Support NeoGAF

[Kataploom]

I don't know how anyone can really believe that minimum specs don't matter....

Yet, the minimum specs for making games on SS totally on the same league as SX ans PS5 are there: SSD + CPU + GPU with same instructions set than SX.

One thing I see many people here saying all the time is how the SSD is more important than GPU raw power and RAM this gen... It seems it only counts for PS5.

And still no one have said in what specific way games are gonna be "held back" by SS, it's clear that in game logic, AI, physics, data streaming and world simulation specifically they will not, so I don't know what do those people mean with that.

 

[FireFly]

No, because there were better options IMHO and what they chose made things worse (again IMHO). They did what they did because if fits their strategy not because it was the best thing for the industry.

A $349-399 digits only XSX with a 0.5-1 TB SSD would be a far far better offer for users and would simplify the life of devs and allow first party Xbox developers to get more out of the HW more easily too.

It depends on what the BoM of the XSX is, and how quickly they could have cost reduced a discless version, relative to the XSS. If the XSS can eventually hit $199 or $249, it could drive significant demand.

 

[Dampf]

Sampler feedback streaming helps the implementation (less code needed to calculate and tell the system what memory pages to stream in), but does not give you back that much memory compared to best in class virtual texturing developers used to implement in software (think Xbox 360/PS3) or using features like PRT (partially resident textures) to only keep visible textures loaded in GPU memory and caches):

The stats you quote compare a title with SFS implementing a form of virtual texturing vs a title not using virtual texturing at all. So, it might make it easier for small indies (that were not using UE4 or Unity3D but their hand made engine), but not such a big world changer for AA/AAA+ titles.

ML wise, support for lower precision integer math at higher rate helps a lot, but it uses the same shader array as the rest of the rendering does (same for mesh shaders) instead of having super powerful dedicated unit like the Tensor Cores nVIDIA uses separate from the Shader ALU’s. MS and Sony will try to flex the importance of ML, but neither has anywhere near the computational power dedicated to it that nVIDIA or Apple have in their devices (I would have expected a lot more iPhone games to leverage DLSS like solutions sooner to be fair... although their Neural Engine is a fully decoupled component in their SoC so maybe it is not as easy to use for this kind of use case at a low enough latency).

Of course they compared SFS to traditional PRT methods and got that 2.5x factor and not to a title using no virtual texturing/PRT at all, that makes no sense as Microsoft should be full aware most game devs are using PRT in big games today as they implemented it into the DX standard.

SF is just that much more advanced than PRT/VT as the latter involves too much guess work. Here's what a Microsoft engineer had to say about that matter:

 

[SkylineRKR]

Series S should’ve at least had 12gb ram and 6tf rdna2 but I think developers would rather work on it due to the horrible cpu on one X.

But yeah it’s a step down in graphics overall. FPS is in favor of series S though.

I don't know.

Gears 5 both looks and runs better on Series S than it does on One X (which also largely runs at 1440p). Loads faster and offers 120hz MP. Its a better version. This is one of the most impressive One X games. Yakuza same story, it runs at higher res than One X and has a 60fps mode. Both these games offer native 1440p.

It seems its down to the developers. The Series S can outperform the One X, but it should've had slightly more RAM and TF to reach that 1440p goal more often I think.

 

[D.Final]

Yet, the minimum specs for making games on SS totally on the same league as SX ans PS5 are there: SSD + CPU + GPU with same instructions set than SX.

One thing I see many people here saying all the time is how the SSD is more important than GPU raw power and RAM this gen... It seems it only counts for PS5.

And still no one have said in what specific way games are gonna be "held back" by SS, it's clear that in game logic, AI, physics, data streaming and world simulation specifically they will not, so I don't know what do those people mean with that.

This is the biggest development work

 

[Panajev2001a]

Of course they compared SFS to traditional PRT methods and got that 2.5x factor and not to a title using no virtual texturing/PRT at all, that makes no sense as Microsoft should be full aware most game devs are using PRT in big games today as they implemented it into the DX standard.

Of course they are aware most game devs are using PRT, but that is not what they stated over and over and it would not make their numbers look as good . I understand that it is now easier to track actively used textures or portions of such with GPU assistance, but most developers leaving about 2.5x RAM storage overhead (and associated memory bandwidth) is very difficult to believe.

