this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
45 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30525 readers
221 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Should put this whole issue to rest (for a while, at least πŸ˜‰).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aaronstc@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I don't care about split screen but more evidence that the Series S was a mistake. At the very least Microsoft is going to have to ease up on the requirements.

Edit: It has come to my attention that I need to improve my reading comprehension. This only affects the S. πŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈ

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The most popular Xbox this generation was a mistake?

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most popular Xbox this generation, as opposed to... the second most popular Xbox this generation?

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The point being it's hardly a mistake if most are buying it over the X.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that because people actually want an S... or because they settled because they couldn't find an X? Everywhere I go there's tons of S's available and almost no X's available. Obviously anecdotal, but maybe it's not so much buying it over the X as buying it because the X just isn't in reach... either because of price (though if you can't afford a hundred dollars extra for a console... you can't really afford the console at all, and you're just justifying it to yourself) or because of lack of availability in general.

Just a note, it's not $100 difference. It's $200 difference ($300 vs $500). Having said that, the only reason I got the SS was because I couldn't get the SX. I tried and failed. I would have preferred a $400 digital version of the SX even. Settled for the SS. Had to get an SSD expansion card, feature parity is apparently not a thing, had to rebuy a couple games digitally.

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, does that mean the X was a mistake since the S has more sales? What is your point

[–] Carter@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it means there's clearly more demand for the S. My point is you claiming it was a mistake could not have been any less accurate.

[–] eratic@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I never said it was a mistake? I'm just saying what you said was meaningless...

The dreamcast is the most popular SEGA console of its generation. A raging success!

[–] hypelightfly@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The console itself wasn't a mistake. Their promises of feature parity was the mistake.

[–] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Whoever made that decision obviously never worked in gamedev.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Venutianxspring@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it was a mistake, it brought next gen gaming to people that can't afford, or don't need the highest spec machines. I have a series S so I can play Xbox games with my son, I also have a gaming PC and steam deck. The price of the S allowed me to justify buying this, but I wasn't about to drop the dough on an X just to play a few Xbox games

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X. I think the problem is that they didn’t really think through what a console generational leap would actually consist of.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they thought through just how important hitting that price point was, because it's done very well for them.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

PS5 outsold both versions combined by around 2x. I don't think it was nearly that big of a deal.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

And do you think that would have panned out better if the cheaper console option wasn't available? Not to mention it would only leave them with the console that shared a lot of the same components as the PS5 during supply shortages as well.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Carter@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

It just isn't though.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X

Lmao, bruh, no one who has played games on both would ever claim that. It has slightly more raw graphical compute power while having a drastically weaker CPU, slower SSD, slower memory, and slower overall throughput.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It has faster memory than the Series S. More importantly, it has more RAM. A few improvements here and there doesn't make the Series S a real next-gen console.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As someone who has a One X, a Series S, and a Series X, I can assure you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The One X doesn't get used anymore and the Series S gets used ballpark more often than the series X. Pretty much all games play a very comparable experience on it compared to the series X, something that cannot be said about the One X.

[–] aaronstc@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I guess calling it a mistake is a bit much but it's clearly holding the Series X back especially in this case.

[–] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not everyone is able to afford a gaming PC, let alone a current gen gaming console.

Series S offers them a great opportunity. It is far from a mistake.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point you can make a 600 dollar PC that is just as strong as a console.

[–] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still twice a much as a series S. $600 is alot of money for many people

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Certainly but it will last longer. Although people are instant gratification machines that won't take anything less.

[–] YourFavouriteNPC@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In what world is "It will last longer" an answer to "I can't afford that"? I doesn't matter how long something will last if people don't have the extra money to spend on something more expensive.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because they will likely buy another thing in that same time. You don't need an entertainment box immediately. You can wait, save, and buy an entertainment box that can do multiple things.

[–] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Certainly but it will last longer.

that's highly debatable if we're talking about a $600 PC. I mean, yes you can argue that with games on PC you can always figure something out to get acceptable performance, but people in the market to buy a $300 console likely lack the experience, knowledge or time to do that

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

You might not be able to play the latest and greatest but you can still play many games and you don't lose access to them. They are shutting down the Xbox 360 store soon, thus they'll lose access to any games they don't have downloaded. I have games on Steam older than time itself that I can still download, even if the publisher has delisted them and stopped them from being sold. I know people who still use laptops from 2005 to play indie games. Essentially pretty soon Xbox 360s are going to turn into disc-only consoles where a 600-dollar computer would never revert to that and people today play on computers from 20 years ago. It's rare but it certainly happens, especially in the Linux crowd.

Lastly, you can always upgrade a computer part by part. Which doesn't require knowledge of how the hardware connects. Just take it to a shop and tell them you want it to run faster for a game and they usually will do some inspections, charge you 100 dollars in labor and then whatever for parts, and get your machine upgraded.

[–] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If it was a mistake, how the game now coming to Series S proving that? The only thing it proves is that split screen is a demanding feature and MSFT shouldn't impose parity of that, which they shamelessly accepted after the success of BG3. It's still a good console to play modern games, of course not at best fidelity, but I don't think that matters.

Edit: just realised you're saying that with an incorrect conclusion that split screen wouldn't be coming on Series X. Well, that isn't the case, and probably brings the game to more people with least amount of harm.

[–] Nechesh@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought Microsoft was the one requiring feature parity. It sounds like the real story is MS caving.

[–] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. It's in the Xbox Requirements, as in, the checklist of stuff you need to fulfill if you want to release a game on Xbox. To be precise, it's test case 130-04: Featured Game Modes.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 8 points 1 year ago

The right decision due to how it runs. It's basically two copies of the game going at once. None of this players not being able to stray too far from each other nonsense like other local co-op games.

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

This is great news. Glad to see Xbox players will get to play this fantastic game!!

[–] theangriestbird@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

I remember split-screen being real shaky for D:OS2 on the PS4. Not surprised that they struggled to get it working for this even-more-demanding game on a resource-limited console.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί