Support NeoGAF

[FrankWza]

That doesn't say what you said, just admit you are wrong.
You said they "promised" that feature at launch, that doesn't say that. Up to 4k and up to 120fps, "up to" being the key phrase and since there was no way in hell that Series S was running the game at 4k then they are talking about Series X as that upper limit.

There's also RESTORED 120 FPS support on Xbox Series S. Halo Infinite initially supported 120 FPS on Xbox Series X and S, but this was REMOVED from the final Xbox Series S version of the game.

Halo Infinite Season 2 update fixes bugs, adds Xbox Series S 120 FPS

A new Season also means new bug fixes.

www.windowscentral.com

At moment Xbox One targets 1080p and 30fps, Xbox One X 4K and 30fps, Xbox Series S 1080p and 120fps, and Xbox Series X 4k and 120fps. Aside from resolution and framerate, and some somewhat better shadows and ambient occlusion on Series X/S, all the versions are more or less the same.

Like I said, it’s time for you to go ask for a link from the other poster who said the series s would be the same as x with lower resolutions AND frame rates.

 

[ReBurn]

btw cyberpunk has yet to receive a 60 fps patch for series s even after the nextgen patch

and yeah RT is missing too obviously

i guess cdpr didn't want to go down the 540p route. its 2022, 540p-720p should be non existant - reserved for switch/steam deck etc.

gotg did not get a "60 fps" proper patch. its just unlocked framerate



it mostly hovers between 40-55 fps. at 40 fps, it would probably need something like 800p to hit a consistent 60 fps.

game also runs between 40-50 fps on a 5500xt.... how surprising !

To hit 60 fps Guardians of the Galaxy runs at 1080p native res on PS5 and XSX. That's probably not the game you should be pulling out to base native performance on.

 

[Riky]

Halo Infinite Season 2 update fixes bugs, adds Xbox Series S 120 FPS

A new Season also means new bug fixes.

www.windowscentral.com

Like I said, it’s time for you to go ask for a link from the other poster who said the series s would be the same as x with lower resolutions AND frame rates.

I'm asking you to back up what you stated, you can't, where did Microsoft "promise" that Series S would have 120fps "at launch"

 

[yamaci17]

To hit 60 fps Guardians of the Galaxy runs at 1080p native res on PS5 and XSX. That's probably not the game you should be pulling out to base native performance on.

you can be quite sure that future nextgen games will be even tougher than guardians of galaxy

im not saying gotg is a visual masterpiece game (it really looks good tho). and im not saying its a metric for optimization (there are games that look better and run better). i just say that future wont be filled with crossgen games that xsx / ps5 can easily power 4k 60 fps like rdr 2 / odyssey. nextgen games will be tougher. bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them. and its not looking good

amd im pretty sure both sx and ps5 can run gotg at 1080p 80-110 fps if they had unlocked framerate modes. fps drops are mostly CPU related, not GPU related. same story for DL2, sx runs the game at 1080p 80-90 fps if you have a VRR screen. it means that xsx can actually get a 1300-1440p 60 fps mode just fine but you're limited to the 1080p 60 fps mode if you don't have a vrr capable screen

this is how ps5 equivalent gpu runs the game at 1080p



as expected, as i've theorized, ps5 / xsx can easily do 1080p 75-100 fps in this title.

 

[Riky]

That game doesn't use any of the features of the Xbox GPU that save performance, so it's irrelevant going forward.
When we get first party games using Tier 2 VRS, SFS and Mesh Shaders we will find out exactly what both X and S are actually capable of.

 

[FrankWza]

I'm asking you to back up what you stated, you can't, where did Microsoft "promise" that Series S would have 120fps "at launch"

Bree Adams, Global Product Marketing Manager

When that person writes that the game will have 120fps support on an official Xbox statement that IS the promise. Do you think they need to say the word “promise “? You can’t actually be serious. Please continue though. Dozens of members are getting a kick out of this as you type these replies

 

[Riky]

Bree Adams, Global Product Marketing Manager

When that person writes that the game will have 120fps support on an official Xbox statement that IS the promise. Do you think they need to say the word “promise “? You can’t actually be serious. Please continue though. Dozens of members are getting a kick out of this as you type these replies

It says up to 4k and 120fps, the upper limit is Series X, surely you're not that stupid?

 

[yamaci17]

That game doesn't use any of the features of the Xbox GPU that save performance, so it's irrelevant going forward.
When we get first party games using Tier 2 VRS, SFS and Mesh Shaders we will find out exactly what both X and S are actually capable of.

lmao dude you can't even get yourself to quote me. how do you expect me to take you serious

6600xt, rtx 2060 (from 2018) all dx12.2 capable GPUs can use VRS, mesh shaders and sampler feedback all the same

and no those features won't magically make all hardware go berserk

and once they do take use of these adventures, they will target 1080p-1200p on sx/ps5 regardless because they will use the headroom to push more complex graphics. this has been always been the way. realistically, most devs won't target a native 1440p, let alone 4k towards the mid-generation. they will see headrom and utilize it for other stuff than resolution. it is quite clear that resolution became an afterthought since you can get an acceptable presentation on a 4k tv screen with 1200-1300p input. sadly 540p-700p does not translate well onto a 1080p screen but of course that's not my problem

if they wanted to , they could've made gotg a 4k 60 fps game too. then the game would look like pretty bad

 

[ReBurn]

you can be quite sure that future nextgen games will be even tougher than guardians of galaxy

im not saying gotg is a visual masterpiece game (it really looks good tho). and im not saying its a metric for optimization (there are games that look better and run better). i just say that future wont be filled with crossgen games that xsx / ps5 can easily power 4k 60 fps like rdr 2 / odyssey. nextgen games will be tougher. bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them. and its not looking good

amd im pretty sure both sx and ps5 can run gotg at 1080p 80-110 fps if they had unlocked framerate modes. fps drops are mostly CPU related, not GPU related. same story for DL2, sx runs the game at 1080p 80-90 fps if you have a VRR screen. it means that xsx can actually get a 1300-1440p 60 fps mode just fine but you're limited to the 1080p 60 fps mode if you don't have a vrr capable screen

this is how ps5 equivalent gpu runs the game at 1080p



as expected, as i've theorized, ps5 / xsx can easily do 1080p 75-100 fps in this title.

You're assuming that the performance profiles in GotG were set due to how demanding the game is on the hardware and not because the developer just didn't want to put effort into optimization. At launch it was 4K30 or 1080p60 and that was it. No VRS, no intelligent management of the hardware at all. just two sandbox's.

Certainly future games will be demanding. Nobody assumes any differently. But there's nothing to indicate that the performance limits in GotG were related to hardware on any platform.

 

[yamaci17]

You're assuming that the performance profiles in GotG were set due to how demanding the game is on the hardware and not because the developer just didn't want to put effort into optimization. At launch it was 4K30 or 1080p60 and that was it. No VRS, no intelligent management of the hardware at all. just two sandbox's.

Certainly future games will be demanding. Nobody assumes any differently. But there's nothing to indicate that the performance limits in GotG were related to hardware on any platform.

im just saying that if a game potentially barely runs 1080p-1200p 60 fps on sx (which is a valid potential scenario that will happen more frequently in the future because devs want to push "complexity" instead of raw resolution), it will have to resort to 540p-720/60 fps on series s. same applies to RT situation.

