Phil Spencer 'Doesn't See a World Where We Drop Xbox Series S' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 September 2023 / 6,869 Views
Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer in an interview with Eurogamer was asked about the Xbox Series S and if there was ever a future where they were to leave it behind due to games like Baldur's Gate 3 launching later on the Xbox Series X|S as the developers are still trying to get split-screen working on the consoles.
Spencer did mention Forza Motorsport, which won't have split-screen, was never going to have the feature as very few people used it in previous entries in the franchise.
"Forza Motorsport was never going to have splitscreen," said Spencer. "That's just a decision the team made based on usage. We see how many people play in splitscreen and just decided to put our dev effort where people are actually playing."
Spencer said the Xbox Series S was designed with similarities to the more powerful Xbox Series X and they are taking feedback from developers like the Baldur's Gate 3 studio.
"On S, specifically, we designed the box with similarities to X, and clear places where we're targeting a different performance," he said. "And we're taking feedback from devs including Larian, I met with them today to talk about it and I'm confident we're going to find a good solution and we're going to learn.
"I don't see a world where we drop S. In terms of parity, I don't think you've heard from us or Larian, that this was about parity. I think that's more that the community is talking about it. There are features that ship on X today that do not ship on S, even from our own games, like ray-tracing that works on X, it's not on S in certain games. So for an S customer, they spent roughly half what the X customer bought, they understand that it's not going to run the same way.
"I want to make sure games are available on both, that's our job as a platform holder and we're committed to that with our partners. And I think we're gonna get there with Larian. So I'm not overly worried about that, but we've learned some stuff through it. Having an entry level price point for console, sub-$300, is a good thing for the industry. I think it's important, the Switch has been able to do that, in terms of kind of the traditional plug-into-my-television consoles. I think it's important. So we're committed."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Seems to be in damage control mode today.
Because Xbox now getting BG3 earlier than prior is some kind of damage?
No, but them getting it later because of the Xbox Series being hamstrung by the S absolutely is damage. Developers other than Larian have been complaining about the Series S requirement for a long time. In due time, there will come a day where a developer will tell Microsoft that there will be no Xbox Series X version unless they drop Series S requirements altogether.
Yes, would like it better if both engaged in communication sooner and got the plan straight earlier for same-day delivery, but I'm still waiting for a, at least 50%, deal anyway.
Developers other than Larian have been complaining about the Series S requirement for a long time Yes that's nothing new, devs complain about design choice since video game consoles are a thing.
In due time, there will come a day when a developer will tell Microsoft that there will be no Xbox Series X version unless they drop Series S requirements altogether.
I'm not falling for slippery slopes of the sort. For now, we only know of 1 feature disparity that has come after a dutiful effort from devs to resolve the issue and that does not affect single-player experience in any way. Thinking that it opens the door to overlook Series S altogether is nothing more than unfounded fear-mongering.
I think the only thing that Microsoft needs to do is say that if you launch a game on series X you also have to launch it for series S. There should not be any requirement of any sort of parity. Developers will make the games as similar as they can, otherwise they will risk bad PR putting out a shitty version.
In other words, the market will handle it.
I also think it would be reasonable, though maybe a little more difficult for Microsoft to justify, if they didn't even require people to launch a series S compatible version. This probably has to be the solution in the very long term. Publishers and developers are not going to want to be forced to support series S 10 years into the generation. But, as we can see right now, some AAA games are still launching on consoles 10 years into the last generation. I feel like this would be pretty reasonable for them to start allowing maybe 3 years from now, provided that they start telling people at least a year ahead of time that they will not require series S versions of third party games.
They do see a world in which they drop the parity rule though I bet. Since they have already allowed one exception I bet more will follow.
He is claiming there never existed a parity rule, if you want to believe him...
One possibility was that it was a grey area, and they've now clarified it. No way to know without talking to the behind-the-scenes people.
They need to drop the standard mandate of almost all devs having to support Series S compatibility. It's already caused problems and will continue to do so as Series S gets more outdated.
And of course, Spencer's statement seems to refer to Series S staying supported while the Xbox Series X/S is the current Xbox. Because the successor to Series X/S will probably cause Series S hardware to be discontinued pretty quickly.
The mandate is pretty much dead now that they gave an exception to Baldur's Gate 3. Microsoft needs third parties more than third parties need the Xbox Series X|S. More third parties are likely to tell Microsoft that they need to drop Series S parity requirement if they want games to be available on Series X|S. Larian set a precedent here.
And that opens the door for a developer to tell Microsoft that they aren't going to compromise their vision for the Series S at all, and if Microsoft wants to see a game on Series X, they need to drop the Series S requirement completely.
I think this will hasten the end of this generation for Microsoft. With them re-iterating no "pro" console coming this generation, and with Sony's lead in home consoles now unchallengeable, and with the Series S starting to groan under the load of the most demanding features (due to too little RAM, IMO), there's an incentive for Microsoft to launch a new generation in 2026 or so.
The Series S shows why this is a better strategy than a "pro" console. The Series S was more powerful overall than the One X, but smaller, uses less electricity, generates less heat, and costs less to manufacture.
A pro console makes less sense than moving to a better architecture, as architectural improvements are showing better bang for the buck. And 6 years after the launch of Series X|S is enough time. And if Sony launches a PS5 Pro in 2024 or 2025, then they'll be hamstrung in not being able to match Microsoft early launch of the next gen.
So that's what I predict will happen, and the Series S creaking under the load of ray-tracing, split-screen, etc., is part of the reason Microsoft will end the generation early.
