People have said "Microsoft should only have had the Series X" but that would have fricked them up in the short-term which would have fricked them even ahrder in the long term.
People assume Series S buyers would all have a Series X right now instead if the SS didn't exist but that's not true. Ignoring that you'd be trading 5 Series S consoles for 2 Series X consoles in terms of GPU transistor count, you'd also be encouraging scalpers to grab the SX for the handful of people who want one and you'd basically force both hard-core players and casuals/parents to be fighting for the same hardware.
And if Microsoft failed to build a decent installbase early on, then more and more third parties would just skip them like they did last gen. Early-gen advantage snowballs into domination later in the gen, save for severe price-cuts like the PS3 took on.
While Xbox hasn't matched Playstation's installbase, they've got a more significant bit of leverage than they would if they had only sold 14 million Series X units instead of 20 million Series S/X combined
Doesn't it kind of make sense? Technically, it is a PS *console* exclusive, PC is not a console.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes but it is deceptive marketing
9 months ago
Anonymous
I am not sure why it's deceptive, considering that it's straight to the point, it would have been deceptive if the trailer didn't mention the game coming out on PC, but then they would release an article on their website and at the very bottom they would say that it is also coming to PC, but even then I don't think that you need a trailer to tell you whether it's coming to PC or not. As for deceptive marketing in general, it would be ideal if we didn't have to resort to deceptive marketing, but companies aren't made to think like you and I.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No. They're both computers. The difference is PS has only one store run by Sony.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The difference is PS has only one store run by Sony.
PC gamers only want one store ran by West coast democrat donors. PS has physical.
9 months ago
Anonymous
PC has it too. I don't know if you know, but you can copy data to your favorite media. Yes, on consoles you are not free to copy and paste data, but it is because they are PCs whose access is forbidden even to the owner of them.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Piracy is not buying games.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'll get a shit load more of out gaming through piracy than buying the same decade old ports every few years through your shitty locked "online services". My files will last til my death, you'll be paying a subscription til yours.
Right they can only work on one version at a time and threw the S under the bus as a excuse even though the game will release just fine after they're donde with PS5 version.
You can't forget alot of devs are unabashedly biased towards Sony for some reason. There disingenuous at best
Its not just devs that are biased! All the consumers are too! Their bias has led to playstation dominating the console market (not the handheld market tendies) while xbox grapples with this world wide conspiracy against them.
>LOL people just don't understand that we DON'T want to do the jobs we are paid for >It's easier to just have players buy a better GPU than to optimize our games
We should all be thankful the SeriesS exists and that Microsoft puts their future down on its release rules. I am scares to think of how shitty and unplayable this game would be if they didn't HAVE to optimize it.
And do you think they are optimizing anything? There's a reason there's basically no current gen title that looks better than RDR2. Devs are just doing the bare minimum to run on Series S then cranking stuff that scales like shit for regular consoles. If it didn't exist they would actually be using their modern and powerful hardware, but since they are limited by this piece of shit that's what you get, a bunch of last gen titles with 4x the viewing distance.
Soon enough games will probably just skip Xbox entirely at launch. It's a Game Pass machine and games don't sell on it anyway, there's not really much incentive unless Microsoft is paying them to port their games.
Rockstar spent 8 years making RDR2, any games on PC that are more polished? Stop pretending random devs could achieve better than fricking Rockstar if the S didn't exist
>regret
Sony had to pay Valve for Orange Box, and it was handled by another studio. Gabe was right, it was a waste of everybody's time, but at least he was profiting.
Most devs are shitty at optimization. You wanna know why so many games are ballooning the shit out of hard drive space? Because compression requires optimization, and moderns devs have just gotten used to just shoving shit onto a game with zero accountability.
that's not really true. a lot of the move towards uncompressed assets happened during 8th gen when memory was (for a while) no concern and the CPU was the biggest bottleneck. decompressing audio cost performance so leaving much or all of the audio uncompressed as actually a form of optimization, specifically for 8th gen consoles. of course it never made any sense on PC and it certainly doesn't make sense on 9th gen.
why do you care about this guys opinion again?
>Communications director
not a game developer
not even a real job
>not a game developer
He works with Remedy Engineers daily. No one is more qualified than them to speak on Series S being trash. That is definitely something that has been communicated to him. Thats his wheel house.
no, his wheel house is spinning the truth into lies to make the company look better.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Remedy doesn't have a parent company.
>anon proves he's never had a job
I guarantee you a communications director at any company has never had a conversation with a developer or engineer. Every corpo entity silos their departments
It isn't a corporation. It is a games studio. He literally has no reason to speak on the Series S as it isn't his studio or game thats having issues with Series S. If anything Remedy is showing sympathy with a different studio to send a message to Microsoft to stop releasing such underpowered piles of garbage.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The Series S is much more powerful than the fricking Deck, if these games run on that shitheap they should run on Series S, unless the devs have some other angle.
9 months ago
Anonymous
This is the most obvious self-report.
Series S is a console, not a PC. The APIs for PC are intentionally on a higher level of abstraction for compatibility reasons. With console that isn't the case. You can't just build a game for the high end and then scale it down for the Series S.
You need to do a lot of extra work to get it to run efficiently on there. It also has some very obvious bottlenecks such as low RAM bandwidth and footprint. The RAM footprint situation will literally make your game crash outright once its exceeded, OR it will just not load in the assets at the quality level needed.
This is the exact thing that happened with TLOU remake on PC.
Next-gen game engines shouldn't get bogged down trying to be compatible with garbage hardware like that. Its holding back technology in a wider sense.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You can't just build a game for the high end and then scale it down for the Series S.
You fricking moron. Series S has literally the same CPU as Series X. Same clock speeds, everything. The GPU is from the same family just clocked much lower with much fewer cores. So yes, you can literally just fricking scale down the resolution and the textures, and that's what developers have been doing exactly.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Software illiterate morons should be barred from posting sometimes.
Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores within a certain amount of cycles just to do internal rendering that prepares data that needs to be available every frame. This is regardless of resolution.
What if you need more RAM? Both bandwidth and footprint?
What can Series S do to make up for that?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores within a certain amount of cycles just to do internal rendering
And you call others software illiterate, kek
9 months ago
Anonymous
So you can't use the GPU to prepare data? How do you think devs get around certain memory bandwidth bottlenecks?
9 months ago
Anonymous
No game has ever had an engine that has such high and exact requirements. Ratchet and Clank was made as a full PS5 exclusive and can still scale to potatoes after being ported to PC. Also 90% of games just use UE4/5 which also doesn't have such crazy exact requirements. Just shut the frick up.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores
You should probably not develop your tech in a way that scales that poorly. What, are you making monolith Shaders for every character too?
If your shaders or asset streaming are so intense that you need 26 cores MINIMUM to render an image at a reasonable 30 fps, then your game better look better than god because I guarantee you you're probably wasting resources on shit that doesn't matter. >What if you need more RAM
Uh, create lower-size assets? >Both bandwidth and footprint?
Sampler Feedback Streaming + DirectStorage?
9 months ago
Anonymous
When left to their own devices devs will go for 720p 20 fps on the ps5, so yes they should be held back. With the series s as a baseline you can go for a more powerful console for more frames. With the series x as a baseline all you'll get is low frames and no other options available.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>When left to their own devices devs will go for 720p 20 fps on the ps5, so yes they should be held back.
I don't know of a single game that caps out at that on PS5. Care to give me an example? And no I don't want to talk about glitchy special modes with VRR, PS4 software in BC or some random performance mode with broken resolution scaling. I am talking about a game that cannot perform better than 720p 20fps no matter what mode you have activated.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Jedi Survivor aims for 60 FPS but renders at something like 45 FPS with screen tearing and an internal resolution of 648p
9 months ago
Anonymous
But that is nowhere near the highest the game can run. In the resolution mode it runs a lot more consistent and at a lot higher resolution.
No game has ever had an engine that has such high and exact requirements. Ratchet and Clank was made as a full PS5 exclusive and can still scale to potatoes after being ported to PC. Also 90% of games just use UE4/5 which also doesn't have such crazy exact requirements. Just shut the frick up.
Sure. But we aren't arguing whether or not a game 'has' done it we are arguing whether it can be done or not. And besides Rift Apart is mostly based on last-gen tech with some things bolted on like ray tracing and a larger amount of portal jumping sequences due to the SSD allowing for it.
The insomniac engine is amazing but it hasn't really left PS4 tech behind just yet. But it is making strides to do so as we see in Spidey 2. They are iterating on it clearly.
>Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores
You should probably not develop your tech in a way that scales that poorly. What, are you making monolith Shaders for every character too?
If your shaders or asset streaming are so intense that you need 26 cores MINIMUM to render an image at a reasonable 30 fps, then your game better look better than god because I guarantee you you're probably wasting resources on shit that doesn't matter. >What if you need more RAM
Uh, create lower-size assets? >Both bandwidth and footprint?
Sampler Feedback Streaming + DirectStorage?
>You should probably not develop your tech in a way that scales that poorly. What, are you making monolith Shaders for every character too?
Why not? If it isn't made to be played anywhere else, I don't see an issue. >If your shaders or asset streaming are so intense that you need 26 cores MINIMUM to render an image at a reasonable 30 fps, then your game better look better than god because I guarantee you you're probably wasting resources on shit that doesn't matter.