1080p-1200p temporally upscaled to a quality 4K screen can look "good" on a specific distance. 540p-720p upscaled to a run off the mill 1080p monitor or a TV looks horrible to me. Some may find it acceptable. I simply don't. I simply don't see the reason and logic behind such modes and some devs themselves see no logic behind such modes. Instead, CDPR completely decides to not give a 540p 60 FPS mode, GOTG devs only enable VRR unlocked framerate support and so on. As I've said, I'm glad some devs respect the visual style of their games.

 

[FrankWza]

It says up to 4k and 120fps, the upper limit is Series X

No. It says:
Halo Infinite on Xbox Series X|S boasts up to 4K and 60 frames per second, and Multiplayer Arena supports up to 120 frames per second

surely you're not that stupid?

 

[Riky]

lmao dude you can't even get yourself to quote me. how do you expect me to take you serious

6600xt, rtx 2060 (from 2018) all dx12.2 capable GPUs can use VRS, mesh shaders and sampler feedback all the same

and no those features won't magically make all hardware go berserk

and once they do take use of these adventures, they will target 1080p-1200p on sx/ps5 regardless because they will use the headroom to push more complex graphics. this has been always been the way. realistically, most devs won't target a native 1440p, let alone 4k towards the mid-generation. they will see headrom and utilize it for other stuff than resolution. it is quite clear that resolution became an afterthought since you can get an acceptable presentation on a 4k tv screen with 1200-1300p input. sadly 540p-700p does not translate well onto a 1080p screen but of course that's not my problem

if they wanted to , they could've made gotg a 4k 60 fps game too. then the game would look like pretty bad

Where did I say other RDNA2 parts couldn't do the same? Quote me.
The Series S is related to those parts and has those features, so we will get better performance once they are used, simple.

 

[Riky]

No. It says:
Halo Infinite on Xbox Series X|S boasts up to 4K and 60 frames per second, and Multiplayer Arena supports up to 120 frames per second

X/S "up to" so the premium console would be the upper limit as I said before, it also does not mention "launch" so what you claimed is factually incorrect, nobody "promised" 120fps "at launch" for Series S

 

[yamaci17]

Where did I say other RDNA2 parts couldn't do the same? Quote me.
The Series S is related to those parts and has those features, so we will get better performance once they are used, simple.

where did I claim that you said rdna2 parts couldn't do the same? i just threw that in to show that these tech have been around since 2018. they're not magically going to get used.

vrs is not a game changer, and it has compromises. we have no idea about mesh shaders. implications of mesh shaders are about completely changing the way games are designed. and you might still end up with same resolution targets current games have. would you like to play mesh boosted current gen graphics game at 1440p 120 fps (up from 1080p 60 fps) or a game that completely looks nothing we have seen in the gen at 1080p 60 fps? mesh shaders are not there to "boost" performance. they're there to shift the graphics to next gen. non-mesh shader GPUs/hardware will simply not be able to run such games. it is pretty much like ray tracing compute cores. you can utilize them. but how did that turn out?

and again, you can also quote me the part where I've claimed this is what Series S capable of. as a I matter of fact, I myself said many times that series s/x/ps5 and all RDNA2/Turing/Ampere cards are destined for more. when I say this however, I'm not saying they will get "performance" boosts. they will simply be "capable" of running truly transformational nextgen graphics at acceptable framerates and resolutions. we will still have games that runb at 1110p-1300p on series x and 500p-750p on series s. that equation will never change, unless devs target a miraculous native 4k with nextgen graphics (spoiler alert: they won't)

for SFS, that demo is specifically designed to showcase the upmost theoritical output that sfs can provide you. it does not mean it will translate that good to real world. there are already lots of techniques used by in house engines to make similar reductions on VRAM.

 

[Riky]

where did I claim that you said rdna2 parts couldn't do the same? i just threw that in to show that these tech have been around since 2018. they're not magically going to get used.

vrs is not a game changer, and it has compromises. we have no idea about mesh shaders. implications of mesh shaders are about completely changing the way games are designed. and you might still end up with same resolution targets current games have. would you like to play mesh boosted current gen graphics game at 1440p 120 fps (up from 1080p 60 fps) or a game that completely looks nothing we have seen in the gen at 1080p 60 fps? mesh shaders are not there to "boost" performance. they're there to shift the graphics to next gen. non-mesh shader GPUs/hardware will simply not be able to run such games. it is pretty much like ray tracing compute cores. you can utilize them. but how did that turn out?

and again, you can also quote me the part where I've claimed this is what Series S capable of. as a I matter of fact, I myself said many times that series s/x/ps5 and all RDNA2/Turing/Ampere cards are destined for more. when I say this however, I'm not saying they will get "performance" boosts. they will simply be "capable" of running truly transformational nextgen graphics at acceptable framerates and resolutions. we will still have games that runb at 1110p-1300p on series x and 500p-750p on series s. that equation will never change, unless devs target a miraculous native 4k with nextgen graphics (spoiler alert: they won't)

Yeah I can quote you,

”bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them. and its not looking good"

And I'm saying that game does not use all the GPU features and we'll see when we get next gen only games that use all the features that need to be plumbed into engines.

 

[yamaci17]

Yeah I can quote you,

”bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them. and its not looking good"

And I'm saying that game does not use all the GPU features and we'll see when we get next gen only games that use all the features that need to be plumbed into engines.

i see, you need a discourse lesson

"bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them (in RELATION to series x)"

my whole post is about creating a relation link between sx and series s performance profile. if you failed to understand that, then there's nothing I can do. aside from making this clear explanation (hopefully you got it now)

using new features wont change the parity between series x and series s, so to speak. capiche?

instead of nitpicking and taking specific sayings ouf of a whole statement, try to understand them in the context of general gist of the text. general gist of the text = when sx renders 1440p 60 fps, series s is bound to render 720p 60 fps.

you're so happy when series s actually renders a game at 1080p/60 fps. its all dandy. because that game runs at a pristine native 4k 60 fps on series x. to make the situation more complex, we need a game that runs bad /bad optimized/ that can push series x to 1080p-1200p range. then we see how series s reacts to such games, at low resolutions like 540p-600p.

most of the nextgen games will target a 1080p 60 fps on sx and ps5. thats a given. series xx (no idea what they will name it) and ps5 pro should arrive to give "gamers" the taste they need for actual 4k / 1800p. then imagine what kind of an awkward situation series s will be in

have a good day

 

[Riky]

i see, you need a discourse lesson

"bad optimized games like this just give us hints as to how series s will handle them (in RELATION to series x)"

my whole post is about creating a relation link between sx and series s performance profile. if you failed to understand that, then there's nothing I can do. aside from making this clear explanation (hopefully you got it now)

using new features wont change the parity between series x and series s, so to speak. capiche?

instead of nitpicking and taking specific sayings ouf of a whole statement, try to understand them in the context of general gist of the text. general gist of the text = when sx renders 1440p 60 fps, series s is bound to render 720p 60 fps.

