Microsoft Has No Plans To Drop Support For Xbox Series S

Well I hope not. I just grabbed on this last December

I love my Series S. It’s allowed me to experience this generation without breaking the bank. With it, my Switch, and my PS4, there’s hardly any games that I’ve cared for that I have had to miss. I have a PC that can handle the rest if I want. I still haven’t upgraded to a 4k tv either…
Sorry for holding “everyone” back! 😉

If the box isn’t delivering the goods then that’s on the devs to make sure that happens. If they built for S and then upgraded the assets for X rather than going in the opposite direction they would have no issues.

If a game like Forbidden West can run without issue on the PS4 and Nintendo can continue to squeeze magic from the ancient architecture of the Switch then it’s all possible.

With Baldur’s gate 3 why not make the multiplayer like Diablo where the players cannot venture that far from each other. The. You only have to render the one environment.

I don't think Microsoft can, or will, drop support or the S. The whole point of the console was to bring people into the Xbox ecosystem, and to get them into Game Pass. Turning round now, and telling the millions of gamers that did just that, that their consoles is now not going to be getting the same games as the X, will be such a bad look for the company, and would be rightly panned by pretty much everyone.

What Microsoft can do, is be more flexible with the parity clause. They already allow certain changes, such as graphical settings, to be different in games on the S and X, but they now find themselves needing to go further still.

Larian know that people very much enjoy playing their games in co-op and in split-screen. They do not wish to compromise, particularly so as (although I do not know this for certain) there are likely more gamers playing on the S than there are on the X, meaning removal of the feature on the S, would see it taken away from the largest share of the Xbox market. They have a vision for their game on which they do not wish to compromise, and that is absolutely their right.

Ultimately, I have my doubts as to whether Baldur's Gate 3 will come to the Xbox. My view is that if 343 could not get local co-op to work in Halo Infinite, and Turn-10 cannot get it working in Forza Motorsport, both being big Microsoft owned studios with the full might and resources of Xbox at their disposal, then what chance Larian? And if Larian don't wish to compromise on their vision, and Microsoft won't budge on the parity clause, then the net result is BG3 will not come to Xbox, and so Microsoft will have effectively gifted Sony the winner of the majority, if not all, of Game of the Year Awards for the next 12 months as a PlayStation console exclusive...

Imo it would have been ideal and better for everyone (devs & users) if Series S is One X but with architectural upgrades (same amount of system memory, same gpu raw performance, etc).

It's nice though that Phil reassured us that Series S is here to stay. I'm also curious whether FSR3 will make its way to consoles or not.

I wonder what these lessons learned are and if this means there will be updates to the GDK to better ease Series S development or if this is something Microsoft will apply to future console development (as I am sure Microsoft is already working on a successor - given the nature of console development).

For Series S owners, I hope it's the former.

I think support should be dropped and I own a series s it was a mistake and its underpowered but developers are lazy and we are seeing that more and more with the 30fps on series x and 60 on series s

They won't drop the Series S for this generation as that would be a PR nightmare for them. However, I don't see them going down the same route again for future generations. Phil's comments in his interview lead me to believe that it's more than just a couple of developers that have had problems with the S. If delays to Xbox versions become a more common occurrence the deeper into the generation we get then I can't see Microsoft risking it happening all over again.

They can’t drop it. It’s over 50% of Xbox sales. (By most estimates) Who would then trust them in future?

The S is fine, sometimes a dev just hits issues. It’s better for a delay so it releases right rather than pushed out and releases like Redfall or Gollum or whatever

They can’t drop series s support. Theres probably more series s owners the. There is series x ones.

Almost all games have released without issue on the Series S. There seems to be a massive overreaction from this game being delayed.

The Series S has sold very well. They would be idiots to drop it.

@RadioHedgeFund This doesn't sound good to me. You are saying devs should design a game and gameplay around the limited console and improve graphics for the pricier console. That suggests the S would be holding back the generation for MS? I also think telling the devs its on them to 'sort it out' would probably end up similar to BG3 where they release on rival consoles then work out if the hassle to 'sort it out' is worth the effort or to skip the console and start working on the next project?

I'd also say developers are not lazy. They develop what they are told to develop and generally have a cost limit (they also work crazy long hours!). I'm 100% convinced all devs want their work to be the best it can be, but decisions on what to work on is down to usually down to budget.