Don't worry it looks better than god, thats why. >Uh, create lower-size assets?
Okay but what if the visual style stops being viable then? >Sampler Feedback Streaming + DirectStorage?
Series X also uses that. So you can't use it to make up for it when its already being used in the first place.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Why not? If it isn't made to be played anywhere else, I don't see an issue.
Because it's bad engineering. Good engineering gives you room to adjust things while you're working, which means things should be at least a bit scalable and a bit modular.
This is like saying "I have 8 Gigs of VRAM, so I'll just make one super huge mesh+texture file that is 8 gigs large"
It's a bad idea because you're basically assuming that nothing will go wrong, that every machine you play on will be perfect or that you'll never need to re-use this code for something else.
Sony sort of pays for this in some ways to this day wherein the API on their games doesn't scale to more powerful hardware, so the best they can do is to literally turn off entire CUs when the PS5 or PS4 Pro needs to run a base-PS4 game.
Making your tech modular, reusable and scalable is both cheaper and more useful in the long-term than customized software that fits only one piece of technology >Don't worry it looks better than god, thats why.
That's not true given that some of the best looking games around still were designed for 4 GB GPUs >Okay but what if the visual style stops being viable then?
That has not been true since the PS2 era. The PS2/Xbox/Game Cube were where every art-style became viable on console hardware >Series X also uses that. So you can't use it to make up for it when its already being used in the first place.
SFS is not being used in most Xbox games tho. It's a software solution you need to integrate into your engine, it's not 'On' by default or anything
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It's a bad idea because you're basically assuming that nothing will go wrong, that every machine you play on will be perfect or that you'll never need to re-use this code for something else.
You need a cut-off point anyway though. If you don't set a cut-off point then you'll spend the rest of eternity optimizing unrealistic builds that should be left behind. >Sony sort of pays for this in some ways to this day wherein the API on their games doesn't scale to more powerful hardware, so the best they can do is to literally turn off entire CUs when the PS5 or PS4 Pro needs to run a base-PS4 game.
This is for backward compatibility. The games scale upward just fine. It's downward they have a problem because they optimize their games to use as many resources as possible to satiate the ever-increasing complexity and demands needed for new games tech. >That's not true given that some of the best looking games around still were designed for 4 GB GPUs
But not the actual best-looking games though. Which is why we are seeing games using PS4 tech like TLOU remastered, or Rift Apart being completely unplayable on 4GB GPUs.
What games are you even talking about that run at the intended experience on a 4GB gpu? >That has not been true since the PS2 era
That's not true at all. They still have to make calculations for every game where they determine given the general camera position, which assets need to be loaded in when and at what quality. If they don't have enough time to engineer around those constraints then the visual style stops being viable. >SFS is not being used in most Xbox games tho. It's a software solution you need to integrate into your engine, it's not 'On' by default or anything
But that isn't what this is about. It's about whether or not Series S can use it to alleviate its memory bottlenecks not present in Seris X. But it can't do that if it's already in use in Series X to alleviate even bigger bottlenecks.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You realize the Xbox runs on DirectX, same as PC?
And we KNOW that BG3 uses DX, even if it is 11 instead of Xbox's 12U
Xbox and PC use the same API, an API we KNOW that BG3 supports
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You realize the Xbox runs on DirectX, same as PC?
It uses a special version of DX12U. It gives devs more access. >And we KNOW that BG3 uses DX, even if it is 11 instead of Xbox's 12U >Xbox and PC use the same API, an API we KNOW that BG3 supports
But BG3 supporting those APIs high level is not enough to getting a game to run smoothly. In general, games nowadays need a lot of RAM to make sure the right data has as low latency to the GPU cores. And if you shrink that below what is necessary then it's a massive problem that demands enormous amounts of engineering effort to make it run. It sounds like they could ship it if they cut the split-screen functionality but Microsoft won't let them.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It uses a special version of DX12U. It gives devs more access.
Sure but, even with DX12's existing changes from DX11, it's not SO different >But BG3 supporting those APIs high level is not enough to getting a game to run smoothly
Agreed > In general, games nowadays need a lot of RAM to make sure the right data has as low latency to the GPU cores
Agreed >And if you shrink that below what is necessary then it's a massive problem that demands enormous amounts of engineering effort to make it run
Yes, but the requirements for BG3 on PC min-spec are a GTX970 (4 Gigs of VRAM) and 8 gigs of normal RAM. And while BG3 does have a lot of persistence in its environments, I run BG3 on my laptop where I don't even have 2 Gigs of RAM available when I start the game up (I do have 4 Gigs of VRAM tho) >It sounds like they could ship it if they cut the split-screen functionality but Microsoft won't let them.
They can't cut split-screen from JUST the Series S, but they could cut it from both versions if they wanted. The parity-mandate only applies between the two Xbox SKUs, not between Xbox and PS5
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Sure but, even with DX12's existing changes from DX11, it's not SO different
It is different enough that it demands a lot of engineering to get certain features within the rendering budget. >I run BG3 on my laptop where I don't even have 2 Gigs of RAM available when I start the game up (I do have 4 Gigs of VRAM tho)
Right but the issue with Series S is the split-screen situation as far as I understand. And the environment persistence is truly stressed in that mode. >they could cut it from both versions if they wanted
You might be right. But if I was Larian I would be really fricking pissed if I had to do that. They would have to degrade their relationship with the player because the platform holder has some stringent rules. I'm positive the only reason they are being so vocal about it in public is because they want the rules to change.
Pic-related is just not acceptable performance. People need to stop talking about whether or not a game is running at all and start focusing on the quality of the experience.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It is different enough that it demands a lot of engineering to get certain features within the rendering budget.
I appreciate that. But it's not insurmountable. Tho, I imagine that DX12 hasn't overtaken DX11 yet is maybe proof of that severity of differences >Right but the issue with Series S is the split-screen situation as far as I understand. And the environment persistence is truly stressed in that mode.
I would imagine, yeah. I don't think it would be easy, for the record >You might be right. But if I was Larian I would be really fricking pissed if I had to do that. They would have to degrade their relationship with the player because the platform holder has some stringent rules. I'm positive the only reason they are being so vocal about it in public is because they want the rules to change.
The rules aren't going to change because that would frick up Microsoft's relationship with the players
Beyond that, I'm sort of suspect that this is about the players. I wager that the vast VAST majority of multiplayer done with ORiginal Sin 2 was online rather than split-screen. And we KNOW that they didn't put it into all versions of the game (they omitted it for the Switch version).
So the question for me is why wouldn't they just release a version of the game without split-screen and then patch it in later?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>So the question for me is why wouldn't they just release a version of the game without split-screen and then patch it in later?
I'm guessing because they decided the extra resources would be better spent elsewhere and then they could give it the full attention it needs when they are done with the PC and PS5 versions. I also imagine it has to do with the Xbox version simply being a lower priority since it almost 100% certainly will be the lowest-selling version of the game.
9 months ago
Anonymous
This seems reasonable to me
And, shitposting aside, I do think that the current console version coming out around the same time as Starfield (which is Xbox exclusive) makes an Xbox version also seem like it would normally go to odds with another big RPG that is on a subscription service would probably hurt any potential Xbox sales even more.
Like, BG3 coming out near Starfield means they're going head to head while STarfield will be at its hottest.
But if they release during a quiet month in January or February, then it'll do better sales-wise
>anon proves he's never had a job
I guarantee you a communications director at any company has never had a conversation with a developer or engineer. Every corpo entity silos their departments
Its not like every game I've played on PS5 hasn't released with major issues. And performance modes that actually causes the games to run worse because the studio mandates that game have to use ray tracing even though it makes the console run like shit unless the game is capped at 30fps.
Every fricking dev team, every engineer, every artist, fricking hates that shit console.
It's so fricking shit, we have to make a separate lighting spec for that stupid console on our next game, and have to upscale from 600p, despite the fact our game can run 60fps on a 1060 with Nanite and Lumen. It's a pile of hot garbage ass shit.
Sounds like you don't understand game development. For a console you do have to understand the limitations of what you can do because they can't just upgrade it like a PC can even if they have to lower the quality to make it run on there.
Yeah, but everything next to the gpu is the same, and from a pc gamers perspective you could just lower the resolution, even below 720p and it should work.
If some of ny mates can still play new games on a gtx970, so can a series S. Unless they put things that the cpu can do on the gpu. Then you can blame the devs for sure
>sounds like shitty devs to me
This.
They just need to set the games to 720p30fps and make low poly models.
Just make the gane lokk like trash.
What are they so scared about?
Its a lose lose.
If you want it on series S you have to make it look like a ps3 game and have people crap on you about out dated the game looks.
Or provide you a stuttering mess.
Either way this is honestly on xboxs head.
When ps5 and xbox x came out it was already a generation behind.
The series S is a tragedy and should only have been sold as an emulation device
The cpu and gpus used were a generation behind what pcs are using.
Ps5 and xboxs are juat glorified pcs now so they should always be compared to pc builds.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>generation behind
You make it sound like this humongous gap. In reality the difference is 10-20 frames best case scenario
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You make it sound like this humongous gap. In reality the difference is 10-20 frames best case scenario
At at release it was nothing but now its a huge ass difference now.