Once a new generation launches, perhaps then the Series S requirement will be dropped. And since it will be a 6-ish year old system then, most consumers will accept it. At that point a developer could support just Series X and the new generation.
That's my prediction, take it for what it's worth! :)
You understand the Series S outdates at the same pace as the X and PS5 right?
Of course they won't drop Series S since it is 70% of their userbase. But these excuses about parity don't make any sense. Larian itself said the reason for the delay was the co-op on Series S.
So you prefer them to delay the game or miss out on the game completely for a feature no one will use?
I have read and re-read @DonFerrari's comment, and I don't see him asserting that. I don't see where he advocates for any particular decision, either way.
And I am asking how do they resolve it? DO they just block games or make exceptions to the rule? The decision made to release BG3 on S/X is the best outcome for all parties.
I think they resolve it by requiring every game to Series S, but shifting the goalposts as much as necessary re: feature parity.
Longer-term they resolve it by skipping the "pro" console route and launching a new architecture in 2026 or so, I predict. At which point the Series S mandate can be gotten rid of, and the machine being 6 years old will help consumers accept it. Might have some games be on Series X and the new architecture only, at that point.
If all 1st party games work on the S quite well including games like Starfield than its enough proof to show the console is fine.
Heck the Series S ran that Matrix demo.
1000 of developers are making games for it, some will find it harder than others.
Yeah, your final point is spot on. Ultimately some games will be harder than others. Games that are CPU-heavy will usually do just fine on Series S, as its CPU is nearly identical to the Series X's. Games that are GPU-heavy may or may not do fine, depending on the design.
So now you are the expert on how everyone plays their games? Come on man get real!!!!
It was recently suggested that lifetime Series X sales are now slightly larger than lifetime Series S sales. No hard numbers, but Series S sales seem flat and Series X sales seem to be in demand, so it's believable to me.
He made a huge mistake with the “S”. Should’ve done what Sony did!!!👍
I'm a series S owner and knew exactly what I was getting into with my purchase. I wanted an entry level console at a budget price so I could play some current gen games. For me all the games could be capped at 1080p and a locked 30fps, I couldn't care less about Ray tracing. Video gaming is an expensive hobby as it is and having a budget console is brilliant for people with limited disposable income.
Strange how the only ones negative about this are those who dont own an Series S.
Nah, man. I got a Series S in February for 200$, brand new, boxed, with two years warranty I think that overall its a piece of shit. It doesn't feel like full-on forward step from Xbox One(I had the One X previously).
MS said its a 1440p and up to 120fps - today's reality show this a complete lie. Not only the Series S is low res(up to 1080p in best case), the fps is lower/weaker, it misses graphical features, it also lack hardware features(optical drive) and now, it also starts to lose game features compared to SX version.
This box worth 100$ at best.
It also plays next gen games.
A huge point of a console is that you don’t have to choose what hardware to buy….
This isn't a new thing. With the PC Engine you also had the SuperGrafx which (among other things) acted as a "pro" console for the PC Engine. With the 360 you to decide whether to get an HDD with it, or not. The PSOne and mini PS2 orphaned some first-party add-ons. There's nothing new with this in the game console industry.
Has anybody actually used split screen in Forza games? Having tried it in a few of them, its not a great experience. I suspect because of limited resources. This isn't Mario Kart, split screen was never really a notable feature for these games.
They shouldn't drop the S, but they SHOULD drop the mandate they're putting on developers to make sure their games run on it. Let the developers decide. If they want to support it, okay. If not, if they want to go all-in and produce a game that requires the horse power of their more powerful console, then that's fine too. You now have something you can brag about, and also something you can use to leverage sales for your premium device. But forcing them to code for a lower console? No, I don't agree with that. At all.
Just drop the series s and not hassle developers and make their lives harder as it is lol haha
Or miss out on a game or two or maybe 10 if the inferior box truly is the problem
But he is saying he never said anything like that, it was all dreamed by players.
You've got it exactly right. I don't recall them ever promising feature parity between the two. It's true that up until now the differences have only been on the fidelity front, and this is a change from that dynamic, but it's a necessary one due to Microsoft's decision to put 10 GB of RAM in the box (when, with the benefit of hindsight, 12 GB was probably the right number). Live and learn.
I own a Series S and I'm not upset about this. I knew I was paying less and therefore getting less when I bought it, and that's fine. I have no regrets. I got it at least a year earlier than I could have got a Series X, and probably 2 years earlier than I could have got a PS5. It's physically smaller (which is useful to me), produces less heat (which I appreciate outside of the winter months), and its level of fidelity is more than good enough for my tastes.
Well, they sorta did tho: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ftY7t8bJ0&t=52s. Pretty sure all their marketing material strongly implied resolution and FPS would be the only difference. Not shocked it couldn't last, but still not a great look.
The video only allude to specific goal of the Series S not actual binding ruleset Devs are forced to follow.
Not gonna lie I though this ruleset actually existed but after intensive search I find nothing of the sort.
Well, whatever agreements or rules they had with developers doesn't really affect what was presented to consumers. But the fact that Larian met with Phil Spencer before making the decision to cut the feature does suggest there might have been some sort of rule or guildeline in place.
And there's people seeing no problems in this, even defending MS.
If it existed but does it or did we just assume it.
Because 1 game wasn't able to get Split screen working so Phil allowed it on the platform anyway instead of delaying it indefinitely? I don't understand your mental Gymastics you are applying here.