From DF’s Interview with Goossen:

As textures have ballooned in size to match 4K displays, efficiency in memory utilisation has got progressively worse - something Microsoft was able to confirm by building in special monitoring hardware into Xbox One X's Scorpio Engine SoC. "From this, we found a game typically accessed at best only one-half to one-third of their allocated pages over long windows of time," says Goossen. "So if a game never had to load pages that are ultimately never actually used, that means a 2-3x multiplier on the effective amount of physical memory, and a 2-3x multiplier on our effective IO performance."

+

A technique called Sampler Feedback Streaming - SFS - was built to more closely marry the memory demands of the GPU, intelligently loading in the texture mip data that's actually required with the guarantee of a lower quality mip available if the higher quality version isn't readily available,

Those statements do not match with a comparison to a virtual texturing scheme built on top of PRT/tiled resources:

AMD Radeon HD 7970 Review: 28nm And Graphics Core Next, Together As One

www.anandtech.com

AMD paper on PRT: http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Partially Resident Textures on Next-Generation GPUs.v04.pps

AMD Virtual Texturing paper: https://developer.amd.com/wordpress...-Mittring-Advanced_Virtual_Texture_Topics.pdf

SF is just that much more advanced than PRT/VT as the latter involves too much guess work. Here's what a Microsoft engineer had to say about that matter:

... and SFS also has a hit and is not meant to be over used either, every technique has its faults, but again 2.5x is a MASSIVE, too massive improvement over state of the art PRT considering SFS is an extension for streaming on top of the sampler feedback mechanism (MS itself refers to it as PRT+).

 

[Croatoan]

If you are using a game engine that cannot scale then you are using the wrong game engine.

 

[Interfectum]

Pure hyperbole. There is nothing Series S can't do that would "hold back next gen." And the 'extra effort' required to get a Series S port out the door should be alleviated over time as MS gets a proper workflow in place.

I don't think people are seeing the big picture here in that MS isn't making games for the Series X, they are making games for everything they can. Don't be surprised if you see a portable system in a few years that has the Series S spec and can play games natively. With this approach to games the sky is the limit.

 

[D.Final]

Pure hyperbole. There is nothing Series S can't do that would "hold back next gen." And the 'extra effort' required to get a Series S port out the door should be alleviated over time as MS gets a proper workflow in place.

I don't think people are seeing the big picture here in that MS isn't making games for the Series X, they are making games for everything they can. Don't be surprised if you see a portable system in a few years that has the Series S spec and can play games natively. With this approach to games the sky is the limit.

I agree

For what we have now it's all a development time question

 

[longdi]

So Control, a last gen game, runs only at 1440p on ps5. Are we going to ding Sony on that?

 

[Panajev2001a]

So Control, a last gen game, runs only at 1440p on ps5. Are we going to ding Sony on that?

Considering it has the same performance in the 12 TFLOPS XSX with less I/O stutters (as reported by DF)? Curious .

60 FPS mode plus jump from 1080p to 1440p for a patch, it does not seem like a bad free update.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Exactly, that's the issue. You and many people don't know shit about the work that goes into this and the complexities involved but "feel" that it should be somehow different than how it is. Instead of thinking 'I don't know shit, so let me not assume', you guys go 'I don't know shit but I assume'.

Learning is just a click away.

Blogs recent news | Game Developer

Explore the latest news and expert commentary on Blogs, brought to you by the editors of Game Developer

gamasutra.com

You forgot to paste and answer the second part of my paragraph.

 

[Dampf]

Of course they are aware most game devs are using PRT, but that is not what they stated over and over and it would not make their numbers look as good . I understand that it is now easier to track actively used textures or portions of such with GPU assistance, but most developers leaving about 2.5x RAM storage overhead (and associated memory bandwidth) is very difficult to believe.