Consoles are struggling to bring 1440p with decent fidelity.
SPBP. When they say, >"you have to take into account the technical limitations from the beginning of development"
what they mean is, >"we made a bunch of models with 69,000,000 tris and the game is slow, wtf????"
spbp all I can hear is seething diversity hires. if weak consoles actually held back games we wouldn't have gotten the best games ever made coming out all in the PSX/2 gen.
Technically BG3 is a mess. Vulkan version runs slower than DX11. Textures and assets load like it's like a PS4 game, cutscenes are bugged, controller implementation is buggy, there are numerous glitches after all these years.
Sure SeS doesn't have that much memory but the minimum pc specs state 8 gigs is enough and I don't recall seeing that much memory usage - it's around 6 gigs unless I'm mistaken.
These twitter homosexuals are turning this into some political virtue signaling once again.
Technically game is shit, as simple as. Sure it's not dogshit but barely good enough.
This game runs at 1080p60 on max settings on a GPU that's about on par with a GTX 1070 from 6+ years ago, there's no reason why a Series S shouldn't be able to run this game at 1080p60 on medium at the bare minimum.
the problem is they're having trouble with the split screen mode and microsoft requires feature parity between S and X versions of the console. If they were able to release it without the split screen it would probably come out around the same time as ps5 release on xbox
Because it’s a feint, and they don’t want to release on Xbox the same day as Starfield comes out. This way they can say “uwu it’s taking a bit longer” so they can get PS5 sales from snoys who have been tricked into thinking it’s the witcher and get another marketing beat in 3 months when Starfield hype has died down.
XSS gpu is around 1650 which is worse than 970 or 1060(the minimum requirement on PC)
Also 10gb ram means that it won't meet the 4gb vram + 8gb system ram requirement too.
Series S is even more gimped than you think, it has 10GB but it's actually 8GB@224GB/s for games + 2GB@56GB/s for system stuff. It has 8GB for VRAM and RAM to run modern AAA titles. It's fricking garbage.
>It's fricking garbage.
I'll start thinking it's garbage when the average AAA game starts looking at least AS GOOD as the basic PS4 exclusives like FF7R, Detroit Become Human or GoW 2018.
Say what you want about the gameplay in those games but, from a pure visual fidelity level, they were better looking than shit like Jedi Survivor, Deadspace or BG3.
My experience is that the more power/resources you give engineers, the lazier they get
>XSS gpu is around 1650 which is worse than 970 or 1060(the minimum requirement on PC)
It runs perfectly well on a friend's 1060, he just had to limit it to 30 FPS. Everything is set to the default high settings. This should be doable for Series S too.
This game runs at 1080p60 on max settings on a GPU that's about on par with a GTX 1070 from 6+ years ago, there's no reason why a Series S shouldn't be able to run this game at 1080p60 on medium at the bare minimum.
>Also 10gb ram means that it won't meet the 4gb vram + 8gb system ram requirement too.
You don't need as much unified memory, as ram+vram on pc, because both cpu and gpu have equal access times to it
It runs and plays like total DOGSHIT on Steam Deck, and I love my Deck. Even at everything set to low it barely hits 30FPS. In cities like actual Baldur's Gate it drops to 10FPS. It's not a very well-optimized game, and loads in a metric frickton of detail all at once with very high-res LODs. I have to drop the resolution on my 2070 which I know is getting up there.
>it runs on steamdeck
Yeah, at like 15-20 FPS with everything set on ultra low and rendering at like 480p.
I use my deck all the time and installed BG3 the minute I could on it and uninstalled it after about 20 minutes of trying to get it at least at a stable 30 FPS.
Series S is shit, but the developer is also shit for not understanding what you need to do when making a game for a console. There is no stage "when everything is possible" unless you are extremely stupid.
well the issue is the series s only uses 8 gb of ram because 2gb is taken up by the os. starfield has a minimum requirement of 16gb on pc so yeah. we'll see how starfield works on the series s next month. it might be running at 720p or something, we'll have to see what workaround they figured out.
redfall only happened because they wanted to shit it out and forget it because arkane was forced to make it by zenimax and was begging MS to either reboot development or cancel it after zenimax got bought
Does lying make you more of a homosexual, or does being a homosexual make you lie more?
https://versus.com/en/microsoft-xbox-series-s-vs-sony-playstation-5
I'll never forget Gotham Knights when a bunch of devs came out of the woodworks and demanded that prices of games be raised, the series S be abolished and that they should be paid what they're worth and then they release this clusterfrick that only managed to hit the targeted 30 fps on the Series S.
Reminds me of SF6. >Capcom puts no effort in the Series port >Series S is just the PS4 preset but with stable framerate in story because brute force >this accidentally results in the best (lowest) latency out of all the platforms
The CPU processing is identical, so any problems is down to the reduced GPU. And yeah, that is a bit of a kneecap, but if something is wrong because a weaker graphics processor is the issue, and it's apparently the splitscreen not working quite right, that might be an error in the programming side of matters that higher hardware just brute forces through. Or at least isn't hit hard enough by to really break.
That's an optimization pass that was going to be necessary one way or another.
The GPU isn't the biggest issue. GPU load is pretty scalable since you can do simple things like lower resolution to lighten the load by a lot. The real problem devs have with Series S is memory. It has 10 GB as opposed to X's 16.
Just ship low textures on Series S instead. The difference is basically 1060 3GB to a 3060 8GB (assuming around 6GB dedicated to RAM), and the 1060 can still run modern games on low.
Devs should just make their games for regular consoles as usual then gimp the frick out of them to run on Series S. They have basically the same specs but the Series S GPU is trash so just make shit run at 720p low 30fps, who the frick cares. Whoever bought that piece of shit deserves the bare minimum.
The issue is splitscreen co-op. When it's an advertised feature on the back of the box it has to work on Series S or it's a no-go. It's not a framerate issue.
I'm starting to get worried about starfield in this regard, I'm happy with the graphics but I wonder about what might have been cut content wise to not break the S
Whats the most ambitious game and why can it run on the S like something like RDR2? Devs complain about the S but have no problem porting there games to the Switch when they want that nintendy money
It‘s not about it running on series s at all, it‘s the fact that ms forces devs to have feature parity across consoles which means that piece of shit with 10gb ram has to be able to run the game in splitscreen mode you dumb frick
And that's why it will never be a widespread issue and MS should just make a one time exception for this singular game. No one gives a frick about a niche feature like splitscreen.
>ms forces devs to have feature parity across consoles
Oh no, how dare they make sure the games you buy/subbed to game pass for actually contain the whole game.
It's moronic especially considering the S can't keep up with the X or PS5 as developers finally dive into this gen. Microsoft is going to have to tell people on the S that they need to accept lesser products sometimes.
>cant keep up
Black person devs have resolution dropping LOWER than 720p on xbox and ps5. They don't deserve to dive into everything, they deserve to go to hell and optimize all the shitty games they made for eternity
Series S can keep up on the gameplay front in 99% of games because it has the same CPU as Series X and PS5, and has the same GPU architecture as them too
So what I'm hearing is "NOOOO, WE CAN'T JUST MAKE LOWER QUALITY ASSETS FOR SYSTEMS WITH LESS MEMORY! NOOO, WE CAN'T JUST GET MORE EFFICIENT WITH ASSET STREAMING EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CONSOLES HAVE SSDS NOW!!!"
Different teams.
Also, doesn't help their narrative.
And do you think they are optimizing anything? There's a reason there's basically no current gen title that looks better than RDR2. Devs are just doing the bare minimum to run on Series S then cranking stuff that scales like shit for regular consoles. If it didn't exist they would actually be using their modern and powerful hardware, but since they are limited by this piece of shit that's what you get, a bunch of last gen titles with 4x the viewing distance.
And your excuse for PC exclusive titles?
What about the PS5 exclusive titles?
Strange choice of ignorance.
>And your excuse for PC exclusive titles? >What about the PS5 exclusive titles?
They don't have to optimize for Series S. That's why at this moment Sony is basically the only AAA company making games with actual next gen graphics.
Min spec(which does splitscreen just fine at low settings) is gtx 970 and 8gb ram. A 1650 can maintain 1080p30fps on ultra. The series s holding the game back meme is pure malarkey.
Devs have been hamstrung by last gen consoles more than anything. Off the top of my head there isn't a single game from 3rd party devs which is actually using the full suite of next gen hardware feature. "Next gen" games are usually ports of last gen games with a 60 fps mode or with basic RT shadows or something like that. It makes the consoles look incredibly underpowered for example FF16 running at 720p and fluctuating 40 fps. Series s being weaker is less able to brute force through these issues but with time and competent devs it shouldn't be an issue. I mean after all the matrix demo runs on it with full ray tracing and nanite and all that other fancy tech and that was a work in progress version of UE5 not even the final optimised version.
1st party devs will always get the most out of the hardware early on but 3rd party devs will eventually catch up as they get used to the new hardware and development environment. Microsoft knew this would happen because matt booty said some devs will probably have some difficulties with their first game on series s but by their second game it won't be an issue, which makes sense because that's how development works. You can always do more the second time round because of what you learnt the first time round. It's why games at the end of a gen are vastly superior tech wise to games at the beginning of the gen.