I am not sure it is news that Microsoft has no plans to drop support for the Series S.

It is an interesting question if they would compromise on feature parity though. To me, forcing full feature parity is an extreme position to take given how much less RAM the system has.

@Lightning720 Have they though? Other games have been delayed with vague reasons given, was starfield's delay partly due to Bethesda struggling with Series S? We'll never know because they wouldn't admit it but that doesn't mean it wasn't. It's only because Larian came out and said they had an issue on series S that we knew it was a problem there, we have no idea whether it has actually been a problem anywhere else so can't say almost all games have released without issue.

@Savage_Joe I don't think they will be making a Series S like console next gen. I expect it will be a replacement for the X and maybe a streaming only device but from a developer standpoint it's just one console to develop for.

First party needs to show off what the S can do to prove to the community it's not the box, it's just lack of Dev time being committed to it. As others have said already Xbox is the smaller install base and requires extra work so they won't be prioritized, they will likely need to work with devs earlier in the process to show them how to easily utilize the S. But by showing it running a next gen game at an impressive performance should take an excuse away from the console warriors that it just can't do it.

@Kevw2006

If the vast majority of games released when they said they would and at the same time as other platforms, then the vast majority didn't have any real issues with the Series S.

There is absolutely no point speculating about Starfield. It is completely baseless to even bring that into this discussion.

The Series S has been designed to offer games in a 'similar' fashion to the XB1S compared to the XB1X. The XB1X often had higher resolution as well as 'extra' performance modes and even higher 'graphical' settings - better 'lighting' and Textures etc.

The Series S is also designed for 1080p TV's and really up to 1440p monitors as a 'cheap' entry level Console for the 'new' generation of games. Its not a 'Premium' 4k Console like the X or PS5, but a console designed as an 'entry' tier for this gen - again like the XB1S was.

Compared to the previous Gen, the Series S is much closer in terms of specs than the 1S was to the 1X and you didn't see MS scrapping the '1S' just because the 1X was 'better' and offered more features/modes etc...

@Lightning720 That's going on the assumption that other games haven't been delayed on all platforms and not just on Xbox.
That's exactly what my whole point is, it's just as baseless to say almost all games have released on Series S without any issues as it is to say that Starfield was delayed because of Series S because we just don't have enough information. But in that example you can't say with any more certainty that Bethesda didn't have problems with Series S as I can say that they did.
One thing I do know for sure is that Microsoft are never going to admit that Series S has caused them problems on any first party games. Both Halo and Forza have had split screen dropped after originally being announced which seems like an awful coincidence following the BG3 issues but Series S will never be cited as a reason for it.

@Kevw2006

Sorry, but you're talking utter nonsense. Based on what we know, almost all games have released without issue because that is what has happened.

You can go on about hypotheticals all you like, but they are completely baseless and don't help the discussion at all. I could say that Sony paid the developers to keep this game off Xbox for a few month and lie about it, but that would be nonsense and based on nothing, just like what you're saying.

Considering almost all games have released on the S and X, with no problems. I really don't know why anyone would think the S would be dropped because of not even a handful of edge cases, where the studio themselves have admitted to not having the resources to work on several versions simultaneously.

@Lightning720 Ah so you're in agreement that making a baseless claim without any meaningful evidence to back it up is"utter nonsense", then my job here is done. Sometimes a nonsense statement needs an equally nonsense response to make a point.
Funnily enough I have seen quite a few people on this very site claim that Sony did pay the developers off and even claim that they requested BG3 be delayed on PS to coincide with Starfield. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But I don't really see what it would achieve.

@Kevw2006 the evidence that most games haven't had any major issue is clear to almost everyone else. You are the only one having problems with this and making up baseless arguments.

@Savage_Joe I think splitting the consoles was a genius move for MS, introducing a lower priced, lower powered console with less storage and a less powerful GPU to run the same games at lower resolutions/frame rates. The console would hypothetically need a very similar CPU (which they did) and a similar amount of RAM (which they did NOT), and that was their blunder. They banked on the fact that devs would be running games at much lower resolutions on XSS, and therefore use much lower res textures, and therefore need much less memory, and in many cases this has worked out, but it's not always the case, and in any case the amount they shorted the system was EXTREME. A 10GB shared memory pool is just not good, they pinched pennies a little too tight and Xbox will pay the price this generation because of it.