From DF’s Interview with Goossen:

+


Those statements do not match with a comparison to a virtual texturing scheme built on top of PRT/tiled resources:

AMD Radeon HD 7970 Review: 28nm And Graphics Core Next, Together As One

www.anandtech.com

AMD paper on PRT: http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/Partially Resident Textures on Next-Generation GPUs.v04.pps

AMD Virtual Texturing paper: https://developer.amd.com/wordpress...-Mittring-Advanced_Virtual_Texture_Topics.pdf


... and SFS also has a hit and is not meant to be over used either, every technique has its faults, but again 2.5x is a MASSIVE, too massive improvement over state of the art PRT considering SFS is an extension for streaming on top of the sampler feedback mechanism (MS itself refers to it as PRT+).

Yes, I think the multiplier comes from the whole I/O system, including DirectStorage and the NVMe SSD.

So it's HDD+PRT vs NVMe SSD + DirectStorage + SFS. I believe someone at MS talked about this.

 

[FrankWza]

One thing I see many people here saying all the time is how the SSD is more important than GPU raw power and RAM this gen... It seems it only counts for PS5.

Is has double the IO throughput

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yes, I think the multiplier comes from the whole I/O system, including DirectStorage and the NVMe SSD.

So it's HDD+PRT vs NVMe SSD + DirectStorage + SFS. I believe someone at MS talked about this.

This would make it even more of an arbitrary number and a bit of a Byzantine explanation: kind of like taking the number and working backwards to prove it. SSD + Direct Storage + SSF + BCPack&zlib unit are XVA and together deliver far more than a 2.5x multiplier.

I think MS took a metric a bit far highlighting it under the best possible scenario.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Is has double the IO throughput

SSD also is not more important than RAM but essential not to make the RAM increase generation to generation seem crappy/small and turn that into “kind of decent” (but not awesome, it is not like they went with 32 GB of RAM or anything).

Very fast SSD’s are there to ensure RAM is used more efficiently and more and more as a cache for the SSD, but we are still dealing with over 50x bandwidth difference and even more latency wise...

 

[FrankWza]

SSD also is not more important than RAM but essential not to make the RAM increase generation to generation seem crappy/small and turn that into “kind of decent” (but not awesome, it is not like they went with 32 GB of RAM or anything).

Very fast SSD’s are there to ensure RAM is used more efficiently and more and more as a cache for the SSD, but we are still dealing with over 50x bandwidth difference and even more latency wise...

Is it even being utilized to offset ram for these upgrades? Or is it just load times and slightly less strain on the ram? Is it first party mostly or will 3rd party begin to take advantage as well?

 

[Kataploom]

Is has double the IO throughput

Not than the XSX and games are not gonna be done only for PS5, also it's not necessary to go so over the top, current SSDs are already an upgrade vs old HDDs

 

[FrankWza]

Not than the XSX

Yes, it does.

 

[Kataploom]

Yes, it does.

I think you're talking about storage size, I'm referring to IO speed, which is what matters... Storage can be extended using cheap SSD or HDD for games one is not playing at frequently or at the moment.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

I think you're talking about storage size, I'm referring to IO speed, which is what matters... Storage can be extended using cheap SSD or HDD for games one is not playing at frequently or at the moment.

It's over 2x the speed.

Also you don't get blood from a stone... 4TF's is 4TF's is 4TF's no way around this.

 

[FrankWza]

I think you're talking about storage size, I'm referring to IO speed, which is what matters... Storage can be extended using cheap SSD or HDD for games one is not playing at frequently or at the moment.

Why would I be talking about storage size when I said the ps5 has double the throughput?

One thing I see many people here saying all the time is how the SSD is more important than GPU raw power and RAM this gen... It seems it only counts for PS5.

Is has double the IO throughput

Not than the XSX and games are not gonna be done only for PS5, also it's not necessary to go so over the top, current SSDs are already an upgrade vs old HDDs

Yes, it does.

 

[Boneless]

I want to love this game and I am really looking for a good tower defense game to follow up on They Are Billions which I loved.

This... just doesnt seem to be it. I played the demo and a lot of things dont sit right with me:
- Horrible sound effects (especially the small alien dying)
- Boring looking initial turret, the way it fires is not satisfying
- the game feels way to cluttered and too far zoomed in
- WAY too much focus on the mech, instead of the base defences doing the work, the mech itself gets all the cool gadgets and does most of the work.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Is it even being utilized to offset ram for these upgrades? Or is it just load times and slightly less strain on the ram? Is it first party mostly or will 3rd party begin to take advantage as well?

