Xbox Series X/S Complaints Thread

[LIONSFAN20]

As taken by suggestion of another member I felt compelled to start this thread after a while

I will start with my particular issues:

I have a launch Series X AND I had to have the Halo Xbox Series X and I have a Series S in my sons room. (I hate Halo, but love the art and Master Chief)

I will admit that MS makes a GREAT machine physically, however, I feel cheated by MS on the Series X console. I was sold "native 4K 60 FPS up to 120 FPS" from the "worlds most powerful console." Nothing MS has put out this far taps into the potential of this machine. I will use the most current game as an example...Starfield. Digital Foundry said there is little noticeable differences between the Series S version to the Series X version. I take this as a slap in the face of Series X owners. Why did I pay $200 for a "premium" console and get nothing out of it. Why can't Starfield have RT, or 60FPS, or 4K(least important of those). It feels like every game is made for Series S and the Series X customers just get left with disappointment. The Series S is holding back the Series X.

[Batman90]

MS has a requirement that every game has to be playable on the Series S and because of that the games can’t take full advantage of the X. Just like how PlayStation releases all their games on the PS4 still and we get games like GOW down graded cause their actually made for the PS4.

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Totally didn't see that coming.

[LIONSFAN20]

Originally Posted by Batman90

MS has a requirement that every game has to be playable on the Series S and because of that the games can’t take full advantage of the X. Just like how PlayStation releases all their games on the PS4 still and we get games like GOW down graded cause their actually made for the PS4.

I AM NOT trying to turn this into a console war thread. I think MS needs to end the parity clause like they did for BG3 on all games, for the benefit of their customers.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

I will use the most current game as an example...Starfield. Digital Foundry said there is little noticeable differences between the Series S version to the Series X version. I take this as a slap in the face of Series X owners. Why did I pay $200 for a "premium" console and get nothing out of it. Why can't Starfield have RT, or 60FPS, or 4K(least important of those).

Because Bethesda is woefully behind the times in terms of technology. Even the PC version struggles a lot despite some frankly underwhelming visuals and with the game segmented into separate areas rather than a true open world. Microsoft's biggest problem is a lack of developers who can really crack open the true potential of their hardware - or, at least, the developers who can haven't put out anything yet. I'm sure the next games from id or The Coalition will look stunning, but those are still years away.

I do think Microsoft has had the more interesting exclusives this generation, but most of them have been smaller projects like Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush. Their big AAA releases have mostly been underwhelming and had lots of technical shortcomings. So I do sympathize with you in feeling frustrated with the quality of Microsoft's output from a performance and graphical perspective, but I think having buyer's remorse over a Bethesda game looking kinda crappy is a bit silly.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

I AM NOT trying to turn this into a console war thread. I think MS needs to end the parity clause like they did for BG3 on all games, for the benefit of their customers.

With BG3 specifically, I can understand Microsoft's initial refusal to budge because split-screen isn't just a graphical effect like RT or even a 60fps performance option - it's an actual gameplay feature that's being cut. You can make a legitimate argument that charging the same price for the S and X versions is dishonest if one system is missing a whole alternate gameplay mode, even if it's an option most players won't use.

It actually makes me a little worried about the future of the Series S, because a lot of games were already launching without features like RT and 60fps support before this decision, and now it opens the floodgates to dropping even more features and content. What if a developer decides to remove a level or multiplayer map from the Series S version of a game because they don't have time to optimize it before release? Or what if a game decides to skip Series S entirely, even though that console was sold on the promise that it would get all the same games as the X? And, to be frank, if you're so worried about games not hitting 60 or even 120fps, then this should worry you too, because it'll be a whole lot harder to get a game running at 60fps on the X if you don't have to worry about optimizing for lower-spec hardware. It's not a coincidence that the 60fps modes started to dry up once developers stopped trying to ship PS4 and Xbox One versions.

[heyadol]

Agree that the Xbox and PlayStation promises of native 4K/120 have been lacking, only a few cross-gen games actually made it, along with a few games that don't exactly push the hardware. As far as S holding back X, it doesn't add up. There are several of examples where resolution/framerate/RT are different between the two systems such as Doom Eternal; if Xbox is willing to let first party games omit RT it is clearly not letting Series S hold anything back, comes down to more of an optimization issue for developers much like PC game development.

Back on topic (lol), Series S is punching below the 1440p target that was mentioned at launch, most games seem to be targeting 1080p(ish).

[wattsndrive90]

I'm gonna flip this. I have a big complaint with Series X - sure its good, beefy, etc. However because of it - players blame the Series S for holding it AND the PS5 back. Yet coming from PC gaming we should all know "not everyone's rig is powerful" but that doesn't mean we don't want new - good games. I wish sometimes Microsoft would invest even further into the Series S and leave the X for die hards, or better yet PC for die hard gamers who HAVE to get the best and most efficient gaming experience. As someone who has limited $$ I want to see $300 - $350 aka cheaper gaming thrive, not suffer. About the only thing I dislike about the S is no disc drive for cheaper games.

[LIONSFAN20]

Originally Posted by heyadol

Agree that the Xbox and PlayStation promises of native 4K/120 have been lacking, only a few cross-gen games actually made it, along with a few games that don't exactly push the hardware. As far as S holding back X, it doesn't add up. There are several of examples where resolution/framerate/RT are different between the two systems such as Doom Eternal; if Xbox is willing to let first party games omit RT it is clearly not letting Series S hold anything back, comes down to more of an optimization issue for developers much like PC game development.

Back on topic (lol), Series S is punching below the 1440p target that was mentioned at launch, most games seem to be targeting 1080p(ish).