TL;DR idea of a cheap console good, weakest link having 10GB memory bad

The Series S is a great system and will continue to be a part of their plans going forward. It is bringing millions of new players to the xbox. That is way more important than anything else.

@JDCII I got a Series X a few months after launch and it was marginal from the One X. PS4 Pro to PS5 this spring...same thing, marginal upgrade.

I hope my purchases will wow me this fall because so far, everything seems tied back to the last gen but with faster frame rates.

With that said....I don't get how developers can't scale their games in these multi-platform engines like PC/Mac games will encounter with multiple settings.

I understand the premise of a console. You are in a closed environment, you can push your limits within your known boundaries, but developers have been scaling things back to get more performance since the NES days.

I’m not asking for it to be dropped it has its place. I’m asking for their stupid parity policy to be dropped so this doesn’t happen again.

Phil went on to say that plenty of games already contain different feature sets for Xbox Series X and S

This is deliberately misleading. Different graphics settings such as raytracing aren't part of the parity clause. If they were, the Series X would also be running 1080p 30 for all the releases the S struggles on.

It really is a shame that those of that paid premium money for a premium product are beholden to those that bought something lesser.

That's like Nvidia saying nobody can have RTX since all their GPUs don't support it.

@Savage_Joe You'd think they would have learned that from the 360 generation given games abandoned the HDD-less Xbox and started requiring HDDs to even be able to play off disc

@BAMozzy
The difference being is with the One X, it was actively encouraged for it to have more features than the Base/S. For the Series X and S that is actively forbidden.

@Lightning720 That's because up until recently, the lowest common denominator was the Xbox One. And we already know developers routinely had issues with it given the number of 700-900P releases while Sony was enjoying 1080p on almost everything. Now that development is moving on and abandoning last gen, the S will be the lowest performing console. They also didn't have to deal with a parity clause until the Series X and S.

@StonyKL Were the specs of both consoles not designed to run the same game at 1080p and 4K respectively? It makes sense to design for 1080p and then move upwards.

@RadioHedgeFund Except it doesn't. Playstation has a higher install base than Xbox ever could. So they will start with the performance of their largest customers, PS5, and work backward from there. That's essentially how game development has always been.

From here they now have to cater to the S because of the parity clause which makes Xbox releases in general a pain. And is likely part of the reason you're seeing more and more games release on PC/PS5 first and come to Xbox a year or two later.

@Fenbops I think parity is important… otherwise whichever sells more may be prioritized more. If the S outsold the X then it is possible the S version releases before the X and the excuse will be that the X is too hard to develop for…

@InterceptorAlpha I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment… definitely developers are thinking that way

@RadioHedgeFund that I completely agree with, however as much as that was the marketing talk on release its just not the reality. There are many differences outside of resolution between the X and the S on many games, and its also looking like important features also being removed, including local split screen functionality. That can't be down to 1080p vs 4k?
Don't forget we are probably at a turning point of games being developed to handle last gen so dev may start to try pushing functionality with the new tech beyond just improved graphics.

I'm lucky to own both PS5 and Series X, but if more 3rd party games like BG3 start dropping split screen (among other) functionality then I'll end up playing games on PS5 over Series X. A bit like multi plat games releasing on all consoles, usually the Nintendo release has features dropped due to the limited capability of the console.

@AlwaysPlaying that’s not going to happen while PS5 exists and in most cases that’s the devs target hardware, as it has the biggest install base and incredibly similar specs to Series X.

@Moonglow I think it’s reasonable to release a series X version before the S if that version isn’t ready would you agree?

People paying a premium for the X shouldn’t have games held back because of the S limitations and at the core of it that is what this is. Release an S version at a later date when it’s ready, I think that would be the reasonable thing to do.

In fairness, @Lightning720, it's not just Baldur's Gate 3, but that alone is a real problem. It's the highest rated game of the year, and will likely waltz away with pretty much all of the Game of the Year Awards. So it's absence from the Xbox is a genuine problem. Not getting the GotY on your platform because of the issues presented by your console, is not good for Xbox or those that game on the Xbox.