Load times improvements already could bring considerable less strain on the RAM of the dev has a lot smaller stream ahead buffers. Still, the bulk of the SSD and I/O API (like Direct Storage too) will require quite a bit of work to really pay dividends so yeah expect first parties and the largest AAAA publishers to pave the way here, in that order.

 

[ethomaz]

Which is still lower than XSS, so... I don't know. The differnce between good devs and bad ones, is that good ones optimalise their codebase.

How much RAM Series S has? 10GB I believe.

Hitman 3 mininum is 10GB.
Cyberpunk 2077 minimum is 11GB.

Both cross-gen games.

Which game have lower minimum memory requirement than Series S?

 

[Kataploom]

Why would I be talking about storage size when I said the ps5 has double the throughput?

Sorry I think I'm not understanding well what you said, but to clarify, I meant XSS and XSX IO is same speed, so that's a non-factor when comparing power difference

 

[Kataploom]

It's over 2x the speed.

Also you don't get blood from a stone... 4TF's is 4TF's is 4TF's no way around this.

4TF of GPU power and because it's only GPU, only graphics are gonna be affected... What's not to be understood? Games complexity will remain the same as if S didn't exist

 

[M1chl]

How much RAM Series S has? 10GB I believe.

Hitman 3 mininum is 10GB.
Cyberpunk 2077 minimum is 11GB.

Both cross-gen games.

Which game have lower minimum memory requirement than Series S?

You need to take into account over head, even VRAM is sucked by videos, not the mention RAM. I guess it's still more efficient to do this on console. Most of the effect are much more bound by compute ability then by memory size... Effect I mean, texture are obviously affected...

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

4TF of GPU power and because it's only GPU, only graphics are gonna be affected... What's not to be understood? Games complexity will remain the same as if S didn't exist

4TF's is greatly less capable than 12.1TF's.
XSX games will have to be made with the weakest denominator in mind theirs no way around this you can't expect a miracle/blood from a stone.

So a dramatically weaker GPU and we can also add significantly lower amount of ram.
Maybe you drink the Xbox marketing kool aid and believe everything MS tells you but it's not hard to see things clearly.

 

[Haggard]

Wonder what they do if they found out about PC

Adjust the min-requirements to "do not suck"
Unfortunately that`s not an option with the XSS.

Pure hyperbole. There is nothing Series S can't do that would "hold back next gen."

because RAM and GPU limits absolutely don`t matter in the design of a game.....

With this approach to games the sky is the limit.

Thanks to this approach a box that does not deserve the "next gen" stamp now dictates the min requirements for the entire generation on all platforms.




I see that the usual armchair developers are still regurgitating that ridiculous "everything`s scalable" marketing nonsense

 

[Kataploom]

4TF's is greatly less capable than 12.1TF's.
XSX games will have to be made with the weakest denominator in mind theirs no way around this you can't expect a miracle/blood from a stone.

So a dramatically weaker GPU and we can also add significantly lower amount of ram.
Maybe you drink the Xbox marketing kool aid and believe everything MS tells you but it's not hard to see things clearly.

It is, for graphics (or other things not handled by GPU in games).

I don't, I develop software (tho not games) so I understand the reasoning. Less RAM size and bw for significantly smaller data requirements.

You're not gonna see dumber AI or less complex nature interactivity because of that, most of that is handled by CPU.

You're gonna see less complex effects and lower internal and vfx resolution because that's what's being affected and that's actually easier to scalate by just adjusting config files most of the time.

So the games are not gonna be affected for PS5/XSX owners, but for XSS ones.

Some here also seem not to care about architecture efficiency AND new RDNA 2.0 features that greatly improve performance even over One X GPU.

They also seem not to consider that there's less difference between One X and SX "TFLOPS" than there is between One and SS, which basically means SS will run games better than One if we compared them to their more powerful brothers.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

It is, for graphics (or other things not handled by GPU in games).

I don't, I develop software (tho not games) so I understand the reasoning. Less RAM size and bw for significantly smaller data requirements.

You're not gonna see dumber AI or less complex nature interactivity because of that, most of that is handled by CPU.

