Look, I get it, we are a consumer culture, where technology obsolescence is very dominant and no one really gives a damn. Having said that, I cannot think of a single game, in the Xbox One generation of consoles, that would single handedly, and instantly, declare a console obsolete. Maybe I'm not enough of a console gamer to truly know and understand if there were such cases in the past, but I really cannot think of one.
Here's my problem.. Look, every game that was ever made for Xbox One could literally run on every single Xbox console, from the very first original Xbox One to Series X. Sure, it could run very poorly, maybe at 30fps with various issues, but it would run. Every.. Single.. game that was ever released for the Xbox One generation consoles.
Now all of a sudden, Starfield comes along and here, they are saying you absolutely HAVE to upgrade, if you want to run it natively, to a Series S or X. Come on.. That's ridiculous. An old Xbox One X can run every single Xbox One game out there @ 4k. A few will do 60fps, most will do 30, but they'll run! Not Starfield...
What makes it so damn special? Its not even the graphics. Its the damn SSD requirement. Somehow Micocrap chose to ignore the fact that an Xbox One X can easily be upgraded from an HDD to an SSD. But no... Not good enough! Not because an older console cant run this, but because they decided to impose this artificial block to force people to spend more money.
You may argue that a 2.5" SSD is "not fast enough", but that's BS. Starfield runs fine in my PC on a 5 year old 2.5" SSD. No need for an NVME stick!
So there we have it. Is it my fault for being frugal and sticking to an older console which easily runs 99.9% of all Xbox games still, or does the fault lie with an extremely poorly optimized game, where those in charge decided to impose artificial restrictions to milk people for money? I guess that's a rhetorical question.
It's really not so much that I cant play Starfield on my Xbox that pisses me off. Its the fact that other people try to dictate the exact time, at which I should spend more money.
Here's my problem.. Look, every game that was ever made for Xbox One could literally run on every single Xbox console, from the very first original Xbox One to Series X. Sure, it could run very poorly, maybe at 30fps with various issues, but it would run. Every.. Single.. game that was ever released for the Xbox One generation consoles.
Now all of a sudden, Starfield comes along and here, they are saying you absolutely HAVE to upgrade, if you want to run it natively, to a Series S or X. Come on.. That's ridiculous. An old Xbox One X can run every single Xbox One game out there @ 4k. A few will do 60fps, most will do 30, but they'll run! Not Starfield...
What makes it so damn special? Its not even the graphics. Its the damn SSD requirement. Somehow Micocrap chose to ignore the fact that an Xbox One X can easily be upgraded from an HDD to an SSD. But no... Not good enough! Not because an older console cant run this, but because they decided to impose this artificial block to force people to spend more money.
You may argue that a 2.5" SSD is "not fast enough", but that's BS. Starfield runs fine in my PC on a 5 year old 2.5" SSD. No need for an NVME stick!
So there we have it. Is it my fault for being frugal and sticking to an older console which easily runs 99.9% of all Xbox games still, or does the fault lie with an extremely poorly optimized game, where those in charge decided to impose artificial restrictions to milk people for money? I guess that's a rhetorical question.
It's really not so much that I cant play Starfield on my Xbox that pisses me off. Its the fact that other people try to dictate the exact time, at which I should spend more money.