Equally, being incapable of getting your two flagship titles to work on your own platform is a genuine disappointment for many. Neither Halo nor Forza Motorsport can get it working. If nothing else, it's not a good look...

I think you are missing the fact that Forbidden West was designed for the the PS4, and released on the PS5,@RadioHedgeFund. The game never really moved away from what it did with Zero Dawn. FW certainly never tapped into the PS5s power. The only thing it did do related to the new controller. So there's a big difference between a game that can run on previous generations, and one that cannot. Why do you think that Baldur's Gate 3 is not releasing on the PS4? Simple. It's not powerful enough...

I'm not so sure that Microsoft getting involved and earlier would have made an iota of difference, @Krzzystuff. After all, Microsoft were there the very outset with both Halo Infinite and Forza Motorsport, and yet they couldn't get it working. Microsoft literally could not have been involved in the process any earlier...

@Moonglow Sounds to me like Larian decided "this is what our game will be" and I'd imagine their priority platform was the PC. They'll have picked a minimum PC requirement to work against and worked from that and didn't want to compromise their game based on the Series S specs. Maybe the fact its a PC game first and foremost is why they didn't use the Series S as their minimum spec?
My personal solution would be to release the game on Series X and S without local co-op functionality. They'll still sell loads on there, they'll stick to the MS parity requirement and they can stop spending more money on trying to get it fixed. MS can't be annoyed with that option as they have done the same with a few of their games already.

It was just announced that BG3 will not have split screen co op on series S. Xbox is allowing it to drop it just for the S.

This is probably the approach going forward. If this ever happens again where one specific developer has a very specific issue, xbox will get involved on the best way forward. Whether that is assisting them with getting it to work or allowing it to be removed from the Series S version.

@Fiendish-Beaver according to the Phil Spencer Gamescon interview over on IGN, Forza Motorsport lacking split screen has nothing to do with the hardware capabilities of the S or X.

"So if we think about Forza, it has nothing to do with any kind of hardware thing on S and X, just where they wanted to focus their time.

We obviously see the data in terms of how many people play local co-op for games. I love local co-op. Shout out to Vampire Survivors that just launched it. Fantastic. But there's also just a, let's go where the play is, in terms of where we're going to focus our dev resources."

Seems a lot of people on here are conflating 2 separate issues

Having less ram was super smart lol

You can live with a weaker gpu just by lowering resolution and quality, but ram is another world

Maybe, @Sakai. maybe not. Another way of looking at it is that they found it so difficult to implement after their experiences with Halo Infinite that they either didn't even try, or gave up very quickly, deciding that getting Forza out the door in October 2023 was better than delaying it still further whilst they try to get split-screen working.

Each statement can be true at the same time:
It's not in Forza because 'data'.
and
We couldn't get it working for Halo and so decided not to try when it came to Forza because our time was better spent elsewhere.

In all honesty, if it was easy to implement, it would be in the game. Many, many people like to play Forza in split-screen...

@Fiendish-Beaver they are two totally different games, based on totally different engines, targetting different platforms (halo is crossgen). If i was to guess based on the information we have, they are not linked at all

Fair enough, @Sakai. It's okay for us to disagree...

@Fiendish-Beaver I know. That's why I replied to you with some additional information you may not be aware of

@JDCII You have a Series S, PS4, Switch and a gaming PC, and you are worried about $200 breaking the bank? I obviously do not know your circumstances, it just does not compute for me.

I keep saying this but whatever, guess I'll say it again. As soon as games support Direct Storage and other Velocity Architecture features the Series S will be a tiny little powerhouse. I don't know why these articles keep popping up, I don't believe anyone actually believes they would drop support for the Series S.

I don't see a decent "out" for the series S. They can't drop support because they'd never be trusted again. Hardware revisions won't solve the issue with the existing series S owners.

The only vaguely workable "fix" is to release a handheld Xbox with series S performance. Plays the same games but certain features aren't workable (such as splitscreen) and the S gets rebranded not as "HD series X" but has a "TV version of the handheld".

It would still suck for series S owners but it would at least look more like restructuring than outright abandoning Series S

"I don't see a world where we drop S"

Let's see how this quote holds up a few years from now, especially if Xbox & Sony release mid-gen upgrades again.

