOT said they're doing this and there's more hard evidence of this approach possibly being taken than there is to the contrary.
Secondly, MS is a pretty massive organization, much larger than Monolith Productions. They more than have the means and resources to handle a version of a game for their next-gen platform and older hardware simultaneously.
There's no evidence that this is the plan with any of Microsoft's 1st Party games. I'm not saying I expect the One versions to be 100% the same if there's something the next-gen version does that can't be replicated on past-gen, but for this first year that MS is saying to count on every game to be on both, I would be surprised and very disappointed if the Xbox One products were bullshit connected in name only to the Series X products. They may employ external studios to assist (and this doesn't
always go badly; the Xbox 360 port of TitanFall 1 was really surprising,) but MS is saying that Bungie is making the Halo Infinite they are
advertising right now (though to be fair, you cannot actually pre-order any version of Halo Infinite right now, so they may clear up that messaging when the SKUs get set,) and whichever copy of Halo Infinite I reach for, I'm currently expecting Bungie's hands to have molded it.
There's no problem here. Again, when you look at Year 1 of almost every major gaming platform, you see games that are generally visually impressive and a step up from the gen prior, but in terms of actual game design paradigm shifts, you hardly see anything. Those always come later and by that point MS will no longer be supporting the One family of devices for 1st-party crossgen support.
As for Series X and Series S, there is no guarantee that down the line Series S games will have feature parity, because again, the 1st parties are using the Series X as their baseline, not Series S. At least MS has a convenient program they could implement for Series S owners to upgrade to a Series X at reduced cost if they desire to do so.
So that rules out some of my concerns that they were going to be relying only on scalable technology to make XSX and XOX games different products. You can do a lot with scaling (there has never, to my knowledge, been a "past-gen" and "next-gen" PC package difference, you just get one box of say WatchDogs with a wide range of setting toggles, and either your PC can run it or not,) but I still feel more comfortable with my $70 next-gen buy actually having models and textures made as much as possible for my brand-new and expensive next-gen console. Microsoft has not specified how they will do releases that do use Optimized For (Will there be a texture pack available or on the disc? Will there be two different builds of the game on the disc, so that it runs naively on both platforms? Will the Series X just run the Xbox One game in a crazy version of Boost Mode, with textures and features and framerate turned on Ultra settings?), but at least we know (again, mostly from the price differential, not because MS has specified, or Sony either for that matter, though they're being less chummy about BC being a solution either way,) that Microsoft is not only doing it the Optimized way. They have said that everything Xbox Series X will also be on Xbox One from them, but it's becoming more clear that the way they're doing this is by having two different versions of the game rather than just scaling up and down.
You guys gotta have a little more faith
I agree though, they do need to explicitly clarify the development process between Series X and Series S. Clarify outright that Series X is the baseline, and will have its own unique assets and package separate from the One version. IMO they also need to clarify that using Series X as the baseline also means in terms of non-graphical features as well, mainly in terms of game mechanics and systems and complexity of the game design.
If they concisely specify these things officially, it would cut down massively on the concern people such as yourself have displayed, and frankly it's just something that has to be done. They don't need to head into the generation with these concerns hanging over otherwise would-be purchaser's heads.
I really do feel 99.999999% confident that Series S will be the baseline one way or the other. There's just no scenario where I can envision MS allowing its next gen system to look obsolete. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it really matters or ever would have, and frankly the more convinced I am it will not and never would have. Even if Series S was not part of the equation, the chances are that most games would still be designed with an eye towards downward scalability for anything other than pure single system exclusives, which seem rarer these days than ever. There's just too much money to still be made on hardware that won't be matching PS5 or Series X specs.
There's a good (IMO) thread about the thoughts of someone who is working on a Borderlands 3 port. I don't think there's a snow ball's chance in hell that any dev would identify what they are working on and then say something negative about either MS or Sony's plans, and I don't think porting last gen to next gen is comparable to designing a new game that would push the Series X to the max. But I do put stock in what they said about limitations being more based on resources and desire than anything else. And those comments have helped solidify my emerging view that profit will hold next gen back far more than any particular system's capabilities ever will. Especially in the first couple years or more after launch when next gen install bases are low.
Profit has always been the big reason some systems aren't tapped to their fullest and others are. Been that way since the 8-bit days.
That's the Nikana thread you're talking about, and it was very good insight from a dev's perspective. Seemingly neutral on that dev's part which makes the account more believable. Granted they are doing a BL3 port; there's no telling if it's being graphically upgraded or other features to take advantage of next-gen hardware, but it's probably a good read on how 3rd parties in general are viewing Series X, Series S and PS5 development.