you're so happy when series s actually renders a game at 1080p/60 fps. its all dandy. because that game runs at a pristine native 4k 60 fps on series x. to make the situation more complex, we need a game that runs bad /bad optimized/ that can push series x to 1080p-1200p range. then we see how series s reacts to such games, at low resolutions like 540p-600p.

most of the nextgen games will target a 1080p 60 fps on sx and ps5. thats a given. series xx (no idea what they will name it) and ps5 pro should arrive to give "gamers" the taste they need for actual 4k / 1800p. then imagine what kind of an awkward situation series s will be in

have a good day

None of which is anything to do with what I said.
You're using an Edge case like this game that doesn't use all GPU features, how about we use say Psychonauts 2? Then we get a whole different set of results.
If we're using badly optimised code as the floor in these comparisons then take the recent Lego Star Wars game, that runs at up to four times the pixel output on X compared to PS5, so by your logic then when we get to challenging next gen games we could see that repeated, however nobody believes that to be the case.
Also these arbitrary resolution numbers mean very little in today's world, we had 1080p 60fps games at PS3 launch, we have games already on Series X and PS5 that come short of that, but that isn't the whole story.
Matrix Awakens on Series S runs at a low base resolution but nobody could actually tell until the pixel counting channels told them, it looks very good in motion, the base resolution doesn't paint the whole picture, especially when we see the likes of FSR 2 coming into play and being introduced straight into the GDK.
So with the likes of Unreal 5 and FSR as DF have said we're in a post resolution counting world, image quality is not simply tied to it in that way anymore.

 

[yamaci17]

n but nobody could actually tell until the pixel counting channels told them, it looks very good in motion, the base resolution doesn't paint the whole picture

no it doesnt look good

it looks horrible

 

[DarkMage619]

Umm..No. You said the following in response to another poster saying that not every game runs at the same framerate as the series x counterpart:

Nothing about that is "commentary about who is the target audience". The only claim you make in this post is that you claim that any developer that doesn't have its Series S version matching the Series X is just "Choosing to not take advantage of the hardware" which is complete bullshit.

My point was that this narrative that the XSS runs games at 30 fps while XSX runs them at 60 is nonsense. I asked for the list of games where this is true. You went off on a tangent about how one specific game runs at 30 vs 60 and that was wrong. Figure it if was so easy to show how the XSS typically runs games at half the framerate of the XSX it would be pretty easy you still haven't done it.

Okay so which one is it? In one post you claim that Xbox Series S development is easy because of unified dev kit that doesn't require additional development costs, and now you claim that getting the game to run at parity with series X requires so much additional development that it has to be shipped later.

I said that it doesn't require additional resources meaning a specific different development environment. Obviously it will require optimization which is the point you laughed at earlier. I even mentioned how even the XSX and PS5 required a patch to add new features so again it's odd to point put the XSS is the problem. If we had gone off the initial release you would have assumed that the XSX and PS5 just couldn't handle raytracing because of the hardware right? I never said development on the XSS was 'easy' again that you is putting words into my mouth.

Nobody here has claimed that the system is incapable of running games at 60 FPS. Let me use an analogy so that that even you can understand.

Lets say there are two Jars of water. Lets call one jar "X" and the other "S". The X jar has enough water to fill 6 cups. The S jar only has enough water to fill 3 cups. We place 6 empty cups in front of each jar and fill them with water. Naturally, X can fill all of those cups. But the S jar? The S Jar has to choose. Is it going to fill only 3 cups, or is it going to spread its water to fill all 6 cups half full? Why did it leave one cup empty to fill another one? You keep hammering that each dev has all cups available and they can choose which one to fill, while everyone else understands that the reason why some of these cups are left unfilled is because there is not enough water in the jar.

You are acknowledging that the XSS will have to have compromises due to its design? Wow that is a news flash. The XSX has a more powerful GPU. It'll run games at higher fidelity no one ever claimed that the XSS would run games that would look the same. It also will allow the XSX to run games with worse optimization because there would be be additional resources to brute force running the game. Developers will have to make choices (there's that word again) on what they want to focus on. The bottom line is that the XSS is capable of doing all the things the XSX can do but of course graphical compromises will have to be made.

But you just said that the Series S does not take additional development time or resources. So which is it? The feature is there. It's been developed for both Series X and PS5. They went back and added an additional framerate to Series S and yet the game still doesn't run at either 60 FPS nor does it have ray tracing. It's just straigth up hilarious that you keep coming up with excuses. "Oh they didn't have money. Oh they had enough time for Series X and PS5, but not Series S. But Series S is also selling really well" instead of just accepting the obvious fact that the reason why the feature is omitted is because it would require too great a sacrifice to run it on series S because of its hardware.

I was making reference to the unified development environment not that it wouldn't take any effort to create the XSS version of the game. Optimization would be required on ALL platforms even the PC. The hardware is capable of handling raytracing. The developers chose to not implement it. Knowing that the system is targeting a lower resolution a dev might decide that the end user wouldn't even notice the effect so it was dropped to focus elsewhere. The XSS will almost always have lower graphical effects, again no one is arguing otherwise.

It's absolutely hilarious you get hung up on this. It literally makes no difference to the argument and the point absolutely still stands. GotG runs at 30 FPS on Series S, was offered an optional unlocked framerate which fluxuates between 40 - 50 fps. It doesn't have a ray tracing mode on series S, which means it doesn't run at parity with series X.

You harp on ONE game over and over again, that you were wrong about, claiming it was only 30 fps on the XSS and yet you want to say that I am hung up on it? You keep using parity which I never said and trying to argue with me over your term. No one said that all games on the XSX|S would look the same and have 'parity'. MS has no control over what 3rd parties do on their platform only that the same hardware features are available. How devs choose to use that hardware is up to them.

Actually, your argument was that games not running at the same framerate or with the same featureset as series X is only because of the developer and has nothing to do with the fact that the Series S has much weaker hardware. I'm using GotG as an example because it's a well made game by an experienced developer that received post content updates and yet it still isn't running on parity with the Series X due to the limiting hardware of the S?

No. My point was that both the XSX and XSS have the same feature set and devs are free to choose how to implement those features. The XSS having a lower end GPU will require that platform to make more compromises on how games look on it. That is an obvious fact no one argued against. It still doesn't change the fact that those feature are in fact available on both platforms. The only 'parity', since you like that term, is the system wide hardware features. Games were never promised to have graphical parity.

Because those games obviously don't support the point, so what's the point in bringing them in? The original point was that not every game runs at the same performance or features at series X, so how are those game related? Saying "Well since Game A runs at parity, that means all other games should be able to do it to" would be incredibly ignorant of how games differ from one another. Halo's 120 fps mode in campaign never runs at 120 fps and it dips to 540p resolution. I'm not really sure how well that supports your argument.

My point is devs have the ability to implement features if they care to. Forza Horizon 5 proves that point. Does it mean ALL devs will put in the same effort? Nope, but it shows as a proof of concept on what is possible. The devs are the variable here and some devs will fully utilize the hardware and some devs will not. That is not a reflection of the XSS. The PS3 might be an analogy you can appreciate. 3rd parties did a horrible job optimizing the games on the platform but Sony did a magnificent job. The hardware was capable but the devs were the variable.