You're gonna see less complex effects and lower internal and vfx resolution because that's what's being affected and that's actually easier to scalate by just adjusting config files most of the time.

So the games are not gonna be affected for PS5/XSX owners, but for XSS ones.

Some here also seem not to care about architecture efficiency AND new RDNA 2.0 features that greatly improve performance even over One X GPU.

They also seem not to consider that there's less difference between One X and SX "TFLOPS" than there is between One and SS, which basically means SS will run games better than One if we compared them to their more powerful brothers.

Riftbreaker dev : Next-Gen Features Have to Be Fitted to XSS Memory; It Would Have Been Much Easier with XSX Only

https://wccftech.com/dev-next-gen-features-have-to-be-fitted-to-xss-memory-it-would-have-been-much-easier-with-xsx-only/ Yes, the Xbox Series S requires additional optimization. While we were able to simply compile The Riftbreaker for the Xbox Series X and it "just works", the XSS requires...

www.neogaf.com

 

[FrankWza]

Sorry I think I'm not understanding well what you said, but to clarify, I meant XSS and XSX IO is same speed, so that's a non-factor when comparing power difference

That’s convenient. Because originally you were talking about the PS5. If you’re talking about x family not being held back that one thing. But you did bring PS5 into the conversation. So, the answer is, because the PS5 has double the throughput.(actually more)

Yet, the minimum specs for making games on SS totally on the same league as SX ans PS5 are there: SSD + CPU + GPU with same instructions set than SX.

One thing I see many people here saying all the time is how the SSD is more important than GPU raw power and RAM this gen... It seems it only counts for PS5.

And still no one have said in what specific way games are gonna be "held back" by SS, it's clear that in game logic, AI, physics, data streaming and world simulation specifically they will not, so I don't know what do those people mean with that.

 

[DarkMage619]

What usually takes up the most space when dealing with RAM on consoles? Texture and graphic data or physics and AI? The 4TF vs 12 TF argument doesn't make much sense if the goal of the 4TF system is to run games at less than 4K resolutions. Has there been any games to date that run significantly worse on the XSS OUTSIDE of graphics? Is there any significant differences in the CPU capabilities of the XSS over any other platforms? The CPU will handle things like AI and physics right?

Does the XSS lack any technical features the XSX has? Was velocity architecture removed or sampler feedback streaming; is the SSD slower or missing? If a developer takes advantage of the features available to them they can make a game run on the XSS at 1080P resolutions. There has been no evidence that games will have to be scaled down outside of graphics especially when games like GTA V can run on the X360 and PS3. You aren't getting more performance for the price and that is the whole point. It may not be ideal for developers, who would prefer everyone have 3090 GPUs as a base, but it IS good for gamers who are on a budget.

 

[Kataploom]

Riftbreaker dev : Next-Gen Features Have to Be Fitted to XSS Memory; It Would Have Been Much Easier with XSX Only

https://wccftech.com/dev-next-gen-features-have-to-be-fitted-to-xss-memory-it-would-have-been-much-easier-with-xsx-only/ Yes, the Xbox Series S requires additional optimization. While we were able to simply compile The Riftbreaker for the Xbox Series X and it "just works", the XSS requires...

www.neogaf.com

You're literally quoting an article where devs say that it's not much work to optimize for SS and that it's because CPU and SSD is basically the same than SX, and that GPU differences are very easy to fix due to scalibity of graphics.

Like, exactly what I and a lot of users here are saying...

That’s convenient. Because originally you were talking about the PS5. If you’re talking about x family not being held back that one thing. But you did bring PS5 into the conversation. So, the answer is, because the PS5 has double the throughput.(actually more)

Ok, so I apologies if that sounds confusing, but my comparison with IO throuput was against SX, I re-read it and understood it like that btw. I brought up PS5 for the typical "it counts for one but not for the other".

 

[THE DUCK]

I think also many people miss the true intent of the series s - when it hits $199 and series x and ps5 are still at $399, they won't be able to build them fast enough for the masses.
Ms is milking the $299 price for now as they are selling out, but as soon as they stop, you can expect $249 or $199 depending on ps5/series x prices.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You're literally quoting an article where devs say that it's not much work to optimize for SS and that it's because CPU and SSD is basically the same than SX, and that GPU differences are very easy to fix due to scalibity of graphics.