@JDCII

Not your fault. I see why Microsoft did what they did, but I still feel it would have been better to do as Sony did with their digital only edition. Same exact specs, just no disc drive and $100 cheaper.

It's only a matter of time before the parity between the X and S widens. S owners shouldn't have to.deal with that, and I feel Microsoft shot themselves on the foot with this decision.

@RadioHedgeFund

Edit: None of what I say is meant to be offensive.

That is holding the Series X back then. That is the same as creating Horizon Forbidden West or God of War Ragnarök for PS4 and only slightly improving them for the PS5. Both games could have, and should have been better on the PS5, but weren't because of the PS4 being the base console they were developed for.

It was already shown how improvements could be made by ditching the PS4 and making the Horizon Forbidden West DLC PS5 only. Sure, it sucks for PS4 owners, and honestly doing it that way is a slap in the face to PS4 owners in my opinion.

In no way should the S be the base console games are created for and then just slightly improved for the Series X, especially multi-platform games. That would hold games back on both the Xbox Series X and PS5, and that screws over everybody that purchased next gen consoles for their increased capabilities.

Why should someone who paid an extra $200 for a Series X have to deal with games being made for the lower powered Series S because consumers didnt want to pay the extra money for the X?

That shouldn't be on developers, that was Microsoft's poor decision. I wouldn't be surprised if some games later in the generation just don't come to Xbox due to the S/X parity, or where the Xbox version in general is of lesser quality, and that's not good.

@Lightning720

That may be the case for now, but it will more than likely grow worse as the generation goes on. If I bought an S, and all of a sudden games start omitting featurs the X version has because of hardware limitations I'd be upset.

If we end up with more dropped features then a good workaround would be to allow S owners to stream X titles, even if they’ve just purchased it rather than subbing to anything.

It all comes back to sales. Microsoft can say they don't want to be judged by console sales but the fact is if Xbox had sold as many consoles as the PS5 devs wouldn't be whining about the Series S.

But when your sales are so far behind the competition developers are gonna ask "why even bother?"

@ZYDIO I’m guessing you mean I don’t have $500. My PC is a “gaming” PC…but it’s running a 2060 after having a 1060 for a few years. It’s justifiable because PCs, as you know, can also be used for the kids to do homework on and do my work on. I bought it during Covid Lockdown (it was great to have a machine that would double as an online classroom and run games at a decent ish level.).
I don’t need to support any 4k tvs, or monitors…so that allows me to get thrift store monitors for ten bucks that play nice with my low specs machine. It’s because developers want to cater to people in my income bracket (I’m a teacher, my wife runs a dance studio), that I can enjoy current games.
I would like to upgrade at some point, but the family and all the bills come first. All those machines mentioned are also used by the family, so…
There’s my response. Games are my main hobby, but I can’t usually afford keep up with the latest tech. So the Series S is an amazing way to experience games like Hogwarts Legacy. It’s a great 1080p machine for the most part.

@JDCII I didn't mean $500. The $200 is the difference between the Series S cost and the Series X cost. What I was saying is, that you have all of those other things, to me it doesn't compute that you would not be able to afford the difference between a $300 Series S and a $500 Series X. I still don't even understand why they came out with the series s if it was to just save people money I get it but the difference between the price of the Series S and the Series X is $10 less three brand new full price games. I think they shouldn't have come out with a Series S and just released the cloud streaming dongle/controller bundle that connects your TV and then partnered with the other TV manufacturers to have the app on the smart TVs.

@ZYDIO The Series S was so much more appealing to me, and the price was right. Nothing against the bigger more powerful systems for sure. I’m just one of those old guys that gets just as much enjoyment out of my SNES or NES as I do my Switch, Xbox, or PS4, and cloud gaming has never been great for me personally. We just have different opinions that’s all. No worries about that.