As the dev said you have to take it into account from the beginning. There's nothing wrong with that and that's literally their job. I don't expect any more issues with series s once devs get accustomed to the hardware after the first wave of games. Also, I bet none of these developers are using the custom decompression tech which significantly decreases memory footprint.
Nah. That's what you want to happen but it will never happen. There's more to hardware than just ram capacity. Memory bandwidth, cpu capability, gpu capability, storage bandwidth, APIs and more all affect the performance of any fixed hardware. They could give the current switch 32gb ram and it wouldn't mean shit because it has extremely weak hardware and power/thermal limits.
well the leaked specs showed it around ps4 pro level, right? so around the same level as the series s but with more ram. microsoft should probably just make a portable series s.
Series s is incredibly more powerful than a ps4 pro. The switch leaks had it around xbox one/ base ps4 according to Bobby koticks testimony in court during the ABK trial.
Only CPU wise, it loses to Series X in basically any other aspect.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Who was talking about series x?
9 months ago
Anonymous
*One X
9 months ago
Anonymous
It's way better than one x. The GPU is capable of far more than the one x. We're talking 2 generations of tech and efficiency upgrades. Devs will be able to do things on series s that would never be possible on one x simply because it's older tech.
9 months ago
Anonymous
nah, it just has a few new features but it doesn't make up for the lack of power. It's like comparing a 1650 to a 980.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Nah its like comparing a 2060 to a 1060. It has tech which one x doesn't have like machine learning acceleration or in the 2060 vs 1060 example, AI cores.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Pascal supports features that Maxwell doesn't, but sure. But in reality doesn't mean much. Make it 1080 vs 2060 and we can agree, it's basically the gap here.
>well the leaked specs showed it around ps4 pro level, right?
HAHAHAHA. The leaked specs made people ASSUME it will be """" CLOSE""" to the base PS4 power wise. But this is Nintendo, they will make it sure it will be underpowered, not just because they are cheap but because it will be a portable first and foremost.
Take nintendo specs with a grain of salt.
I respect nintendo's way of doing, make the games talk not the hardware, so keep in mind, it should be ps4 tier, but running at maaaaybe 15 watts since its portable. Dlss would do the heavy lifting in docked.
>if the switch 2 ends up with 16gb of ram
Switch 2 will be way underpowered and you know it. It will still sell gangbusters and it will have incredible looking games because when a platform is popular then suddenly developers can live with its limitations. Series S is getting shit because it has a small userbase and devs think they can kick it around. Just like how the only time the Playstation was berated when it didn't sell well. Muh Series S is an excuse, ratchet runs on a hdd, FF16 is 720p on the PS5 as an exclusive.
You can't name THREE new gen games that wouldn't be possible on XBO/PS4 and gaytracing is mostly responsible for the performance woes of devs who are suddenly incapable to optimize games when they worked on an already outdated in 2013 hardware just a few years ago.
>Really? Shouldn't slapping 8K logo in PS5's box be illegal at this point?
They never said the games could reach this resolution. That sticker just means that in theory the console can output a video signal of this resolution. In reality, this would only apply to movies. They did the same shit with the PS4 too.
>Really? Shouldn't slapping 8K logo in PS5's box be illegal at this point?
They never said the games could reach this resolution. That sticker just means that in theory the console can output a video signal of this resolution. In reality, this would only apply to movies. They did the same shit with the PS4 too.
Funniest thing with the 8K logo is the console can't output a 8K signal. There is simply no support for it on a firmware level. While you can pretend the 4K/120 on the box is theoretically possible the 8K is flat out lie.
Reminds me of this
https://www.engadget.com/2011-10-03-ps3-will-support-4k-stills-after-a-future-update-moving-picture.html
And no, support was never added lmao
9 months ago
Anonymous
I've never encountered a company who lies as much as Sony. I'm not even talking about gaming but with their other products like TVs. They lied about adding HDR to their TVs back in 2016 and more recently they lied about adding 4k120hz to their 2020 TVs. I will never buy another Sony product ever again I fricking swear.
Sony used their big reach in entertainment media and technology to slap the 8K logo on there because it could "theoretically" play 8K movies and that's enough to justify the official stamp. It helps that they're a card carrying member of the Video Electronics Standards Association too.
I knew that the addition of raytracing would be a detriment to this generation.
Fricking FF16 still has the piece of shit enabled even in performance mode.
Sucks that after all these years thickheaded gamedevs can't comprehend that people.prefer stability over some egotripping visual effect.
Raytracing and targeting 4K. It doesn't matter the consoles were relatively beefy this time, the jump from 1080p aand "4K" is insane. Also it is more and more clear everyone bet on FSR being able to pull DLSS levels of upscaling and it can't. There is a rumor the PS5Pro will have some dedicated hardware for proper upscaling because the low internal resolutions these newer games have (FF is like 720p internally, Jedi Survivor is 850) look absolute ass with FSR. Early in the gen people laughed at the Series S because FSR looks worse if the internal res is low and now the big consoles get the same treatment. Jed Survivor 60fps mode looks like absolute ass on a big TV.
Why did so many devs fall for the ray tracing meme?
At no point in gaming history did new visual effects get ignored because some moron on Ganker thought it was useless. Even when DirectX10 got mostly ignored for a generation because that's when developers opted to become consolegays and stick with DX9.0c for 8 years, they ported new visual features from DX10 to 9.0c. No developer is going to ignore raytracing, the future of game lighting, in favor of old methods and baked static lighting just to sate your autism. When bloom and "HDR" (the old ca. 2006 type, not actual 10-bit displays) were new features, even nintendo tried putting at least some form of it in their gamecube 2 aka wii titles.
>remember when hardware technical limitation fomented software artistic creativity
i won't say this is the main reason why modern devs are so shit, but it's up there
That was never a thing. Developers have always pushed hardware to its limits. That's why PS1 and N64 games looked as good as possible for the time, but mostly ran at 10-25 FPS because the hardware was putrid shit only nostalgia addicts can defend. You may as well claim Atari 2600 games are actual unironic masterpieces because moving with a joystick and having one button to play games at probably 32x32 resolution and some cherrypicked simplistic games worked okay.
I can't think of one game that really uses raytracing all that well. From my testing the only one that "changes" the image is ray tracing ambient occlusion. I find shadows and reflections to be a meme that have been done as well in software or other workarounds. Before you call me poor or something, I built this before the 4000 series came out, and those suck. I also have a ps5 that collects dust because no games.
We reached the point of diminishing returns with the PS4. Only thing holding game development back now is shitty developers with no talent or imagination.
Black person this game can run on a Steam Deck. They're lazy as frick. Nothing about Ballhomosexual 3 looks like a 9th gen game, from its graphics to its game mechanics to its scope. It's all ps4 level shit.
So why is nobody complaining about the switch?
Why aren't mobile devs complaining that phones aren't as powerful as PCs?
The vast majority of PCs are about as powerful of a series S, according to Steam surveys
These devs can go frick themselves for not thinking of optimizing their fricking games for the majority of people
>no we PLANNED for the game to have zero optimization and just let the consumers foot the higher hardware bill to run it, you can't take that away from us!
Maybe try being less shitty of a dev and make things run well?
Does Microsoft even have a team dedicated to helping third party dev studios optimize their games (for free of course)? Feels like they don't. Doesn't seem very smart of them to not have at least some people doing something like that, considering Sony are already doing it.
Well then either the team is incompetent or it's only comprised of a single guy lmao. BG3 was in early access for nearly 3 years. Microsoft had 2 years to work alongside Larian, but it feels like they only started to work with them 2 months ago. Seriously, what is Phil doing? He's so fixated on selling gamepass but he forgot he needs a playerbase to sell it to.
No. They just give you a dev console that emulates the hardware from SX down to og Xbone (changes ram, vram, clock speeds etc to match each gen) and a docummentation and that's it. The process is so easy and straightforward that you even have PRESS ME, moron button to scale down the settings for your build to match requirements of each gen. This is how insanely incompent modern devs are.
He's not lying though. That's what the 1st gen kits are. Over glorified PCs emulating hardware. Eventually, microsoft sent out actual Anaconda and Scarlett Kits with retail OS and specs (but with more RAM for debug tools).
They do and thats exactly what they're doing
They provide frick all support for their 3rd party developers. If they do provide support, it's on a priority basis and on a last-resort. They don't hold your hand much through development. 3rd Party devs don't even have access to the Microsoft-circle jerk community, where 1st party Devs all suck each other off on a monthly basis and provide assistance to each other.
>a game as complex and good looking like Red Dead Redemption 2 can run on the Series S (and previous gen for that matter) >a fricking turn based RPG can't
Its supposed to be a fortnite box but microsoft and phil spencer are so moronic they actually forced devs to build their games for both system. fricking morons.
Can a dev answer whats so hard about it? Isnt the only difference between X (or ps5) and S that the S has a worse gpu and less memory(thus vram)? Whats so difficult about turning settings to lower than low and reducing the resolution if needed? Hell they could even limit it to 30fps and nobody would care since its a turn based rpg anyway.
Turning game into a fricking switch port is not a good look, dumbfrick.
Split screen used to be super common a few generations ago. b***hing about it is a cop out. Then again you probably weren't alive back then.
Gears 5 split screen worked like shit on xbox one, because it doesn't scale well.