Like, exactly what I and a lot of users here are saying...


Ok, so I apologies if that sounds confusing, but my comparison with IO throuput was against SX, I re-read it and understood it like that btw. I brought up PS5 for the typical "it counts for one but not for the other".

Dev>common sense>you
Not trying to be a dick but not sure how you don't get it.

 

[Insane Metal]

I seriously hope XSS doesn't hold next-gen back.

c'mon it's pushing the PS5 already

 

[Kataploom]

Dev>common sense>you
Not trying to be a dick but not sure how you don't get it.

But I've been telling you what the devs in the article actually said LMAO.

 

[FrankWza]

I think also many people miss the true intent of the series s - when it hits $199 and series x and ps5 are still at $399, they won't be able to build them fast enough for the masses.
Ms is milking the $299 price for now as they are selling out, but as soon as they stop, you can expect $249 or $199 depending on ps5/series x prices.

This is a contradiction to everything I read. That Microsoft has so much money they can do whatever they want. They don’t need to make games from zeni multiplat and everyone is paying $10-$15 for gamepass per month. If this is the case, why do they need to milk the s for the extra $100 at all? Why not just make it $199 or better yet $99 and while they’re at it, let’s price the x at $299. They can sell tens of millions and still spend less than any big acquisition and lock all these people into their eco.

 

[Interfectum]

This is a contradiction to everything I read. That Microsoft has so much money they can do whatever they want. They don’t need to make games from zeni multiplat and everyone is paying $10-$15 for gamepass per month. If this is the case, why do they need to milk the s for the extra $100 at all? Why not just make it $199 or better yet $99 and while they’re at it, let’s price the x at $299. They can sell tens of millions and still spend less than any big acquisition and lock all these people into their eco.

Game Pass isn't ready for a $99 console. Give the service and their studios 3-4 years to put out some games then put out some cheap ass systems, some portable systems, etc and you'll see it explode. The only hurdle to Game Pass success at this point is MS getting bored with Xbox which they haven't yet so...

 

[DarkMage619]

But I've been telling you what the devs in the article actually said LMAO.

Some just prefer to stick to XSS is holding everything back and they won't be budging from that position. There is a reason the positive parts of the article are curiously omitted. We still don't know if this particular dev reached out to MS for some assistance. I have not heard anything about MS not being responsive to dev help requests.

This is a contradiction to everything I read. That Microsoft has so much money they can do whatever they want. They don’t need to make games from zeni multiplat and everyone is paying $10-$15 for gamepass per month. If this is the case, why do they need to milk the s for the extra $100 at all? Why not just make it $199 or better yet $99 and while they’re at it, let’s price the x at $299. They can sell tens of millions and still spend less than any big acquisition and lock all these people into their eco.

When did MS say they had so much money they could 'do whatever they want'? They did say they didn't need Bethesda games multiplatform but there are several games on the Xbox that aren't multiplatform and MS hasn't collapsed yet. No one ever said everyone is paying $10 to $15 for Gamepass but we did push back against your repeated 'everyone is paying $1 for Gamepass loophole' thing you kept saying. Dumping laws keep MS from selling any product for way below a reasonable price. MS still has to follow the law.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Some just prefer to stick to XSS is holding everything back and they won't be budging from that position. There is a reason the positive parts of the article are curiously omitted. We still don't know if this particular dev reached out to MS for some assistance. I have not heard anything about MS not being responsive to dev help requests.

Assistance with what?
4TF's|10GB/s

 

[FrankWza]

Game Pass isn't ready for a $99 console. Give the service and their studios 3-4 years to put out some games then put out some cheap ass systems, some portable systems, etc and you'll see it explode. The only hurdle to Game Pass success at this point is MS getting bored with Xbox which they haven't yet so...

This sounds more like gamepass isn’t ready to have people pay full price for it which is why there are so many deals to avoid paying full price. Because the series s is supposed to be a next gen console. So how is $299+$180 for 3 years of gpu not an amazing deal for a next gen console? It’s $500 out the door for as many games as you can play. It should be the better buy for most people and highly sought after now.