The Halo argument again was pushing back that somehow this XSS wasn't capable of a higher FPS mode; the XSX version isn't locked at 120 either by the way. Speaking on the resolution of the XSS has you falling into the same trap I mentioned before. When the system gets a higher FPS mode people doubted, you move the goal posts to resolution. Ah well.

What you have said several times, repeatedly, is that developers not implanting every feature in their games that is also present on series X, whether its ray tracing or framerate, is entirely due to the developer and that it has nothing to do with the hardware capabilities at all, which is both ignorant and wrong.

You didn't even know Guardians wasn't 30 fps on the XSS yet call me ignorant? Ok. Devs make choices on what they want to do in a game on a platform. Whether and how they use those features is on the devs. It will take effort as all game development does so they may choose to not bother but the features are available.

Then you don't understand either value or the needs of an average consumer. The PS5: DE is just 100$ more and gives you nearly double the SSD space which is also significantly faster (This alone easily covers 100$) but also gives you a proper next gen experience with suitable specs. Availability aside, the DE is clearly a much better deal.

Still no. The PS5 DE was for all intents and purposes a paper launch. It was made in far fewer quantities and appears to just exist as a counterpoint to a much cheaper and much more available XSS. The $100 more means half a year of game pass or a few older or indie releases on the XSS. System + Games beats just a System. Plus where are you buying a PS5 DE for retail? Adding in that Sony has a monopoly on digital game sales means I can't even go to Best buy, Amazon, or Wal-Mart to buy discounted games for the system. Nah the PS5 DE is FAR from being a better deal.

Did the patch, which added an optional unlocked framerate mode, make it so it can run at 60 FPS and/or add support for ray tracing? Either demonstrate how this unlocked FPS patch defeats the original point that GotG does NOT run at the same performance/with the same features as the Series X or shut up about it and concede that GotG does not offer the same performance and features on Series S as it does on Series X.

The Guardians devs chose to not add additional graphical features to the XSS version of their game just like Playground chose to add graphical features to Horizon. It is on the devs because that was the difference in those two scenarios. There could be several reasons why they made the choices they did but the hardware not being capable of running the features was not one of them.

Who in this thread claims that? Quote the actual posts.

You just did when talking about Halo Infinite!

I'm not making fun of software optimization, I'm making fun of you insisting that the reason that games don't run at parity is because of the developers (Despite you clearly having no experience in game development whatsoever) instead of accepting the obvious fact that some games don't run at parity because the hardware is significantly weaker.

So you'd say that Lego Star Wars ran at a much lower resolution on the PS5 because its hardware is significantly weaker Mr. Game Dev sir?

What? No he wasn't. Is this a joke?

Dude is a big Sony fan he wasn't posting sincerely.

The comments from a CEO do not disqualify the comments from an actual developer from one of the most renowned studios in the world. Also, I wonder why he would say such a...Oh..

Oh that's why.

How convenient so you're argument is they were paid to say nice stuff then? Remedy also put out that exclusive game Crossfire X on Xbox. That didn't prevent them from speaking their mind on the XSS. You guys really need to come off the ' anyone that has nice things to say about a company or system was paid to do so' shtick. Perhaps you should just accept that people have different opinions on the XSS and I'll take people who own the system and play it over people with an axe to grind on a message board.

 

[FrankWza]

X/S "up to" so the premium console would be the upper limit as I said before, it also does not mention "launch" so what you claimed is factually incorrect, nobody "promised" 120fps "at launch" for Series S

You can’t actually believe that an official marketing release would say:
“We promise you xbox fans, this game will be at 120fps at all times or your money back!”

The very next paragraph mentions the system is launching alongside the game. This is prelaunch marketing. It’s says up to and now, months later, the series s is “up to” 120.
They meant at launch. It was removed from beta and every review mentioned 120 mode being absent from s at launch.

 

[Riky]

You can’t actually believe that an official marketing release would say:
“We promise you xbox fans, this game will be at 120fps at all times or your money back!”

The very next paragraph mentions the system is launching alongside the game. This is prelaunch marketing. It’s says up to and now, months later, the series s is “up to” 120.
They meant at launch. It was removed from beta and every review mentioned 120 mode being absent from s at launch.

It says X/S, as in Series X and Series S, not specifically Series S. So for the premium console they had the top specs as in up to 4k and up to 120fps. That happened.

 

[FrankWza]

It says X/S, as in Series X and Series S, not specifically Series S. So for the premium console they had the top specs as in up to 4k and up to 120fps. That happened.

Nah. They are perfectly aware that they are 2 systems and 2 specs. This is official marketing info from their department on their site. This is some grasping on your part though. Congrats. You’ve outdone yourself

 

[Riky]

Nah. They are perfectly aware that they are 2 systems and 2 specs. This is official marketing info from their department on their site. This is some grasping on your part though. Congrats. You’ve outdone yourself

You're the one grasping, it clearly says X/S, you even quoted it yourself.
It doesn't just say Series S. Anyone with a brain can see if they mention an "up to" figure then the highest level will apply to the premium console mentioned.
Otherwise your saying they also promised 4k on Series S which they obviously didn't.

 

[FrankWza]

You're the one grasping, it clearly says X/S, you even quoted it yourself.
It doesn't just say Series S. Anyone with a brain can see if they mention an "up to" figure then the highest level will apply to the premium console mentioned.
Otherwise your saying they also promised 4k on Series S which they obviously didn't.

Pfffffffft
They promised up to 4K and up to 120. If they weren’t planning on including up to 120 support at launch they would have said series x, not x/s. You know that so stop with your bs. You got your link. Now go ask the dude who said that they claimed series s would be the same as x with lower resolutions AND frame rates. Your proof requests are one sided so keep the same energy for once.

 

[Riky]

Pfffffffft
They promised up to 4K and up to 120. If they weren’t planning on including up to 120 support at launch they would have said series x, not x/s. You know that so stop with your bs. You got your link. Now go ask the dude who said that they claimed series s would be the same as x with lower resolutions AND frame rates. Your proof requests are one sided so keep the same energy for once.

Your link says Series X, that is beyond dispute.
They delivered up to 4k and up to 120fps on Series X.
By claiming that they mean Series S for the 120fps which has now been delivered anyway you must also then say the 4k would apply to Series S, which it obviously doesn't.
So they are clearly using the highest figures in relation to Series X, it's beyond obvious.

 

[FrankWza]

Your link says Series X, that is beyond dispute.
They delivered up to 4k and up to 120fps on Series X.
By claiming that they mean Series S for the 120fps which has now been delivered anyway you must also then say the 4k would apply to Series S, which it obviously doesn't.
So they are clearly using the highest figures in relation to Series X, it's beyond obvious.