BG3 straight up renders 2 different game instances, because it needs to support rendering of 2 different maps at the same time. Your friend can engage in a big brawl on the right side, while you are solving a puzzle in a completely different place on the left.
>So why did it used to be ok to have lower presets, moron???
Because you have rendering pipeline A and B.
A is much more older and lacks graphical features of B
B is much more modern and fully utilizes modern hardware
As time goes on, A becomes completely obsolete, and hardware gets more powerful, now everyone uses pipeline C.
Now you have baseline B and you can't go any lower without completely nuking graphics into fullbright mode.
And? We could do that shit on consoles generations ago. Hell, we used to do 4 way split screen, not merely 2 way. Are you trying to tell me you think something that used to be industry standard for virtually every multiplayer game is now suddenly black magic?
>Gears 5 split screen worked like shit on xbox one, because it doesn't scale well.
Where do you get this? I played Gears 5 on the base bone. It is one of the best optimized titles of on the system. The only thing you notice is they probably tried to squeeze out the maximum from the system and the quick system menu can be choppy if you bring it up while playing.
>make awesome game >have to dial everything back for shit hardware >players play awesome game dialed back on shit hardware >”this game sucks. That company sucks.”
If they could do it easily then they would have. Some other dev mentioned that pc scales differently than consoles and that its easier to do on pc for some reason.
it's really not the series s it's lazy Devs who seriously can not optimise or figure things out hell most Devs on PC now use dlss as a way to cheat optimisation
Can someone tell me why nobody complains abou this when they make a PC game yet it's clear that 1/3 of all people use integraed graphics on a laptop while the other 2/3 is on 6 year old GPUs. With only the last 1/3 having about PS5 level graphics cards.
Because the unemployed children and morons who have integrated graphics or 750Tis aren't even going to consider playing new games. They're the demographic that stuck with skulltag mods well into the 2010s, and are now playing ancient source engine games, f2p esports titles, and making posts on Ganker about how modern graphics are bad or a scam run by corporations.
S = unemployed
nah. the series s is a glorified scam. you need to buy a hard drive so that's a hidden cost and the games are always pricey because no retail
As a non-Series S, non-BG3 player, I am under the impression that splitscreen in these types of games is a bit more complicated then 4-player Blood Gulch or Rainbow Road splitscreen (single world instance).
Because RDR 2 has good looking lighting, with realistic color correction. Outside of it, the game is blurry as frick. And don't let me start on how their TAA completely shits itself to resolve trees and greenery.
There's no reason for it to exist. They should have just released the Series X and called it a day. Yeah, mine was a gift but frick poor people and their mid as frick consoles. The series X is a beast, and what game has shown it's true potential yet? Not one.
The Series S is the last thing what holds the Series X back. MS is incapable of making a single game that comes close to the snoy movie games on the PS4. If Xbox had games on the level of TLOU2 / Horizon at least then you could have an argument. I'm saying this as an Xbot, it is ridiculous aside maybe the Coalition MS has no high quality graphics team and they waste their talent on trying to keep Gears alive. At least Playground might deliver with Fable and maybe they will be allowed to make other things than Horizon sequels.
I'm not fan of movie games but not having even one when the competition has multiple is just one of the numerous things that kills the brand. Casuals need their slop.
Microsoft really dont want to start giving out exceptions to their gameplay parity between series mandate because if one dev does it then other devs having issues with series s can point to bg3 getting special treatment.
>Make shitty, outdated hardware for poorgays while also demanding every dev porting to Xbox accommodate for it
This sounds like just a way for Microsoft to get you to build around their particular ecosystem, which isn't really unusual for them.
Can someone tell me why nobody complains abou this when they make a PC game yet it's clear that 1/3 of all people use integraed graphics on a laptop while the other 2/3 is on 6 year old GPUs. With only the last 1/3 having about PS5 level graphics cards.
No worthwile game on PS5 at all. All they have is Spider-Man 2 but that just looks the same as the 1st game but with a new area.
That and Starfield is not coming to PS5 either.
How is it that something like RDR2 or Batman Arkham Knight can run on Xbox 1 and look much better than modern games with much higher systems requirements?
Modern devs are fricking dogshit at thier job now, they don't want to optimise games because it's a drag for them aka being lazy.
They think that people should just upgrade to better hardware so they can bruteforce the performance.
720p 30fps
low draw distances
1k/512 textures
Zero AO
Zero volumetrics
Massive reduction of Draw distances on foliage
Reduction on quantity of foliage
Low quality foliage
Low quality paper VFX/sprites
Static lights and rasterization only (no dynamic lights)
Flat meshes for hair, rather than 2D planes emulating hair movement
Lack of wind simulation on grass/foliage
Lack of reflections
I'm playing it on low settings at 30fps on my laptop that I usually just use for emulating old games and I'm still enjoying it.
Ryzen 5 5600H
Nvidia Gtx 1650
16gb ram
Its supposed to save time iterating since you dont have to spend hours baking lights each time you move something but you still need to do that anyways since consoles or AMD cards still suck at it do you need a backup.
>remember when hardware technical limitation fomented software artistic creativity
i won't say this is the main reason why modern devs are so shit, but it's up there
We have more than one game hitting 720p on a PS5 already. Devs are NOT competent enough to make more demanding games right now, if anything having to run on a shitty machine is a blessing. If they Jedi hits sub 720p on the strongest console it released on, imagine if that console was the baseline, instead of "the ultimate version".
reminder, all of this is because of Larian's idiotic couch co-op splitscreen that literally nobody in the entire world uses. The game itself can run on the series S perfectly fine, it's just running into issues when it has to handle 4 different player splitscreens. The entire release is not held back because of the Series S, it's held back because of one gameplay feature that less than 1% of the playerbase will ever use. Midrange PCs also completely crumble in 4 player splitscreen mode by the way.
Right, and that feature happens to run poorly on series S,
yeah but the point is that most people will not use this feature, yet the xbox version is held back just so that a tiny minority can play couch co-op splitscreen when the game would be perfectly playable for the 99% of people who just want to play it solo or with online multiplayer. I don't think a single person would have complained had Larian decided to simply state that splitscreen coop won't work on the series S, so the series S version will be shipped without it.
well in that case that was a huge blunder on Microsoft's part. It would have been infinitely better for them had BG3 been allowed to release at the same time as the PS5 version and the Series S simply had the splitscreen feature removed.
It's not a blunder because if they become lenient it sets a precedent. If one dev gets special privileges then all the rest will ask for the same and use the lucky dev as a reference. That then means devs can make up any excuse to exclude series s even if it's not a legitimate excuse just to be lazy. Microsoft sticking to their guns will make developers do their due diligence and make good ports with good optimization.
It is not a huge blunder. If they allow 1 studio to cut the corner, every single one will start shitting on series s. What they should've done is disable coop on xbox untill series s is ready.
True. We're still stuck with 2015 specs and EVEN THEN games often look like shit.
It's been a decade, and these
are still unrivaled.
Let that sink in. Ten years of """""""""""""progress""""""""""""""" and graphics are not only the same as before but in many cases worse. Except now demanding much higher specs and memory.
It's a scam. You were born just in time to experience an industrywide vidya scam.
It's only going to get worse. We're going to see more and more veteran game developers leave the industry as they age out and be replaced by people who only know how to follow flow chart development with engines like UE.
Engines like UE make game development easier but also make game more optimized by default.
If you don't trust zoomer developers to optimize well, then it's better that they use UE that optimizes as much as it can by default.
It's going to take a long time for Microsoft to discontinue the Series S and focus on Series X.
I can understand them wanting to deliver more affordable hardware, but when it results in a lacklustre game library by having to develop for two consoles, it raises those kinds of questions.
Why should series S be discontinued? As said many times before itt, the only issue bg3 has currently is splitscreen coop, which is laggy shit everywhere
You are acting as if this has happened before. BG3 is the only game so far that had to be delayed due to issues with the series s. And again, it's not because the game itself is a problem to run, after all, it's just the DoS2 engine which runs perfectly fine on series s. It's one specific game mode that fricks the series s because it doesn't have the ram to compute 4 different players at the same time in splitscreen co-op.
My nephew has a series s and it runs every game he wants to play flawlessly without issues. People are way too focused on one game which has issues but the developers have said they're progressing at a rapid pace on getting the issues resolved and have several engineers on it. Sure it's a weaker console and it'll take some getting used to but as far as the end user is concerned it's a perfectly fine way to play games at a wallet friendly entry price. I read online that it's the most popular console in Brazil right now because of high taxes on consoles making the series x/ps5 over $800. It has its place in the market. I'd be willing to bet that when baldurs gate 3 eventually does release on it it'll be perfectly fine.
it's actually hilarious just how much more powerful the series s is compared to the switch, yet every single one of these devs who would shit on the series s would never be caught dead saying anything remotely negative about the switch.
Theres so much negativity in gaming in general towards Xbox outright.
Everyone seems to have a complete hateboner for them. Like no matter what they do the media seems to find a way to spin it into a bad thing.
Like the recent one I can think of is that Xbox is heading to gamescom, though they said Starfield will not be playable there.
Bethesda games have never been playable at gamescom not even once.
But they completely forgot or never mentioned that PlayStation is completely skipping gamescom.