To be fair to Sony. I don't believe they(Sony) said all games will be native 4K/120 or even 4K/60. They said the machine would be capable of it(which both machines are X/PS5) MS is the company that said 4K/120 is what we would be getting. (with the X)

Quote from MS Xbox Website:
"From a technical standpoint, this will manifest as world-class visuals in 4K at 60FPS, with possibility of up to 120FPS, including support for Variable Refresh Rate(VRR), and 8K capability."

And I am sorry, I did not want to get into a console war thread and I think my own post is pushing it...

[Batman90]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

I AM NOT trying to turn this into a console war thread. I think MS needs to end the parity clause like they did for BG3 on all games, for the benefit of their customers.

All I did was explain why the games are not taking full advantage of the current gen consoles. I can’t control what other people do cause they get upset about the truth.

[heyadol]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

To be fair to Sony. I don't believe they(Sony) said all games will be native 4K/120 or even 4K/60. They said the machine would be capable of it(which both machines are X/PS5) MS is the company that said 4K/120 is what we would be getting. (with the X)

Quote from MS Xbox Website:
"From a technical standpoint, this will manifest as world-class visuals in 4K at 60FPS, with possibility of up to 120FPS, including support for Variable Refresh Rate(VRR), and 8K capability."

And I am sorry, I did not want to get into a console war thread and I think my own post is pushing it...

You will find similar wording on the PS5 site and FAQ. I’d say both companies delivered, but devs may not have priorities that align with those performance targets anymore. However, Turn10 is launching Forza Motorsport running in Native 4K @ 60fps on series X (1080p/60fps on Series S). We should start seeing footage next week when the embargo lifts on the 11th.

[Prog5000]

Quick resume works when it likes.

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Originally Posted by Prog5000

Quick resume works when it likes.

I personally don't use it. I will manually close every single game I leave when I'm done playing it. I don't like the idea of the console running a game constantly driving up the accumulated hours of playtime I'm not actively playing, wish I can turn off that feature.

[heyadol]

Originally Posted by XavierTheaterPotato

I personally don't use it. I will manually close every single game I leave when I'm done playing it. I don't like the idea of the console running a game constantly driving up the accumulated hours of playtime I'm not actively playing, wish I can turn off that feature.

Quick resume doesn’t continuously run your game or drive up accumulated play time, it’s more like a snapshot or save state similar to an app on a smartphone or a virtual machine. This is definitely the case since quick resume continues working if you completely shut down your Xbox and turn it back on, even months later the quick resume is there and there’s no way the game was still playing while the system had no power.
I have found it works best for games on internal storage and the official expansion cards, external (usb) storage doesn’t always work for me. And obviously if a game auto updates, it will restart to apply the update and the quick resume data is removed, but that’s consistent with other implementations within the industry. They should have a way to turn it off though, people like options.

[heyadol]

Anyone have problems w/ Impulse Triggers? Aside from being under utilized, it seems if I pause Forza Horizon 4 or 5, the feature will not work when I come back until the next race. It’s pretty useful for racing and drifting when it’s working.

[Prog5000]

Originally Posted by XavierTheaterPotato

I don't like the idea of the console running a game constantly driving up the accumulated hours of playtime I'm not actively playing, wish I can turn off that feature.

Thats not how it works. The quick resume feature takes a snap shot of where you left the game and brings you back to it. It doesn't run in the background constantly.

[emailking]

On PS5 when you put it in rest mode with the game running I think it counts that time as playing the game (in your total play time as stored by PSN) which is annoying, glad Series X doesn't do that.

[dyne]

Switch does that for sure. My TotK file was over the 99 hour mark and I know actual play time was more like 30.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by LIONSFAN20

As taken by suggestion of another member I felt compelled to start this thread after a while

I will start with my particular issues:

I have a launch Series X AND I had to have the Halo Xbox Series X and I have a Series S in my sons room. (I hate Halo, but love the art and Master Chief)

I will admit that MS makes a GREAT machine physically, however, I feel cheated by MS on the Series X console. I was sold "native 4K 60 FPS up to 120 FPS" from the "worlds most powerful console." Nothing MS has put out this far taps into the potential of this machine. I will use the most current game as an example...Starfield. Digital Foundry said there is little noticeable differences between the Series S version to the Series X version. I take this as a slap in the face of Series X owners. Why did I pay $200 for a "premium" console and get nothing out of it. Why can't Starfield have RT, or 60FPS, or 4K(least important of those). It feels like every game is made for Series S and the Series X customers just get left with disappointment. The Series S is holding back the Series X.

I read that Starfield on XBSeries S is only 900p 30fps, but on XBSX, it's 4K (or near 4K but absolutely a higher resolution over the S) 30 fps if I have that right.

Originally Posted by emailking

On PS5 when you put it in rest mode with the game running I think it counts that time as playing the game (in your total play time as stored by PSN) which is annoying, glad Series X doesn't do that.

Yes, that is an awful Sony tracking issue. I've played a game offline for 200+ real time hours, and the awful PS5 online feature will say I played 1 hour, rather than just tracking the game time played as many games offer. Or in the cases that you mentioned, will keep the time played going while in rest mode, which is ridiculous since the game isn't being played at all.

[heyadol]

I don’t wear hoodies, but if they made a RROD version of this I’d buy it

https://gear.xbox.com/collections/th...ullover-hoodie

[QuasidodoJr]

Originally Posted by heyadol

I don’t wear hoodies, but if they made a RROD version of this I’d buy it

https://gear.xbox.com/collections/th...ullover-hoodie

While I definitely agree that hoodie would be hilarious, as someone who had my 360 RROD three times, it never really bothered me too much because of how fast Microsoft got new consoles out to customers. I think my first one took like 6 or 7 days, but replacing my second and third was maybe 2 - 3 days each, at the most.