 

[nominedomine]

lmao dude you can't even get yourself to quote me. how do you expect me to take you serious

6600xt, rtx 2060 (from 2018) all dx12.2 capable GPUs can use VRS, mesh shaders and sampler feedback all the same

and no those features won't magically make all hardware go berserk

and once they do take use of these adventures, they will target 1080p-1200p on sx/ps5 regardless because they will use the headroom to push more complex graphics. this has been always been the way. realistically, most devs won't target a native 1440p, let alone 4k towards the mid-generation. they will see headrom and utilize it for other stuff than resolution. it is quite clear that resolution became an afterthought since you can get an acceptable presentation on a 4k tv screen with 1200-1300p input. sadly 540p-700p does not translate well onto a 1080p screen but of course that's not my problem

if they wanted to , they could've made gotg a 4k 60 fps game too. then the game would look like pretty bad

The arguments people use to defend the Series S don't make sense because the PS5/SSX take even more advantage of anything they can come up with.

It's undeniable that the Series S has already underdelivered and that's even without us moving on from the crossgen period. People just keep lowering and lowering the bar of what is acceptable so that they don't have to admit how underwhelming the Series S is.

It was a good business move from MS and really helped them move more units during this shortage but the console itself is terrible value, both compared to the $500 PS5/SSX or even the $400 PS5 DE.

The Series S makes way too many compromises with it's hardware I just can't see people playing on it 6 years from now. The Xbox One already struggled a lot with game by the end of it's life and that was a much stronger console for it's time compared to what the Series S is.

 

[FrankWza]

The argument people use to defend the Series S don't make sense because the PS5/SSX take even more advantage of anything the come up with.

It's undeniable that the Series S has already underdelivered and that's even without us moving on from the crossgen period. People just keep lowering and lowering the bar of what is acceptable so that they don't have to admit how underwhelming the Series S is.

It was a good business move from MS and really helped them move more units during this shortage but the console itself is terrible value, both compared to the $500 PS5/SSX or even the $400 PS5 DE.

It’s at the point where developers opinions are ignored. Features being delayed or completely omitted are ignored. Marketing material is intentionally misinterpreted against any semblance of common sense or respect for language and the definition of words and what they mean and intend. Or ignored altogether. Next step is:

 

[dcmk7]

It's undeniable that the Series S has already underdelivered and that's even without us moving on from the crossgen period. People just keep lowering and lowering the bar of what is acceptable so that they don't have to admit how underwhelming the Series S is.

When compared to Jason Ronald's marketing claims it's certainly true that's it's underdelivered, not seeing the same experiences at all.

Some outlets and developer's have speculated that performance from the XSS will get worse as generation goes on, be interesting to see especially with UE5 games around the corner.

 

[Rykan]

My point was that this narrative that the XSS runs games at 30 fps while XSX runs them at 60 is nonsense. I asked for the list of games where this is true. You went off on a tangent about how one specific game runs at 30 vs 60 and that was wrong. Figure it if was so easy to show how the XSS typically runs games at half the framerate of the XSX it would be pretty easy you still haven't done it.

The game does run at 30 FPS. The fact that it added an optional unlocked framerate mode doesn't change the fact that it doesn't run at the same framerate or have the same feature as the series X counterpart. There are other games, ofcourse. Cyberpunk 2077 runs at half the framerate. So does DL2.

I said that it doesn't require additional resources meaning a specific different development environment. Obviously it will require optimization which is the point you laughed at earlier. I even mentioned how even the XSX and PS5 required a patch to add new features so again it's odd to point put the XSS is the problem. If we had gone off the initial release you would have assumed that the XSX and PS5 just couldn't handle raytracing because of the hardware right? I never said development on the XSS was 'easy' again that you is putting words into my mouth.

You're trying to backtrack very heavily here. You clearly stated that the series S requires no additional development costs. If Series S versions require so much work that the features can't be shipped in time, it's significant additional development costs. Quit trying to have it both ways.

You are acknowledging that the XSS will have to have compromises due to its design? Wow that is a news flash. The XSX has a more powerful GPU. It'll run games at higher fidelity no one ever claimed that the XSS would run games that would look the same. It also will allow the XSX to run games with worse optimization because there would be be additional resources to brute force running the game. Developers will have to make choices (there's that word again) on what they want to focus on. The bottom line is that the XSS is capable of doing all the things the XSX can do but of course graphical compromises will have to be made.

See, you are finally starting to get it. Developers have to make compromises because of the hardware which means that a series S version running at a different framerate/features is not because a "developer chooses not to utilize the hardware" but because a developer is forced to make compromises because the hardware is lacking. Again: You specifically stated that the hardware has NOTHING to do with it despite the fact that the hardware being the SOLE REASON as to why compromises have to be made in the first place.

I was making reference to the unified development environment not that it wouldn't take any effort to create the XSS version of the game. Optimization would be required on ALL platforms even the PC. The hardware is capable of handling raytracing. The developers chose to not implement it. Knowing that the system is targeting a lower resolution a dev might decide that the end user wouldn't even notice the effect so it was dropped to focus elsewhere. The XSS will almost always have lower graphical effects, again no one is arguing otherwise.

The developers chose not to implent it because the hardware forced them to make to big concessions. Again, you argued yourself into a wall here. You said there is No reason why the series S shouldn't run at the same framerate or with the same featureset. If developers have to make too big concessions to get it to run the same features, THEN THAT IS A PRETTY BIG FUCKING REASON.

You harp on ONE game over and over again, that you were wrong about, claiming it was only 30 fps on the XSS and yet you want to say that I am hung up on it? You keep using parity which I never said and trying to argue with me over your term. No one said that all games on the XSX|S would look the same and have 'parity'. MS has no control over what 3rd parties do on their platform only that the same hardware features are available. How devs choose to use that hardware is up to them.

You have been completely unable to point out how the fact that the game offers an optional unlocked framerate changes the argument, so I'll accept your concession on this argument and that you acknowledge that GotG does not run at the same framerate/ray tracing as the series X counterpart thus PROVING that the poster you quoted earlier was correct. It's pathetic how you get hung up on PR speech and "features list". "B-But it has a feature list" yea but the HARDWARE ITSELF is still significnatly weaker which means that the PRIMARY REASON why it wasn't included despite the feature technically being available is not because developers choose to not utilize the hardware (They are utilizing the hardware, GotG is one of the best looking games on Series S) but because they were forced to make too many concessions.

No. My point was that both the XSX and XSS have the same feature set and devs are free to choose how to implement those features. The XSS having a lower end GPU will require that platform to make more compromises on how games look on it. That is an obvious fact no one argued against. It still doesn't change the fact that those feature are in fact available on both platforms. The only 'parity', since you like that term, is the system wide hardware features. Games were never promised to have graphical parity.

Forza Horizon 5 the exact same game as, say, GOTG or Cyberpunk 2077?

My point is devs have the ability to implement features if they care to. Forza Horizon 5 proves that point. Does it mean ALL devs will put in the same effort? Nope, but it shows as a proof of concept on what is possible. The devs are the variable here and some devs will fully utilize the hardware and some devs will not. That is not a reflection of the XSS. The PS3 might be an analogy you can appreciate. 3rd parties did a horrible job optimizing the games on the platform but Sony did a magnificent job. The hardware was capable but the devs were the variable.

Here you go again: You're blaming the developers without knowing the first thing about game development. The PS3 anoogy is a poor one. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to program for and several developers said as such. Go ahead and find me developers who state the same thing about the Series S being difficult to develop for.