 

[Imtjnotu]

This dev sounds like a FUD merchant.

What's his NeoGAF username?

Found it!

His neogaf name is GHG

 

[DarkMage619]

Assistance with what?
4TF's|10GB/s

Assistance in utilizing the features of the CPU and GPU available on the XSS|X platform. It is in everyone's best interest in getting the most out of the platform you are developing on. That's MS's job as a platform holder.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Assistance in utilizing the features of the CPU and GPU available on the XSS|X platform. It is in everyone's best interest in getting the most out of the platform you are developing on. That's MS's job as a platform holder.

But you still can't get around the limitations unless you clip the XSX versions.

MS should of made XSS 6TF/12GB but they didn't.

 

[Interfectum]

This sounds more like gamepass isn’t ready to have people pay full price for it which is why there are so many deals to avoid paying full price. Because the series s is supposed to be a next gen console. So how is $299+$180 for 3 years of gpu not an amazing deal for a next gen console? It’s $500 out the door for as many games as you can play. It should be the better buy for most people and highly sought after now.

It's arguably not ready for full time yet. The service is there, the hardware is there but the games aren't yet. 18 million subs for what is is right now is actually pretty impressive. When they start putting out monthly (?) brand new games for the service is when you'll see the service realized to it's full potential. I think some naysayers are going to be surprised when it explodes tbh.

 

[FrankWza]

When did MS say they had so much money they could 'do whatever they want'? They did say they didn't need Bethesda games multiplatform but there are several games on the Xbox that aren't multiplatform and MS hasn't collapsed yet. No one ever said everyone is paying $10 to $15 for Gamepass but we did push back against your repeated 'everyone is paying $1 for Gamepass loophole' thing you kept saying. Dumping laws keep MS from selling any product for way below a reasonable price. MS still has to follow the law.

That’s the narrative. Microsoft doesn’t need to discount gp even though they do, constantly for 2 years now. Microsoft doesn’t need to make zeni games multiplat because they made twice the acquisition price in profit.
7.5 billion is a “drop in the bucket “ or “fuck you money” hahahahaha
Ok, so, let’s see a $99 s($300 with 3 years of discounted gpu)and a $299 x($500 with 3 years discounted gpu deal). Put that overflow to work now. Because the zeni money isn’t going to use for years.
And saying they have a supposed 18 million gp subs because it’s $1 is a BIG difference than me saying that everyone pays $1 for it.

 

[DarkMage619]

That’s the narrative. Microsoft doesn’t need to discount gp even though they do, constantly for 2 years now. Microsoft doesn’t need to make zeni games multiplat because they made twice the acquisition price in profit.
7.5 billion is a “drop in the bucket “ or “fuck you money” hahahahaha
Ok, so, let’s see a $99 s($300 with 3 years of discounted gpu)and a $299 x($500 with 3 years discounted gpu deal). Put that overflow to work now. Because the zeni money isn’t going to use for years.
And saying they have a supposed 18 million gp subs because it’s $1 is a BIG difference than me saying that everyone pays $1 for it.

Narrative from WHOM? Again did MS say this or are you just bringing up faceless people from the internet? No one credible is saying that Gamepass doesn't need to make financial sense for MS. They do have plans like Xbox All Access that allows a person to get an XSS|X for one monthly price so it isn't like MS hasn't offered ways to get Gamepass for a discount. That still doesn't take away from Gamepass having 18 million subs. Since you nor any other forum member has the full picture on the breakdown on how much people are paying the argument is moot. The XSS is one part of a multipronged strategy to get as many people playing on Xbox as possible.

But you still can't get around the limitations unless you clip the XSX versions.

MS should of made XSS 6TF/12GB but they didn't.

MS was trying to get the most performance for a mass market price. They could have installed 100GB of RAM but everyone knows that wouldn't be cost effective. Price for the customer VS the BOM for them to build the device was their primary concern. They wanted to make a box they can push down to $200 or less. The PS5 or XSX will NEVER be $200. Being $200 with a mature and content filled Gamepass will be hard for the average gamer to ignore. Developers should talk to MS if they need some help making their games work on the XSS. It would benefit everyone.