So a game could release an “update” with less content and charge for it, and that would be ok to call a DLC, because they charged for it?

Yet they still get around it through sound mixing. Any regulations against using jingles or having ads interrupt what you’re watching?

I hardly watch it either. Just found it funny all the complaints above could be applied to what free to air tv has been doing for decades.

Sounds like you haven’t watched a lot of free to air tv haha

It could be worth cross posting this to !homeautomation@lemmy.world

“Because Xbox mandates that any games launched on its current-gen systems run smoothly on both Series X and Series S” - from the article

So no, they don’t get to just pick the minimum specs they support like on the PC version. They have to build a game that runs similarly on S and X, or not launch on either. Hence, the S is always going to limit what devs will be able/willing to do on the current gen consoles. More so than if they could just focus on the X and PS5.

That article is from 2021 and doesn’t provide links or details to any data. The claim in the article says it’s 50/50. But again, no data is provided.

If it’s so straight forward, then what are the devs complaining about?

Microsoft requires they meet a specific standard on both the S and X, which is making it harder for them to do. They don’t build to every specific PC variant. But they have to build to both the X and S.

The article I shared was developers complaining about having to optimise for the Series S. But you’re saying that it should just be the same as PC optimising for PC. I completely agree with your answer in that Microsoft stipulates rules for the S. That’s the point. It isn’t the same as PC. Developers have to specifically work on getting games to run on the Series S. I’m so confused as to the point you’re trying to make to me, when in another comment you acknowledge that developers have different standards they’re required to meet for the S. We seem to actually agree.

How does any of that mean that “it’s very much the same as optimising for PC”? Are you saying that developers optimise for every PC configuration possible?

Someone else posted that you can run the game on a PC with weaker specs than a Series S. So clearly it isn’t the same.

But the Series S doesn’t run the PC game. Just like PC’s don’t run the Series S version of the game. I’m confused. If it was so easy, why isn’t every game available on every platform on day one?

Of course. Why didn’t those stupid developers think of that.

I literally posted an article where developers are yet again complaining about having to develop for the Series S and that it isn’t as easy as just “optimisation”. So maybe you can ELI5 how developing for consoles is exactly the same as developing for PC?

Not the same thing. Games aren’t built for every specific PC configuration. You’ve always adjusted graphics settings on PC depending on what your machine can run.

As long as it’s not LEGOs I can get behind that.

Source?

*LEGO

But YouTube still is free. This article isn’t about YouTube not being free, they’ve just increased the price of their subscription (like Netflix and Spotify do routinely). You just expect to get it for free and without ads. I’m confused at who you think is paying to store and stream all those videos if it was entirely free?

Going down the rabbit hole of YouTube getting it’s content for free is a slippery slope. I see what you’re saying, but YouTube is hosting and streaming that content for those content creators. That isn’t cheap. It’s a double edged sword. Because you likely wouldn’t know or have access to those content creators if they weren’t able to upload those videos to YouTube and not have to pay to provide that service themselves. Is it perfect, no. But name another completely free streaming service.

And I’d argue it’s not entirely comparable to Reddit and Twitter. Both in cost incurred to store and stream that data, and they pay those content creators who generate a lot of views. Again, another rabbit hole in terms of what payment is fair etc. But it’s not a fair comparison to put YouTube in the Twitter and Reddit bucket. It probably sits somewhere in between Spotify and those social platforms.

Edit: I forgot to point out the biggest issue with your comparison to Reddit and Twitter. You seem to forget that those platforms also have ads.

I’m not sure I see the problem. Is there a reason you expect to be able to use the service for free and even ad free?

I might only listen to a few songs a week. Is it fair that I have to sit through ads when I try to listen to them on Spotify? I don’t really want to pay for a subscription, especially because I already pay for YouTube. Clearly paying the full subscription cost for Spotify isn’t worth it in my case.

Edit: Don’t mean to sound like a smart ass. But as you can see, you can basically swap Spotify for YouTube in your argument. Spotify is just more valuable to you, which is fine. That doesn’t mean you should get the other thing free. Just like I shouldn’t expect to get Spotify ad free.