It was all about Xbox and Starfield not being playable.
it's actually hilarious just how much more powerful the series s is compared to the switch, yet every single one of these devs who would shit on the series s would never be caught dead saying anything remotely negative about the switch.
The absolute fricking victim complex you neanderthals have lmao. What games are being held back on the Switch? None of them because third parties don't even release games on the Switch. The whole reason why the Series S is getting dunked on is because these talentless devs need to have feature parity between the S/X and they're too moronic to lower the settings and reduce polygons and particle effects so that features like split screen can run on the S.
The irony is that the devs also are outright lying by saying "We don't want certain players to have fewer features than others" when they literally do that with the Switch version of OS2 where they dropped splitscreen
They are just lying to cover for not wanting to release on Xbox at the same time as Starfield. Balturds Fail would be fricking crushed by God Todd and they know it.
The lie is that they won't release the game with split screen disabled because "it would be unfair to the gamers". If Starfield wasn't getting released now, they'd release it on both X and S with split screen disabled (to fulfil the parity requirement) and then patch it in later on both platforms after Microsoft helps enabling it for the S.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You just glossed over the part where I mentioned that MS themselves are working with the devs to solve the issue they're having with the Series S version. If there were no issue that wouldn't be needed, so you're conspiracy theory implies MS is also lying. Just take your meds and stfu.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Try reading my post again, idiot.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I did, you're still ignoring the fact that MS has acknowledged the issue themselves and sent their own engineers to Larian Studios. They wouldn't be doing that if they were lying, you fricking moron.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Are you really this stupid? I'm saying that the lie is that they can't just release on S/X without the feature. If they wanted, they could just let people play without the stupid split screen, and patch it in three months later with Microsoft's help. >but but the parity requirement!
That's why they could just ship both S and X versions with the same features, that is SPLIT SCREEN MISSING ON BOTH, if they really wanted to release on Xbox at the same time as on PS5.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>they could just let people play without the stupid split screen, and patch it in three months later with Microsoft's help.
Split screen couch co-op was a massive selling point for DOS2 and is a massive selling point for BG3.
Launching without it would be worse than just delaying it until they can get it working.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Literally nobody gives a shit about this feature. They stripped it from the Switch version of Original Sin 2 without a second thought.
>Lazy devs just optimize better you need to work harder!!!
And then what actually happens is that devs just say frick it and either release a compromised version that runs like garbage or no version at all like the N64 and PS3. The whole "Uhhm the system isn't the problem YOU are!!" excuse has never worked and never will.
Not even a valid comparison. Ps3 required an entirely new tool base for ports. It was fundamentally different from anything else on the market. The series s is the exact same as the series x, ps5 and modern x86 PCs and uses the same graphics API as all windows games (directx). The only difference is the GPU is weaker and has less memory than the bigger consoles. That should be a minor learning curve for developers as opposed to having to redesign entire engines to work on the ps3 cell processor.
in this case, the devs really are the problem though. Also keep in mind that the PS5 and Series X are constantly getting releases that have huge performance issues. Those consoles were once advertized as 4k 60 fps machines and now there are countless of releases that run at like dynamic 1080p and 45-55 fps at best on the premium consoles. The series S isn't holding anything back, if anything, the series S is the reason why games aren't running even worse on PS5 and Series X by now. The only times those 2 consoles are getting a proper 1440p 60 fps game these days is if the game is also very well optimized on the series s.
This. People don't understand if the Series S is the true baseline the every game should run in 4K60 on the PS5 and XSX yet they don't. Imagine if these shitty devs didn't need to take the Series S into account. How badly would these games run? Again, FF 60fps mode is unplayable on the PS5 and drops to 720p in battles. The 30fps mode is around 1180 with terrible motion blur and FSR jaggies. The game was "custom" developed and released for the PS5 only. There is literally no excuse for it to run in sub 1440p resolution for any reason yet it does.
There are a bunch of "old gen" XBO games with 4K patches and fps updates that look better than most new gen games. Far Cry 5 is 4K60 and looks as good as any modern open world game except it is sharp and has a stable frame rate. Instead devs put in shitty effect most people won't even notice in most games and release a buggy, stuttering mess then pat themselves in the back.
>People don't understand if the Series S is the true baseline the every game should run in 4K60 on the PS5 and XSX yet they don't.
Because devs just crank up settings that scale badly for regular consoles, like having twice the render distance and twice more grass, which makes shit more demanding in an almost exponential scale. If they kept the same graphics shit would indeed run at 4K60fps.
The Xbox Series S was specifically sold as a console that "Dude, you won't even NEED to develop with it in mind! We've developed super advanced scaling technology that just makes the Series S render Series X games at lower fidelity for you!!!"
Turns out that was just PR bullshit and you 100% need to develop with the Series S as your baseline.
It was created based on the assumption that devs would target 4k on the Series X. That's why the CPU is identical but the RAM and GPU aren't as a lower res/graphics settings requires less VRAM.
what are you even talking about? The Series S version literally is just a scaled down version of the Series X. BG 3 is the only release so far that has a very unique issue with the series S.
Xbox has already shown the tech which significantly reduces vram requirements but no dev is using it yet. Only Microsoft flight sim uses it so far and that runs fine on series s what a shocker. In fact cross gen has held us back so much that the first game to utilise the tech on PC is rachet and clank from a week ago.
the original plan was that the Series X was a 4k machine and the Series S is a 1080p machine. Now the Series X and PS5 have become 1080p machines and the series S has fallen appropriately behind. The main issue absolutely is developer incompetence. The Series S suffers the most from it, but the PS5 and Series X are also constantly getting terribly optimized releases these days.
4K was never going to be a viable thing for PS5 and Series X, it's way too much of a resource hog for way too little pay-off. Rendering at native 4K is just stupid as frick when you could be targeting a lower resolution with pseudo 4k trickery, 99% of console users won't even care if it means higher fidelity in stuff like lighting and character models etc
i ran this shot just fine when it was in EA on my 1050ti i5 4570 shitheap build with 8gb ddr3 built from a recycled office pc. the series S is a lot more powerful than that. something sounds fricky to me.
the game itself can run on the fricking steam deck. It's purely the splitscreen mode that is the reason for the delay on xbox. That mode runs like ass on anything but high end PCs.
The devs said it runs fine on series s in the single player mode. It's the coop splitscreen mode which is having issues because apparently it requires a lot of vram. So they're working on optimising the game to bring the vram requirements down but it's causing a delay for the xbox port. It's more of an optimization problem than strictly a hardware problem.
>One of the biggest game devs in the world with infinite resources and money are gonna make a game more impressive than one who had literally just released their first ever AAA title and who usually makes crowdfunded indie titles.
while I do hate modern devs for being incompetent at optimization, it is fricking moronic that Microsoft would release a game console that was SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POWERFUL THAN THE CONSOLE THEY RELEASED 3 YEARS EARLIER.
It really isn't though. In terms of performance and efficiency it's a very powerful machine for the power it draws compared to the one x and it also has a vastly more powerful cpu but the raw gpu compute is a bit less. But it's capable of more than what the one x was capable of because it uses the newer RDNA 2 architecture with mesh shaders and whatnot which modern game engines will utilise. If a dev wanted to really push the boundaries of each machine and built their game accordingly, the series s would have much better results than the one x.
>games are looking worse, running worse and getting bigger filesizes as time goes on >instead of optimising everyone coasts off SSDs and DLSS >reaching 60fps is still considered a herculean feat for consoles in 2023
reminder the PS3 had 256MB of ram. Modern consoles and PCs have 60 times that amount or more and are struggling to run shit. No game should ever recquire more than 8GB of ram or 50GB of disk space
That is a huge part of the issue, especially more so with some of the PC ports we have seen this year.
Developers are now relying too much on those short cuts instead of optimizing their game, like Remnant 2 developers straight out saying their game isn't designed to be run with DLSS off.
They also expect PC users just to brute force shit using high-end hardware, but fricking Jedi Survivor couldn't even maintain 60 FPS at 1440p at launch on PC, and this was with a 3090.
The truth is that except for some simulators with complex physics or other niche games, today's games are not particularly more complex than games from 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, chances are they are even simpler, today's systems, mechanics even AIs often seem more simplistic than what guys did on hardware that didn't have 5% of today's processing power.
So pretty much all the blame for a game not running is because of how it looks. In other words, they only need to change the graphics of their pieces of shit because the logic would work even on a $20 calculator.
>taking the word of a fricking marketer
Granted, the Series S having only 8 Gigs of unified memory for games might be an issue if devs weren't better at using the SSDs in the new consoles to get more granular about culling and such >If it didn't exist they would actually be using their modern and powerful hardware
Anon, that's not how graphics work.
You have different quality meshes and textures for different hardware SKUs, at least assuming your game is going on PC as well.
You realize this, yes? There is no reason they can't just make lower quality assets for Series S and then keep using the higher quality ones for SeX and PS5.
Or better yet, use some of those fancy new hardware features that Microsoft and Sony liked to talk about leading up to release:
Geometry Engine, Sampler Feedback Streaming and such
You should absolutely understand the technical limitations when you start the project. This is like saying I'm gonna start to design and build a car that defies the laws of physics.
Jedi Survivor does that and it runs at a locked 30 FPS on the S. And it's a much more demanding game. Larian are just capping to avoid releasing the same day as Starfield on Xbox.
That actually seems sort of reasonable.