The Halo argument again was pushing back that somehow this XSS wasn't capable of a higher FPS mode; the XSX version isn't locked at 120 either by the way. Speaking on the resolution of the XSS has you falling into the same trap I mentioned before. When the system gets a higher FPS mode people doubted, you move the goal posts to resolution. Ah well.

You didn't even know Guardians wasn't 30 fps on the XSS yet call me ignorant? Ok. Devs make choices on what they want to do in a game on a platform. Whether and how they use those features is on the devs. It will take effort as all game development does so they may choose to not bother but the features are available.'

Okay since you want to argue like a child in an attempt to "Gotcha!" me instead of actually adressing the point, have it your way: You can't use Halo's campaign mode as an example because it doesn't run at 120 fps at ANY point. The Series X version ocassionally hits 120 fps. On series S it does not.

Still no. The PS5 DE was for all intents and purposes a paper launch. It was made in far fewer quantities and appears to just exist as a counterpoint to a much cheaper and much more available XSS. The $100 more means half a year of game pass or a few older or indie releases on the XSS. System + Games beats just a System. Plus where are you buying a PS5 DE for retail? Adding in that Sony has a monopoly on digital game sales means I can't even go to Best buy, Amazon, or Wal-Mart to buy discounted games for the system. Nah the PS5 DE is FAR from being a better deal.

Yea No. If you buy a Series S, you will be playing the worst version of every single release for an entire generation. Having owned both Xbox and PS consoles for the last 3 generations: The PSN store has far better and far more frequent sales than ANY other digital platform on xbox or retail stores. For just 100$ more, you're getting a proper current gen experience. Also nice try, but you're falling into the same trap as a previous poster: Talking about hyperspecific hypothetical scenarios. Obviously if you want a game with it, you'll have to pay more than 400$. Just like you have to pay more for Series S if you want a game for it. As I've mentioned, availability aside. When both consoles are available, the PS5's hardware is objectively and factually a much better price to performance ratio than the series S

The Guardians devs chose to not add additional graphical features to the XSS version of their game just like Playground chose to add graphical features to Horizon. It is on the devs because that was the difference in those two scenarios. There could be several reasons why they made the choices they did but the hardware not being capable of running the features was not one of them.

The hardware being not good enough to the point that the game had to be significantly cut back in the first place. The fact that you can technically have access to a feauture doesn't change the fact that the feature had to be cut and compromised because of the hardware of the system. Saying that the hardware "Had nothing to do with it" is objectively and factually false: The decision was made entirely because of the lacking hardware. When a game runs at a different frame rate on switch, nobody argues that this was a choice. Everyone accepts that this is due to the switch hardware and not a decision made by the devs.

You just did when talking about Halo Infinite!


So you'd say that Lego Star Wars ran at a much lower resolution on the PS5 because its hardware is significantly weaker Mr. Game Dev sir?

Okay you want to play this game? You want to play developer? Let's go mate. You have repeatedly argued that GoTG doesn't offer the same features because of optimization. Which aspect of the series S hardware is being underutilized here and how could they have optimized so that the game runs at 60 FPS and have ray tracing? I want ACTUAL technical details, not your typical MS PR spreadsheet BS.

Dude is a big Sony fan he wasn't posting sincerely.

What the fuck are you even talking about? ITS A VIDEO INTERVIEW. He says it in a VIDEO INTERVIEW with IGN.

How convenient so you're argument is they were paid to say nice stuff then? Remedy also put out that exclusive game Crossfire X on Xbox. That didn't prevent them from speaking their mind on the XSS. You guys really need to come off the ' anyone that has nice things to say about a company or system was paid to do so' shtick. Perhaps you should just accept that people have different opinions on the XSS and I'll take people who own the system and play it over people with an axe to grind on a message board.

No I'm not saying he was paid to say nice stuff. What I am saying is that he is a CEO, NOT a developer. I know that you're mostly clueless about game development but just a FYI: A CEO doesn't develop games. I'm honestly done with you. Debates with you just go into a circle.

It basically goes like this:

"Game X runs at 30 FPS on one system and 60 and raytracing on another, which shows that both systems don't run the game at the same performance"
"Hah! You're wrong! It offered an unlocked FPS mode at 45 FPS!"
"Okay, but how does that change the initial argument that it doesn't run at the same performance level?
"You said it ran at 30!"
"But how does it cha.."
"No! You said it was 30! I'm not adressing your argument because you said 30!"
"..Okay but either way, the game had to be cut back on these features because of the available hardware"
"NO! Series S can technically do ray tracing and it can technically has 60 fps! So if a game doesn't have that, it's entirely the devs fault and not because of the hardware"
"...But the devs had to cut these features because the hardware forced them to make these concessions!"
"NO! Hardware has nothing to do with it! Have you not seen my MS PR talking points!?"

Its stupid and a waste of time. At no point have you expressed anything that even resembles a remotely logical argument.

 

[DarkMage619]

Its stupid and a waste of time.

I completely agree this was a complete waste of time. XSS detractors will never argue in good faith because they can't. They can't prove the XSS is holding back the generation and they can't prove MS 'promised' all games would have 'parity'. Here's a hint: because they are lying.

They will cherry pick a title that clearly got little development effort and ignore titles that show the strength of the console. The only thing proven is that goal posts will move like you did several times and double standards will be taken like you did for the PS3 and PS5. And all this is coming from people who don't even own the system.

If the XSS is as bad as you say devs will stop supporting it, gamers won't buy it, and MS will abandon the platform. We'll see how it turns out, afterall some here predicted Switch's failure so maybe they'll be right this time.

In the mean time the XSS will remain the best value in gaming and the people who actually own it and use it, you know the people actually affected, will continue to find enjoyment. Have a great night and maybe go play a game or something. I hear XSS has lots.

 

[dcmk7]

I completely agree this was a complete waste of time. XSS detractors will never argue in good faith because they can't. They can't prove the XSS is holding back the generation and they can't prove MS 'promised' all games would have 'parity'. Here's a hint: because they are lying.

They will cherry pick a title that clearly got little development effort and ignore titles that show the strength of the console. The only thing proven is that goal posts will move like you did several times and double standards will be taken like you did for the PS3 and PS5. And all this is coming from people who don't even own the system.

If the XSS is as bad as you say devs will stop supporting it, gamers won't buy it, and MS will abandon the platform. We'll see how it turns out, afterall some here predicted Switch's failure so maybe they'll be right this time.

In the mean time the XSS will remain the best value in gaming and the people who actually own it and use it, you know the people actually affected, will continue to find enjoyment. Have a great night and maybe go play a game or something. I hear XSS has lots.

Took a well reasoned post and basically trolled him incessantly?

Some have also brought up that console warring is not only denigrating other platforms, but also rabidly defending their own.

Said by Faust the other day has never been more true.

 

[anothertech]

I mean, we still haven't proven Odin doesn't controll our destiny and unicorns don't exist either ...

 

[Shmunter]

I mean, we still haven't proven Odin doesn't controll our destiny and unicorns don't exist either ...

Can't prove a negative .

And what could 'have been' will never be visible. Sadly despite common sense and logic off hardware specs being the enabler to software.

 

[Edgelord79]

This seems to be a sensitive topic to some people.

 

[Rykan]

I completely agree this was a complete waste of time. XSS detractors will never argue in good faith because they can't. They can't prove the XSS is holding back the generation and they can't prove MS 'promised' all games would have 'parity'. Here's a hint: because they are lying.

You can't honestly complain about people not arguing with you in good fath right after trying to dismiss an argument because of an optional 45 fps mode instead of 30, despite this not changing anything to the initial point being made. Again, more MS PR nonsense. "MS never said.." Nobody cares what MS said. you're literally the only one talking about it. The fact of the matter is that the Series S does NOT run every game with the same feature set or the same framerate and what MS said about that is completely besides the point and completely irrelevant.

They will cherry pick a title that clearly got little development effort and ignore titles that show the strength of the console. The only thing proven is that goal posts will move like you did several times and double standards will be taken like you did for the PS3 and PS5. And all this is coming from people who don't even own the system.

No, I'm just rejecting your bullshit. The fact that you're trying to compare it to the PS3 shows how utterly clueless you are about this subject. The Playstation 3 used a completely different and unique architecture that required a serious investment to get the same performance out of more standard hardware, like the Xbox 360 for example. The difficulty of development for the PS3 has been well documented. This is not even remotely compareable to the Series S. The Series S isn't difficult to develop for, it's just less powerful which means concessions have to be made.

GotG is not a "Cherry picked" title that got little development effort. It's a release by one of the best developers in the world that has been in development for at least 3 years. It's a perfect example of what is to come once cross gen games stop being the norm.

I don't need to own an Atari Jaguar to know that its crap.

If the XSS is as bad as you say devs will stop supporting it, gamers won't buy it, and MS will abandon the platform. We'll see how it turns out, afterall some here predicted Switch's failure so maybe they'll be right this time.

Cool, I'm sure it will do fantastic as the least selling console of its generation.

In the mean time the XSS will remain the best value in gaming and the people who actually own it and use it, you know the people actually affected, will continue to find enjoyment. Have a great night and maybe go play a game or something. I hear XSS has lots.

Considered best value in gaming by people who think playing the worst version of every single game they play for an entire generation on a system with a tiny SSD is okay so that they can save 100$ - 200$. Yea I'll pass. Get a series X if you're even remotely serious about gaming.

 

[yamaci17]

@rykard

ray tracing being omitted is indeed a hardware problem. not a software problem. doom eternal and gotg lacks RT because both of them requires a 6-6.5 GB VRAM buffer for GPU operations and 5 GB RAM buffer for CPU operations at 1080p with ray tracing on PC. Series S only has 4.5-5 GB GPU buffer available for GPU operations and 3-3.5 GB of RAM buffer for CPU operations. At 4k, RAM usage is consistent and VRAM requirement is upped to 7-8 GB (7+5 = 12 GB, total memory allocation that ps5/sx can do)

some things can simply not be scaled back. even at 160p lowest settings+rt, doom eternal still wants a minimum of 5 gb ram and 6.5 gb vram

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Considered best value in gaming by people who think playing the worst version of every single game they play for an entire generation on a system with a tiny SSD is okay so that they can save 100$ - 200$. Yea I'll pass. Get a series X if you're even remotely serious about gaming.

Most people don't care, they play their PS5s on a 19 inch monitor. Normal people don't count pixels, they just play what's fun.

 

[Rykan]

Most people don't care, they play their PS5s on a 19 inch monitor. Normal people don't count pixels, they just play what's fun.

yea actually most people do care, which is why most people go for PS5 and XSX over Series S.

 

[cireza]

yea actually most people do care, which is why most people go for PS5 and XSX over Series S.

And starting today, they will contact you directly to pay for the difference in price. Because everyone can afford a 500$ console of course.

 

[Rykan]

And starting today, they will contact you directly to pay for the difference in price. Because everyone can afford a 500$ console of course.

I mean, if you REALLY are on such a tight budget that you absolutely cannot spend an aditional 100$ on a PS5: DE or 200$ for a series X, then by all means. But this is a fairly small group of people and for most people, it's well worth spending the extra money now to play the proper next gen version of games for an entire generation.

 

[cireza]

But this is a fairly small group of people

Your source for this ? Because it seems like Series S is selling quite a lot actually.

 

[Rykan]

Your source for this ? Because it seems like Series S is selling quite a lot actually.

Your source of the opposite is true? Come on now. Video games are a luxury item, If you can afford to jump into next gen this early, with so many games being multiplatform, you're probably not the kind of person for who 100$ more is a a breaking point. This is just an issue with a lot of the Series S defenders in this thread: Focus on a very hyperspecific scenario or group of people to make a point. It just isn't a very strong argument.

Series selling a lot? That's debateable. It's doing so while alternatives are constantly sold out and it's the only next gen system that sits on shelves. It's still unlikely to sell more than the Series X or PS5 when they aren't supply constrained.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Your source of the opposite is true? Come on now. Video games are a luxury item, If you can afford to jump into next gen this early, with so many games being multiplatform, you're probably not the kind of person for who 100$ more is a a breaking point. This is just an issue with a lot of the Series S defenders in this thread: Focus on a very hyperspecific scenario or group of people to make a point. It just isn't a very strong argument.

Series selling a lot? That's debateable. It's doing so while alternatives are constantly sold out and it's the only next gen system that sits on shelves. It's still unlikely to sell more than the Series X or PS5 when they aren't supply constrained.

It's not a hyperspecific scenario imo. A lot of people buy Series S for their kids, for example. No need to shell out 500 bucks when you can go much cheaper and for the kid it doesn't make a difference anyway.

 

[yamaci17]

Your source of the opposite is true? Come on now. Video games are a luxury item, If you can afford to jump into next gen this early, with so many games being multiplatform, you're probably not the kind of person for who 100$ more is a a breaking point. This is just an issue with a lot of the Series S defenders in this thread: Focus on a very hyperspecific scenario or group of people to make a point. It just isn't a very strong argument.

Series selling a lot? That's debateable. It's doing so while alternatives are constantly sold out and it's the only next gen system that sits on shelves. It's still unlikely to sell more than the Series X or PS5 when they aren't supply constrained.

its selling a lot in countries where people have low wages but like to play video games regardless

sx has lots of of supplies in my local retailer but series s is sold more, most likely. even 6 of my friends have series s and only 1 friend of mine have sx. i know its a small sample but you get the idea. i live in turkey btw

most people here due to economical reasons have stayed on 1080p screens/monitors/tvs. they cant justify getting a sx because of they think its a 4k only console. so even if they have the budget for sx (usually they do), they won't get it because they associate sx with extra burden of getting a 4k monitor, which increases the overall budget they will have to allocate. so most people just get S and keep using their current screen. i cannot force anyone to buy a sx for 1080p. marketing is succesful and people really believe its a legit 4k console. to me its not even worthy of a proper 1440p screen, considering most games i care about runs between 1080p-1260p. but that's an entirely different topic

most of them wont even consider ps5 at this point due to game pass

 

[Rykan]

It's not a hyperspecific scenario imo. A lot of people buy Series S for their kids, for example. No need to shell out 500 bucks when you can go much cheaper and for the kid it doesn't make a difference anyway.