@JDCII Here's something that I just thought about. I don't know if this is going to make sense to anyone else, but since the Series S is digital only, you're locked in to buying games from the Microsoft store. Which everybody knows, but what you're locked out of is buying the games really cheap from wherever. So in the short run or the long run that $200 difference gets eaten up pretty quick by overpaying for games on the store. That's another reason I don't think the Series S makes any sense. I go to game stores all the time and find games that are still going for $60 on the Microsoft store, I'll find them for $10 or less on disc. Here's something else I just realized, without the disc drive you're locked out of disc backwards compatibility which will also save you tons of money because all of those older games are way overpriced on the Microsoft store. Basically what I'm saying is that you might as well spend the $500 instead of $300 and not have any limitations because you're going to end up spending it anyway. Also don't even get me started on NES and SNES, I love those damn things. I do still have a few NES's from when I was a kid and they work great, I just have them put back. I went as far as getting a Retro USB AVS, an Everdrive N8 Pro and an 8BitDo Bluetooth board for the NES controller.

@ZYDIO You definitely make a good point with the used games, and the price savings that way!
I have bought a lot of games on sale (most of them). I started going digital though when I got tired of discs getting broken and game cards getting lost. I don’t love the digital “tax”, but knowing I can access the games any time is nice (as long as the stores stay open…).
Nice on the NES hardware. I still have my original NES and SNES and they’re going strong! I have them hooked up to a CRT, an HDTV, and a 4:3 LCD (with a switcher), and there have been some great times! Those old games definitely hold up.

Them dropping support would almost certainly lead to a lawsuit of false advertisement.

Myself like millions of others got their first Xbox consoles through the Series S because of the great price point. Dropping support would be a slap to those millions of people and a huge blow in trust between consumer and Microsoft. I'd certainly not buy another Xbox again after that.

I don't like the idea of dropping support for S. I have 2-X consoles and 1-S console.

To me, the S is a console for older HD TVs, smaller storage, for people who may not be able to afford a full X. It compromises game resolution/frame rate, some storage, and blu-ray in getting to that price point. That is fine to me and I have my S hooked up to an older HD TV I own.

I am disappointed that developers are having to design around S rather than the full X. But between X360/PS3/Wii, XBO/PS4/Wii+, and now XSX/XSS/PS5/Switch there has always been and will always be a console that is a bit lower in performance in some key area. The only way you would get everything the same is if the vendors get together and come up with a single hardware console spec. Every generation everyone talks about the slowest one and hardest to develop with being a drag on the other hardware. This is just the way the world turns. There will always be some vendor's spec that holds back development. What devts should do is lead development on the lowest spec device so that they know their game will work rather then developing a game and hoping it works.

@JDCII I never got tired of those games when I was a kid and I still don't get tired of them now. There are so many masterpieces, just hit after hit after hit. I can just play them endlessly. It seems like every time I do, I discover something new that I didn't the previous times I played.

@Savage_Joe

Edited for grammar and clarity...hopefully

Late response, but I agree with you.

If Microsoft could come out of the disastrous Xbox 360 fiasco, and I bought 8 of them (thanks Best Buy warranties), I think they'll do fine if they have to backtrack on the whole parity thing. There will obviously be more backlash, and they may lose further customers from here on out, but Xbox is certainly not the only one of the big 3 who fell from grace and had to fight their way back. It's happened to both Sony and Nintendo.

Although, I do feel they don’t have much good will left between the 360 disaster and the poor decisions with the XBox One reveal and its seemingly lack of caring about developing its own 1st party studios and games. Which I feel was part of the reason for the creation of GamePass, as a quick fix band-aid leading into what I think is now their core strategy from here on out.

It's the combination of these that likely turned many consumers off the brand. It had that effect on me, to a point, but I still bought a Series X in the hopes they'd turn things around, which for me, I'm still waiting on.

Dropping parity, which leads to lost features on S versions of games surely won't help though. Hence Microsoft's poor sales of the XB1 and and continued 3rd place in console sales.

However, I'm not knowledgeable enough on tech specs and their limitations in comparison to a competitors system. I would imagine anyone with technical knowledge of the ups and downs of PC hardware, and that's basically a gaming console these days, won't be surprised by any of this.

It's the consumers who are unaware of this difference that will likely be disappointed or upset. I do feel it should be common sense based off the price difference alone. As with any product, if it's a cheaper version of a product, one should expect limitations.

This is all Microsoft's doing though by requiring parity between the S &.X. I'm fairly confident that a majority of gamers don't even use couch co-op, so it's only the minority that do who will feel cheated. It's couch co-op today, but what will it be tomorrow? I guess we'll all find out as the generation goes on.