Truth be told no one will be able to spot the difference but feature parity on the games they port is definitely a good idea to avoid controversy.
Surprised how many people have bounced off this game looking at comments across a few sites - I loved it and consider it one of my top 5 of this generation
Most unnecessary fps mode ever?
Excellent game though. 
120fps makes everything better, especially 2d side scrollers
It’s also interesting that the file size is/was significantly smaller on PS5 too.
I would say it is the opposite of interesting. PS5 installs have been smaller since the systems launched.
There are pros and cons with the install/footprint setups on Xbox/PlayStation/Steam. Xbox doesn’t require twice the free space to unpack like the latter two but that can lead to more bloated file sizes.
Yep I’d rather not have the “copying” phase that takes forever when my partner wants to get playing and there’s a new patch, than have smaller file sizes.
I imagine Xbox is tied to the compression technology built into Windows or available for it when the Series were built - so if Kraken is third party and continues to impress I’ve no doubt MS will add it in future and Xbox can get it, as MS will take it for their corporate clients.
Storage on Azure costs a fortune for fast disks, so corporate clients would gladly have it and it might make life easier for MS - in the last year or so both UK data centres have almost run out of resource to allocate servers at times
That is very true. It’s gonna be in 3D games where you notice it. I remember Psychonauts 2, how even though 60fps is super smooth, when I used 120 I noticed that it was even smoother, there was still “blur” when rotating the camera fast in 60fps and completely gone in 120 mode. For me not worth the less sharper visuals though. Also in a FPS you’ll notice, not in Pentiment. But it’s good they are fixing it nonetheless
Yes, the game does not need high framerates, but the message is bad for the brand and that the first-party studios do not give the main platform its power or full experience like PS5
Big number good. 
But they should have parity, obviously.
For me this is a small and probably not the relevant specific example and most likely is just down to a “bug” even if that bug is that someone forgot to flick an options switch and nobody tested it. But for me it does raise the more important and wider point that relates to driving game pass adoption.
One of the hooks that MS stated from way back (while the Zenimax acquisition was still in progress) that they intended as a driver for game pass adoption was that (interview with Xbox CFP Tim Stuart :
What we’ll do in the long run is we don’t have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as – on our platforms. Yes. That’s not a point about being exclusive. That’s not a point about we’re being – adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that’s what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline. So again, I’m not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you’ll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms.
Link to full transcript for context
So apart from bugging the fuck out of me ever since I read it because, TIm, better and best are the exact same thing and as a CFO you should know that and saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way to get another bullet point doesn’t fool anyone. It demonstrates that the Xbox team at least at this point in time acknowledged that for multi-platform titles they understood the need for some form of differentiator that wasn’t simply the value proposition game pass provides.
Now while the “things change” crowd will probably jump all over the fact that this was an interview in 2020 I thing the fundamental facts are still the same in this case.
Logic dictates that you don’t grow your user base by chasing a new crowd of unproven customers (in this case PS and N owners) if that is at the expense of your existing customer base.
The Xbox team would have known that as the first 4 titles (in their new strategy shift) to go multi there would be, for what ever reasons good or bad, high levels of scrutiny on platform parity and that any resulting aspects where the new versions were “better” would cause them PR headaches within that existing customer base.
So I can’t see any reason why, when this was planned by Xbox they wouldn’t state to the teams a mandate to ensure that any new features or improvements (outside of controller stuff that’s impossible) made to the the PS versions are also implemented for the series X version and rolled out at the same time as a top priority. It’s a no brainer to avoid PR own goals similar to this.
And in this new multiplatform world I also can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t extend this philosophy to distinct HW features. They sold the Series consoles on full RDNA 2 feature set. As a customer who bought one it was a clear differentiator yet we haven’t seen (correct me if I’m wrong) one single first party game using for example SFS so far. So surely it’s a no brainer PR wise to tell your first parties that where ever possible they should be designing games to use those HW features in the Series versions and not designing for the lowest common denominator.
It’s a clear and easy PR message they can use to sell consoles just by stating - Our first party studios will always design games to use as much of the Xbox console tech as possible to give people who invest in our ecosystem the best experience.
Wellsaid. clear vision + believe in your platform with one strategy + treat xbox ecosystem users first class i cant see they can’t reaching 2 billion players with this
Yep I am slightly upset to not see the full RDNA2 features used yet - I thought we’d be seeing Starfield or Forza Horizon using them (maybe we will in Forza Horizon 6?).
My biggest issue with this whole Pentiment “bug” and the “best place to play” is that Xbox need to improve QA testing and ensure games have a full suite of content from the start.
Pentiment and HiFi Rush are actually examples of games that have launched complete and well-tested, but Halo Infinite and Forza Motorsport released with too little content while Redfall and Starfield have released with issues or lots of QoL changes added after.
I’m not too worried if some games are getting ported after a while - but I want Xbox to be getting them complete and fully tested, with feature parity to later ports.
That way, we can jump into them straight away and enjoy, rather than waiting till 6 / 12 months later ourselves before we play so we get complete, fixed versions
Exactly, And in this specific case there is no excuse, from what I can see the Pentiment software enhancements number a grand total of 1. That means 1 extra test added for the updated Xbox version to check for 120FPS or a PR own goal of a load of MS’s PS5 version of Pentiment runs better than the Xbox version articles.
This thread is not meant to be where you go to discuss this after the slow mode was put on the previous one. The reality is that they went to put Pentiment at 120fps on xbox and PlayStation and had a bug on the former. Stop getting so damned worked up about it.
OK yea, dumb of me to discuss the Pentiment 120fps mode in the Pentiment gets 120fps mode thread. I’ll make sure I take note.
I don’t agree that discussing Xbox’s approach to this new direction or releases in a rational sensible way is getting “damned worked up about it” either.
But I’m getting the impression that all talk unless super positive about Xbox’s new direction is banned here. If that’s the case then I guess you should post a sticky so people know what they can and can’t discuss in any given thread.
Yes it’s “banned” by having an 8000 post thread that’s been going on for months. My point is not about this particular subject but how it became a dumping ground for the same list war discussions that were in the other thread.