Though I imagine 4-way splitscreen could also be an issue if all 4 players are on different parts of the map
It's like 8 player Smash with Ice Climbers on that mirror stage in Smash Ultimate
At the absolute upper limit, you may run into either memory issues. But Imagine, given the min spec GPU is a GTX 970, there shouldn't be TOO much issue gettig it on a Series S
If they REALLY wanted to release on Xbox they could have limited the max distance between the players in split screen with some visible or invisible wall or some bullshit (on both X and S since Microsoft requires parity), and patch out this limitation later. Or even release on both X and S with split screen coming in a later patch for both. It's not a critical feature to launch the game. But no, because they won't risk going toe to toe against Todd.
>Or even release on both X and S with split screen coming in a later patch for both. It's not a critical feature to launch the game. But no, because they won't risk going toe to toe against Todd.
I do agree that they recognize that an Xbox version would be sent out to die if it came out same time with Starfield
And it probably is for the best: It comes out later during a dry period, maybe even on Game Pass, but far less buggy than even the PS5 version
No, the problem is the Series S has no fricking memory. It has 10GB of SHARED RAM. But 2GB of this is dedicated to the OS. So it has 8GB of RAM in total. This isn't 8GB of RAM and another 8GB of VRAM. This is 8GB of RAM used by both the CPU and GPU.
Baldurs Gate 3 has a minimum requirement of 8GB of Ram and 4GB of VRAM. Explain how you can get a game that requires 12GB of RAM in total to run on a console that only has 8GB of RAM.
PC has a lot of overhead to deal with. Consoles are extremely light weight in comparison.
Baldurs Gate 3 uses 5-6GB of RAM on PC on lowest settings. So we still need to fit 10 GB of RAM usage onto a machine with 8GB of RAM.
And split screen multiplayer uses a lot more RAM than 6GB. Closer to 6-9GB depending on where the players are. And split screen is what is stopping the game from coming to the Xbox.
Like I said, if they really wanted to release on Xbox, they could release by disabling split screen on both S and X until a future patch. But they won't. Because they're scared of Starfield.
On BOTH CONSOLES, can you not read you stupid frick? What isn't allowed is disabling on S but not on X, you FRICKING IDIOT
9 months ago
Anonymous
>We've run into some technical issues in developing the Xbox port that have stopped us feeling 100% confident in announcing it until we're certain we've found the right solutions - specifically, we've been unable to get split-screen co-op to work to the same standard on both Xbox Series X and S, which is a requirement for us to ship. >which is a requirement for us to ship.
Why would Larian say split screen co-op is a requirement for them to ship the game to Xbox then?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Are you just trolling now? They say it's a requirement on the S because they want to ship split screen on the X. Microsoft says if you ship a feature on X you must ship it on S. Larian wilfully aren't considering the option of disabling split screen on both S and X and just shipping the game like that. Do you think Microsoft mandates feature parity with the fricking Sony PlayStation 5? Do you have brain damage?
9 months ago
Anonymous
bro your reading comprehension is bad
9 months ago
Anonymous
The Series S and X must have feature parity with EACH OTHER. They do not need feature parity with PS5 or PC.
The splitscreen co-op is not working on Series S. This means that if they were to cut it to ship the game on Series S, they would ALSO have to cut that same feature on Series X.
And evidently, they don't want to do that. So instead of releasing a version of BG3 with no splitscreen or only 2-play splitscreen on Xbox, they'd rather just work on it and release that version later.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Larian has literally said they will not release the game without splitscreen as they do not believe it is fair to release an objectively inferior version of the game on only one platform.
It wont be released on the Xbox until they can get splitscreen working. If that proves impossible, then it simply will not be released on the Xbox.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>If that proves impossible, then it simply will not be released on the Xbox.
I doubt it's impossible, but yeah, I remember them saying as much
That being said, what's more unfair: one group of players not getting the same version as another or one group of players not getting the game at all?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Larian has literally said they will not release the game without splitscreen as they do not believe it is fair to release an objectively inferior version of the game on only one platform.
It wont be released on the Xbox until they can get splitscreen working. If that proves impossible, then it simply will not be released on the Xbox.
WAIT NO FRICK OFF
THE SWITCH VERSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 2 DOESNT HAVE SPLITSCREEN
9 months ago
Anonymous
You're dumb if you believe this bullshit excuse. It's to avoid releasing on the same day as Starfield.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I just put it together because it occurred to me that they don't even apply this logic to past games like ORiginal Sin 2. So it makes no sense that they'd apply it to their biggest new release that they'd want to recoup costs on as quickly as possible
I wonder if Starfield as multi-plat, would they have delayed BG3 on Playstation as well?
Baldurs Gate 3 uses 5-6GB of RAM on PC on lowest settings. So we still need to fit 10 GB of RAM usage onto a machine with 8GB of RAM.
And split screen multiplayer uses a lot more RAM than 6GB. Closer to 6-9GB depending on where the players are. And split screen is what is stopping the game from coming to the Xbox.
Consoles are not that lightweight anymore, but PC still has the issue of having to copy data to the RAM that Consoles don't have to deal with. Directstorage 1.2 was suppose to fix this but lmao i guess.
If Ganker is to be believed, it's all just shit developers who don't know anything (obvious Ganker are experts on this subject). Why did we even advance past the Playstation anyway? All games could just be optimized until they work on it if Ganker is to be believed.
>no argument
I don't blame you, the Xbox brand is indefensible at this point. Imagine missing out on the game of the generation, Baldur's Gate 3, because of MS's moronic commitment to feature parity lmao. Couldn't be me.
Like I said, if they really wanted to release on Xbox, they could release by disabling split screen on both S and X until a future patch. But they won't. Because they're scared of Starfield.
Except the dev said its coming to xbox. Xbox players aren't missing out on anything. Meanwhile i can't say the same about playstation and starfield. Xbox players will be playing BG3 in a few months. Playstation players will never, ever see another Bethesda RPG again including starfield.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>never, ever see another Bethesda RPG
Fine by me, they take a decade+ to develop, are buggy as shit, and are dumbed down for morons. Oh, and let's not forget the 30fps cap on consoles. I'll take a few months of console exclusivity of the greatest CRPG ever made over Bethesda's hiking simulators.
9 months ago
Anonymous
This post makes no sense but I bet you thought it sounded clever in your head. We're at sub room temperature levels of IQ here.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The Bethestard struggles with basic reading comprehension.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I'll take only BG3 over both starfield and BG3
Was your reply. Makes no logical sense. Please think before you type.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not interested in Starfield and Bethesda RPGs as a whole, for the reasons stated. I made it perfectly clear, you're just moronic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Of course you're not, because they're not coming to your platform. Common occurrence with fanboys such as yourself.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, and I'm sure you didn't jump on the ff16 hate bandwagon the moment it was confirmed ps5 exclusive, right?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Why would I. I've never played a final fantasy except a bit when they gave the 7 remake away for free on PS+ years ago on PS4. I have no opinions on the new one.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>not on your platform
Wrong. >Common occurrence with fanboys such as yourself
lol weren't you just gloating over the fact that future Bethesda games won't be on PS?
This might be the stumbling block the series s needs. We know from the devs the xbox advanced technologies group is working with them to resolve this issue so maybe Microsoft could learn a lesson or two from this experience and change their development tools to accommodate for it or refine them, or even develop new tech which assists devs with these kinds of issues.
>cdprojekt can release witcher 3 on shitty tablet >larian can't even make bg3 work on toaster pc
seems like they are just bad at making games and don't want to admit
the game mag he was involved with was pretty good. they used to give honest scores on 1-10 scale, like 6/10 was a pretty good game. i remember them giving god hand 6/10 and players choice award for best game of that month lol.
He seems like an alright guy but I'll never forget that one Q&A segment from Pelaaja where he said that the reason they didn't review PC games at the time was because PC doesn't have game, it has software.
This was in like the sixth gen days when PC gaming was perpetually "a few years away from dying".
The people who demand splitscreen are the same sort of people who buy the Series S. Cheap frickers who think they should be able to spent less money but get the same experience as everyone else.
how are you going to play online coop in a friend's living room, moron? are you going to set up a pseudo-LAN party just to play some coop? ffs, I hope you're just baiting.
Yeah it's not hard to do that. Friend of mine takes his Series S to my place, hooks it up on my Monitor and then we play stuff together while being in the same room.
Yea. Series S is only $250. It's not unreasonable to have two of them on separate screens in the same house.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine wasting $250 because you can't carry a literally Switch sized device from one screen to the other.
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes, it is, because if there was splitscreen you wouldn't have to know ahead of time that you want to play some fricking coop and prepare by bringing a separate console, having a second monitor/TV ready etc., you'd just be in the vicinity of ONE console and it would be an option to play coop whenever you want. there is simply no way you are this much of a corpo cumguzzler.
they got rid of split screen because publishers are hoping to sell extra copies that way*. it has nothing to do with technical difficult or performance. lots of games pulled split screen off with zero issues during 6th gen and still some in early 7th gen. then suddenly WE LOST THE TECHNOLOGY at the same time as every other aspect of gaming went into hypergreed mode over the course of just one generation, the 7th. holy shit.
