At the start of this console generation, Microsoft made a surprising decision. Rather than split its consoles between disc and digital-only like Sony, it actually split them between power level. The Xbox Series S was cheaper, but lacked the horsepower of the more expensive Series X. It was meant to be a bridge between generations and a lower cost entry point, but Microsoft made an important promise.

While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.

However, over time, that has become harder and harder to satisfy. Some developers have grumbled about the Series S requirements for a while, but now, we have a prime example of this parity demand actively hurting the Xbox ecosystem and its own players. Larian has delayed the release of Baldur’s Gate 3, currently on pace to possibly be 2023’s Game of the Year, until they can figure out how to make split-screen work on Series S.

Michael Douse, director of publishing, made the problem very plain:

“We’ve said many times in the past that the issue is getting split-screen working on the Series S, which is taking more time, but is in progress,” Douse said on Twitter. “This is a huge technical hurdle, but we are unable to release the game on the ecosystem without this feature.”

“We cannot remove the split-screen feature because we are obliged to launch with feature parity, and so continue to try and make it work. We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year.”

Microsoft’s demand for feature parity between Series X and S quite literally means that Xbox players may not be able to play 2023’s possible GOTY until…2024. Larian cannot simply cut the feature because Microsoft won’t let them. A feature that the majority of players of the game probably will never even use, mind you.

You can say “okay well, Microsoft just needs to end the feature parity demand between X and S.” In this case, Microsoft could give the okay to cut split-screen and the game could release. And yet, you can see how Microsoft has sort of trapped itself. For Baldur’s Gate 3 that means split-screen, and Xbox owners who are not following video game news every second of the day might find themselves buying a Series S version thinking they can play co-op with their friend and they…can’t.

You can extrapolate that out to any number of games. Various points of pain in Series S development could result in any number of cut features, and those would have to be explained away in fine print for Series S players, or they’d simply buy the games and be upset that those features weren’t there, not knowing any of this.

This is Microsoft not really thinking through the concept of the Series S from the start. The feature parity demand actually does seem necessary, but the further we get into this generation, the more modern games are pushing the technical envelope, and the more Series S is straining to keep up, and developers are straining to meet Microsoft’s demands. As we can see in this example, Microsoft has essentially handed PlayStation a console exclusive for one of the biggest games of the year, without Sony even needing to make any kind of a deal. That’s a disaster.

It’s not clear if there’s a way out of this. Stopping the feature parity demand would be a mess. Stopping Series S sales wouldn’t solve the problem with millions out there already that cannot just be abandoned. Time traveling to not release the Series S in the first place to avoid all this is not possible. So, they’re stuck, unless they think of something else.

  • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, the series s was a great decision in the short term, but was always going to create a lot of problems as the current generation progressed. Because while it kept consoles on shelves during the initial launch and chip shortage, and pulled in people who would ordinarily balk at the cost, the promise of next Gen support for the series s was always going to come back and bite Microsoft in the ass when more games started to push the consoles limits.

    In this regard, Sony was way smarter in just extending the ps4 lifespan since developers can just drop it any time without the existing user base feeling like the got scammed since the ps4 never had promises of running concurrent to the ps5 like the series s does.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could just remove split-screen entirely on Xbox and then Series S would run it just fine (that’s what they did on Steam Deck).

    • yesterdayshero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s say that’s something Microsoft would even allow, it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5. Why would I get a Series X if there’s a chance that some big game launches will have less features than other current gen platforms?

      Microsoft really hamstrung this generation of consoles by releasing the S and demanding it runs feature parity with the X.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let’s say that’s something Microsoft would even allow

        Games launch with different features between consoles all the time.

        it diminishes the ability to compete with the PS5.

        Not getting the games at all even more so.

        Why would I get a Series X if there’s a chance that some big game launches will have less features than other current gen platforms?

        Why would you get a Series X if games don’t launch at all because of Series S parity mandate?

        Nothing you wrote really is an argument for why launching BG3 without split screen on any Xbox is worse than not launching at all.

        • yesterdayshero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Hey guys, you should get a Series X because BG3 is coming out. Sure it will be missing features that you’ll get on the PS5 like split screen, but you guys understand we need to support the Series S and have parity between our two consoles.

          So even though you spent more money on a Series X, that’s capable of running the full game that the PS5 is getting, you should just be happy that you’re getting the game at all. Don’t worry about having paid for a console that’s capable of more.

          -Microsoft

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your comment makes zero sense. The decision not to release on Xbox at all is not Microsoft’s. It’s Larian who rather sacrifice an entire hardware base for a niche feature. You obviously didn’t read the article. It’s spelled out there.

            • yesterdayshero@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s literally in the title…

              Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands

              And in the article…

              While there would be some variance in technical capabilities between consoles, feature parity between the two would remain the same. It would remain the same because Microsoft would demand it remain the same, from both its own studios and third parties.

              • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                xsx and xss have to have same features.

                xss can’t do split screen. it only needs to do split screen because the xsx can do it.

                If devs remove split screen from xsx, then xss would not need split screen, because xsx doesn’t have it either.

                Microsoft can only demand feature parity for their consoles, not sony’s

              • Pika@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think you are misreading, they are refusing to launch because of the feature parity but, that’s because they are consciously deciding that split screen is a hard requirement for the game to launch, whereas with other consoles(steam deck) they just removed split screen and called it good.

              • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s literally in the title…

                Microsoft’s Xbox Series S Parity Demands

                Wow, I’m amazed on how bad you’re at grasping the basics of what I wrote.

                I 👏 DID 👏 NOT 👏 WRITE 👏 ABOUT 👏 CUTTING 👏 SPLIT SCREEN 👏 FROM 👏 SERIES S 👏 ONLY 👏 BUT 👏 ALL 👏 XBOX 👏 VARIANTS 👏 SO 👏 THE 👏 GAME 👏 CAN 👏 LAUNCH 👏 AND 👏 NOT 👏 LEAVE 👏 XBOX 👏 USERS 👏 IN 👏 THE 👏 RAIN!

                The article is about feature parity between Series S and Series X and not about how all Xbox variants can’t have feature disparity with PlayStation. If Larian were to cut split screen for all Xbox versions, the game could launch just fine.

                Really not that hard to understand.

                • yesterdayshero@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Where did Microsoft or Larian say that was an option? Where did Microsoft say that they would be happy to have features cut from the X to keep parity with the S?

                  I pointed out how poor a business decision this would be if Microsoft would allow it. It ruins their offering for the Series X. How can it compete with the PS5 if they start allowing developers to drop features from Xbox games? The entire point of the article is that Microsoft has boxed themselves into this corner. And your suggestion isn’t a good solution.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’ve explicitly told us that Microsoft won’t let them have feature disparity between the two, and that that’s the reason it isn’t there.

          No one’s speculating. We know that it’s not there exactly because the S can’t handle the most demanding feature of a moderately demanding game.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can’t you read? I wrote about no split screen on all Xboxes, not to allow feature disparity between X and S.

  • regulatorg@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would just remove the co op feature from xbox versions and release the game, its an annoying thing to spend money and time on fixing