What age group are we talking about? A kid age 12 - 17 will absolutely know about the difference. Ask them which phone they want and they'll be very specific. You're seriously underestimating how well informed kids are about their hobbies.

Are we talking 12 and younger...ehh maybe? But I don't think that really is the target audience for Xbox though. I think the Switch is a much more popular console for that demographic.

 

[Riky]

The game does run at 30 FPS. The fact that it added an optional unlocked framerate mode doesn't change the fact that it doesn't run at the same framerate or have the same feature as the series X counterpart. There are other games, ofcourse. Cyberpunk 2077 runs at half the framerate. So does DL2.

You're trying to backtrack very heavily here. You clearly stated that the series S requires no additional development costs. If Series S versions require so much work that the features can't be shipped in time, it's significant additional development costs. Quit trying to have it both ways.

See, you are finally starting to get it. Developers have to make compromises because of the hardware which means that a series S version running at a different framerate/features is not because a "developer chooses not to utilize the hardware" but because a developer is forced to make compromises because the hardware is lacking. Again: You specifically stated that the hardware has NOTHING to do with it despite the fact that the hardware being the SOLE REASON as to why compromises have to be made in the first place.

The developers chose not to implent it because the hardware forced them to make to big concessions. Again, you argued yourself into a wall here. You said there is No reason why the series S shouldn't run at the same framerate or with the same featureset. If developers have to make too big concessions to get it to run the same features, THEN THAT IS A PRETTY BIG FUCKING REASON.

You have been completely unable to point out how the fact that the game offers an optional unlocked framerate changes the argument, so I'll accept your concession on this argument and that you acknowledge that GotG does not run at the same framerate/ray tracing as the series X counterpart thus PROVING that the poster you quoted earlier was correct. It's pathetic how you get hung up on PR speech and "features list". "B-But it has a feature list" yea but the HARDWARE ITSELF is still significnatly weaker which means that the PRIMARY REASON why it wasn't included despite the feature technically being available is not because developers choose to not utilize the hardware (They are utilizing the hardware, GotG is one of the best looking games on Series S) but because they were forced to make too many concessions.

Forza Horizon 5 the exact same game as, say, GOTG or Cyberpunk 2077?

Here you go again: You're blaming the developers without knowing the first thing about game development. The PS3 anoogy is a poor one. The PS3 was notoriously difficult to program for and several developers said as such. Go ahead and find me developers who state the same thing about the Series S being difficult to develop for.


Okay since you want to argue like a child in an attempt to "Gotcha!" me instead of actually adressing the point, have it your way: You can't use Halo's campaign mode as an example because it doesn't run at 120 fps at ANY point. The Series X version ocassionally hits 120 fps. On series S it does not.

Yea No. If you buy a Series S, you will be playing the worst version of every single release for an entire generation. Having owned both Xbox and PS consoles for the last 3 generations: The PSN store has far better and far more frequent sales than ANY other digital platform on xbox or retail stores. For just 100$ more, you're getting a proper current gen experience. Also nice try, but you're falling into the same trap as a previous poster: Talking about hyperspecific hypothetical scenarios. Obviously if you want a game with it, you'll have to pay more than 400$. Just like you have to pay more for Series S if you want a game for it. As I've mentioned, availability aside. When both consoles are available, the PS5's hardware is objectively and factually a much better price to performance ratio than the series S

The hardware being not good enough to the point that the game had to be significantly cut back in the first place. The fact that you can technically have access to a feauture doesn't change the fact that the feature had to be cut and compromised because of the hardware of the system. Saying that the hardware "Had nothing to do with it" is objectively and factually false: The decision was made entirely because of the lacking hardware. When a game runs at a different frame rate on switch, nobody argues that this was a choice. Everyone accepts that this is due to the switch hardware and not a decision made by the devs.

Okay you want to play this game? You want to play developer? Let's go mate. You have repeatedly argued that GoTG doesn't offer the same features because of optimization. Which aspect of the series S hardware is being underutilized here and how could they have optimized so that the game runs at 60 FPS and have ray tracing? I want ACTUAL technical details, not your typical MS PR spreadsheet BS.

What the fuck are you even talking about? ITS A VIDEO INTERVIEW. He says it in a VIDEO INTERVIEW with IGN.

No I'm not saying he was paid to say nice stuff. What I am saying is that he is a CEO, NOT a developer. I know that you're mostly clueless about game development but just a FYI: A CEO doesn't develop games. I'm honestly done with you. Debates with you just go into a circle.

It basically goes like this:

"Game X runs at 30 FPS on one system and 60 and raytracing on another, which shows that both systems don't run the game at the same performance"
"Hah! You're wrong! It offered an unlocked FPS mode at 45 FPS!"
"Okay, but how does that change the initial argument that it doesn't run at the same performance level?
"You said it ran at 30!"
"But how does it cha.."
"No! You said it was 30! I'm not adressing your argument because you said 30!"
"..Okay but either way, the game had to be cut back on these features because of the available hardware"
"NO! Series S can technically do ray tracing and it can technically has 60 fps! So if a game doesn't have that, it's entirely the devs fault and not because of the hardware"
"...But the devs had to cut these features because the hardware forced them to make these concessions!"
"NO! Hardware has nothing to do with it! Have you not seen my MS PR talking points!?"

Its stupid and a waste of time. At no point have you expressed anything that even resembles a remotely logical argument.

Why lie?

You say Halo Infinite Campaign doesn't hit 120fps at "any" point on Series S,

It does.

Also the Series X version is not rarely 120fps, it's normally 120fps, I tested it last night to check the VRR judder and only looking out high over a large area could I get it to drop to about 110fps.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

What age group are we talking about? A kid age 12 - 17 will absolutely know about the difference. Ask them which phone they want and they'll be very specific. You're seriously underestimating how well informed kids are about their hobbies.

Are we talking 12 and younger...ehh maybe? But I don't think that really is the target audience for Xbox though. I think the Switch is a much more popular console for that demographic.

Kids, especially older ones, might know the difference, but they're not the ones paying for it. They also likely don't have 4K TVs in their bedrooms so it's not a big issue anyway.

 

[Rykan]

Why lie?

You say Halo Infinite Campaign doesn't hit 120fps at "any" point on Series S,



It does.

Also the Series X version is not rarely 120fps, it's normally 120fps, I tested it last night to check the VRR judder and only looking out high over a large area could I get it to drop to about 110fps.

Okay congrats, you found the single second in the entire video it hits 120 fps. Here's a cookie.

Kids, especially older ones, might know the difference, but they're not the ones paying for it. They also likely don't have 4K TVs in their bedrooms so it's not a big issue anyway.

Teenagers are also running around with luxurious smartphones and flagship models despite their parents paying for them. They aren't using iPhone SE's, I can tell you that much. A lot of kids get what they want. It is a misunderstanding to think that parents will automatically buy the cheapest available option for their kids.

 

[Riky]

Okay congrats, you found the single second in the entire video it hits 120 fps. Here's a cookie.

Teenagers are also running around with luxurious smartphones and flagship models despite their parents paying for them. A lot of kids get what they want. It is a misunderstanding to think that parents will automatically buy the cheapest available option for their kids.

Doubling down when wrong, just admit it, here's another one.