40
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
40 points (93.5% liked)
Games
31810 readers
1254 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Msoft really shot themselves in the foot with the ‘feature parity’ demand for x/s. It’s caused devs a huge headache and kept infinite campaign split screen off of the series x.
As a dev, I agree with this comment. Feature parity really hinders the iteration and patching speed.
But is that dev headache worse than if you didn't have feature parity with X/S models, where games would have different features depending on which console you owned?
I think if you are going to have X/S type models, feature parity is something you just have to require, even if it causes headaches. The result for the customer would be much worse otherwise.