Y'all remember this little gem? It came out in 2014 for PS4...but it also came out for the then-last gen systems of PS3 and 360.
The PS4 version was the lead platform, despite the game also having a last-gen version available, and prioritized the Nemesis system. This highly advanced AI system was impossible to implement on 360 and PS3....so it was simply outright removed altogether for those versions.
Here's a game, from a company much smaller than Microsoft, working with a game on two generations of hardware saying "'
Ya know what? Why should we gimp the PS4 version for the 360 and PS3? We'll just remove that entire Nemesis game mechanic from the old versions instead. No need to hold back the next-gen version for the old consoles!"
So tell me, if a company the size of Monolith Productions was able to prioritize the then-leading next-gen system for game mechanics built solely for that system even when they
KNEW the same version of the game on older systems would not be able to run those new game mechanics...why do some people think Microsoft will somehow
NOT take this exact same approach if a game requires it? They have
already mentioned that Halo Infinite (arguably their biggest upcoming 1st-party release) is using the Series X as the lead platform; you can bet that if the Series X version has game features the Series S is unable to run, they would much sooner just remove them from Series S version rather than punishing the Series X version from using them whatsoever.
Not to mention, with Microsoft's own capital and resources, this is something they could do much easier than Monolith Productions was able to do six years prior, and that's assuming the Series X and Series S versions are being developed by the same studios. If we look at MS's own prior track record with games like Forza Horizon 2, there's a strong chance different teams will handle versions between the two platforms.
Look, I still have my own reservations regarding Lockhart/Series S, but they left this realm of "it'll hold next-gen back!" a LONG time ago. There is literally no legitimate ground anymore for someone to hedge concern around Series S on that idea anymore, when we can look at games like SOM alone as well as the logical reality of how MS will prioritize software development (or already have). At this point, it comes off almost as concern-trolling.
If you want to talk about Lockhart/Series S in terms of it complicating production allocation between it and Series X, or possibly influencing pricing between the two models in an undesired way, those are fair game. Those are still areas of concern with Series S TBQH (and PS5 to a lesser extent with its dual SKUs). But this whole argument that Series X won't be exploited to its full potential due to the presence of Series S, is more or less a dead argument at this point. Too much evidence points to the contrary.
I don't think XSS will hold back XSX in therms of gameplay if the CPU and SSD are similar enough to its big brother, my concern in the beginning of this year was
because the rumours said the XSS will be noticeable inferior in those departments, we can talk about the resolution problem they probably will have later as any console
has enough power to say all its games will reach 4k 30fps doesn't matter what.
Regarding the case you bring I don't say is necessary a good example because in the end you are telling me they bring an inferior game in terms of gameplay, because
that feature (Nemesis) was the most important thing of that game for reviewers and users, so basically your damage one generation of your games for this.
In the case of Halo Infinite my worry is not XSS is Halo Infinite is Xbox one for CPU and HDD/SSD deltas, if you say is good to follow the approach of WB I disagree for a simple
reason as I don't think the graphics makes a game good which make it good is the mechanics so if you remove this from a game for me is a lot worse than a downgrade
in graphics.
If for someone is worth deliver an inferior version in gameplay for your current owner of a Xbox one in exchange of new gen then your marketing of not first party
exclusives become more technicality than a fact.
The engine are build to be scalable but are in constant work and they need to think if they want to follow the approach of LithTech engine or be less aggressive this is not
necessary bad, but even then is not like you can go crazy.
Imagine a situation where are using an spaceship/warthog in Halo and you are traveling fighting against dozens or even hundred of other ships with a complex "AI" to a hight
speed so for this section they have 3 options:
1)Removed from current gen in order to focus your team in designed a balanced experience for the new gen.
2)Put you team or two of them making the same scene accordingly the specs of each gen, this
will be more expensive a time consuming and even the experience could be not the same (specially for the IA)
3) Do something in the middle (basically hold back the new gen)
And this kind of decision will happen a lot specially in a game like Halo, so say Xbox one will hold back is not an offense to the brand
is something always happens when you are making at software for multiple hardware with very different capabilities. If you think this is not true,
I am sure they are going to have the same people of 343 saying in a couple years when announce Halo 7:
"Now we can focus in get more juice from the Xbox series family"
Of course will happen and they are not lying, you need time to know a new hardware and dev a software which uses in a considerable
way and always the fact of dev for a very inferior hardware can affect your game, a simple case is the current games released in PC. Basically is
almost impossible to find a game which use a decent amount the high end CPU (use more of 4 cores to more of 4Ghz) and GPU (Mesh shaders in 2000 series).
The mention of Forza Horizon 2 I think is the worst example for a port to Xbox 360, that game in many parts looks even worse than FH1 in Xbox 360. When the
spec of the current consoles were announced the devs and users with a minimum of technical knowledge were surprised for basically one thing the amount
of ram but when the consoles born, its CPU already was bad something extremely necessary for things like the use of physics or IA, the HDD was
basically the same For this reason your graphics were affected harder for the old gen than you gameplay.
Also the money of Microsoft is not the money of Xbox, any company works like that, each department/section of company like Microsoft always
have a budget for spend is not like they can go with Microsoft and ask for more every time they want without give something in exchange, the
goal of the companies is make money not expend it because reasons.
I will give another example of probably a bigger game in budget, Cyberpunk 2077 will looks gorgeous and will have a lot of things to do and even then
will be hold back in gameplay and graphics for the current gen.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Like many (developers included) have eluded, the biggest differentiator between current gen and next gen is the SSD (Specifically with design features to reduce CPU overhead and increase I/O).
