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.