*of course the exact opposite of the truth - in reality splitscreen was a huge selling point for games because it means you can try the game at your buddy's house without taking away from his own play-time. then you go home and think "damn, if only I had my own copy of the game I could continue playing it right now". split screen lead to more people trying out a game and more people talking about it and of course more people buying it. but publishers are so fricking moronic, they still pretend that piracy reduces sales and wasting budget on copy protection generates sales, a decade after the former was debunked by the EU study. (the former is the premise for the latter)
>durr just optimize it grafix aren't everything
if they followed your advice, you, the very same homosexuals, would be posting screenshots of the shitgarbage looking console version going OH NO NO NO NO right now instead
We'll know what's up once the ps5 version launches. If it runs like shit on that then it puts a lot into context. It would be funny if series s ends up performing better than the ps5 version after this big optimization effort for it.
Part of the issue is that games do not sell on Xbox. The money comes from Microsoft subsidizing everyone's copy via Game Pass but adding games to Game Pass on day 1 kills profits because there are consumers that refuse to buy something for $60 or $70 that others are getting for much less and they can still get a lot of Game Pass money later on anyway so it's better to have more initial sales up front to maximize profits.
So people can cry that Larian should optimize the game, but in all honestly why should anyone waste money on optimizing a game on a platform where it won't sell because everyone waits for Microsoft to buy their copy via Game Pass instead? Larian made a fuss about it and Microsoft sent a team over to port the game for them so that Microsoft could save face, it's not the first time Microsoft has paid for ports either, they did it with Nier Automata too and I wouldn't be surprised if Square's recent commitment to bring more games to Xbox is because Microsoft is going to pay for all those ports, potentially having their internal team do all of the work while Square collects free money.
No, I think that Larian went "Yeah we had to push this back because the Series S SUCKS. No idea when it'll be finished" and Microsoft sent over a team to go get it finished to stop it from being a PS5 exclusive and a talking point that Snoys would use for the entire generation.
>Nobody really wants to think of [optimization, the end user experience] when you start making your game, when everything is possible
nuDevs, everyone. thanks for the zero good games people like this have ever created.
>Corpos refuse to do proper talent scouting or offer competitive pay+benefits, inducing catastrophic brain drain across the industry >Actual programmers overwhelmingly trend towards going independent or just leaving the industry entirely for web dev jobs
wtf bros why are games so unoptimized i bet diversity did this
I just bought a Series S, how fricked am I? Before you answer, put yourself in my shoes and imagine the Series S costs you 2.5k$, and the series X costs 3.9k$, and a modern gaming PC costs about 13k$ for 2020 parts. Would you have spent that extra 1.4k$ on the Series X?
I had the Xbox one for over a decade and never had any issues. If the Series S is stronger then I don't think I'll have any issues. I'm assuming you're one of those gamers who blow thousands of dollars on top of the line hardware
Dude ignore most of the people here. Most of them are console warring homosexuals. I have a good gaming pc, a ps5 and I've had a series s for a while and besides a bump down in graphics it's fine. Many seem to forgot that not everyone games at 4k. I've seen someone setup a ps5 with a 1080p plasma tv from like 2010. It doesn't matter. Be happy that microsoft is forcing these crappy devs to support the system even through all these twitter fits.
Nah your fine. Most people are barely moving to 4k if at all. unless you play the latest and most intensive goyslop you really won't feel a huge difference.
Cool. I figured as much but everyone shitting on S had me worried I made the wrong choice. I should've considered everyone here is mostly extremely spoiled gamers from Pc "masterrace" that can't pretend 60fps and above is real and matters
You're good tbh. Apparently there are more SeS in the wild than SeX. Devs wouldn't be able to cut it out completely even if it actually were an issue. MS certainly isn't going to drop support for it. It'd be a huge PR shitstorm. Probably even worse than the X1 reveal.
>Before you answer, put yourself in my shoes and imagine the Series S costs you 2.5k$, and the series X costs 3.9k$, and a modern gaming PC costs about 13k$
Jesus do you live in Cambodia?
Brazil. Minimum wage here is 300 dollars a month, and there's a 100-200% import tax. For example, if I want to buy a drone, I'd pay 350$ for the price, and then a 750$ price to import it into my country. Thus, not only are salaries smaller but also everything is extremely overpriced.
The idea is for it to force people to buy from their own country and support the local economy, but it doesn't work very well since literally everything technological is imported so we are get fricked all the same.
why not put tax on non tech stuff, is Brazil making electronics at all? I guarantee politicians know its fricking people over but still keep it cause it makes them money.
And do what else? The cheapest bike would be 1k$, a good one 5k$. Cheapest car? 40k$ for something from 2010 with two seats. Travel? 6k$ to go to any country outside of South America, 4k$ even inside South America.
In Brazil we just don't drag it out. There's a turd there, and we have to eat it. We don't chew, we just swallow. That's how we survive in Brazil. Just swallow the shit and don't think about it
As for you getting a Series S. I think that's fine. I've been using a Series S for the past 2.5 years. Money was tight. I've recently upgraded to a PS5, but I question the wisdom of that decision. The S was "fine". Sure the higher resolution and ray tracing effects are nice, but they aren't really necessary to enjoy games.
>And do what else?
Save as much money as I could and get the frick out of that shithole by whatever means necessary, for one.
Literally nobody gives a shit about this feature. They stripped it from the Switch version of Original Sin 2 without a second thought.
>Literally nobody gives a shit about this feature.
lol
lmao even
just because you don't have any friends to play with doesn't mean the rest of us are playing solo.
You need 50k$ minimum to even be considered to be allowed to live in any better country. You need to have skills that will be valuable to the country you're moving to. If you're married, or if you have kids you have better chances of getting in, but by that point you have no chance of saving money. Your English needs to be good too. Getting 50K$ takes about...on minimum wage, it would take about 18 years. So you need to be a doctor or something and save up for several years to even be allowed to live in another country.
Sounds like you should be saving your money to get out of that dogshit country instead of blowing it on xboxes and other shit, but I have zero real frame of reference for you as I'm an independently (decently) wealthy white dude living in america
9 months ago
Anonymous
I am currently saving money to travel to Japan. I will save for 3 years making so that I can spend it all in 2 weeks even travelling on a budget. Fun innit?
>have to take limitations into account from the beginning >PS5 and SX versions of everything still run 720p 15fps
Are consolegays smart enough to see the issue? No, of course not.
>oh no the console is too weak and shit we need more graphics, we can't use pc low presets and limit FPS to 30 because we just can't ok >meanwhile the best games of all time run on toasters
I don't get it
The problem is the couch co-op split screen which takes a substantial amount of RAM to do and the SS only has like 8 GB of RAM. Even if they jack the settings to lowest of low and render it at 720p they're still going to run into RAM issues just from the engine overhead.
There aren't any "smart ways" around limited memory. It's just a combination of good texture usage/lack of texture bloat, good level/world design which alleviates the VRAM issues and texture compression. That's literally all it is. This isn't the era of 16-bit where you can get away with those sorts of magic.
That's what I mean. My point is there's lots of dumb ways to waste VRAM during a given scene and some smart ways about making sure you only load in what you actually need.
For instance, have you ever wondered why the explorable version of Garreg Mach in 3 houses runs like shit so badly, even compared to the battle maps? It's becauase they have 3 versions of it loaded in at any given moment while you're exploring, I believe this is for three different times of day?
>they released bg3 on pc before starfield drops >they will release it on ps5 around the same time starfield drops to capitalize on snoys >they will release it sometime after starfield dies down on xbox next year
the developers are just being smart from a financial standpoint
No point in rivaling a giant like Bethesda
MS is gonna have to ditch it in the not too distant future and make SX only games
Install base for this gen is roughly 80:20 SS:SX
The series S is stupidly successful compared to the series X from a sales standpoint.
People have said "Microsoft should only have had the Series X" but that would have fricked them up in the short-term which would have fricked them even ahrder in the long term.
People assume Series S buyers would all have a Series X right now instead if the SS didn't exist but that's not true. Ignoring that you'd be trading 5 Series S consoles for 2 Series X consoles in terms of GPU transistor count, you'd also be encouraging scalpers to grab the SX for the handful of people who want one and you'd basically force both hard-core players and casuals/parents to be fighting for the same hardware.
And if Microsoft failed to build a decent installbase early on, then more and more third parties would just skip them like they did last gen. Early-gen advantage snowballs into domination later in the gen, save for severe price-cuts like the PS3 took on.
While Xbox hasn't matched Playstation's installbase, they've got a more significant bit of leverage than they would if they had only sold 14 million Series X units instead of 20 million Series S/X combined
sounds like shitty devs to me
except this is like the 5th dev team that run into issues with the series s
sounds like 5 shitty devs to me
Yeah that's why the PS5 verison is coming out a month later
can't wait, one of the best playstation exclusives of the year
time* console* exclusive
can't wait one of the best playstation exclusives of the year
timed* console* exclusive
Doesn't it kind of make sense? Technically, it is a PS *console* exclusive, PC is not a console.
Yes but it is deceptive marketing
I am not sure why it's deceptive, considering that it's straight to the point, it would have been deceptive if the trailer didn't mention the game coming out on PC, but then they would release an article on their website and at the very bottom they would say that it is also coming to PC, but even then I don't think that you need a trailer to tell you whether it's coming to PC or not. As for deceptive marketing in general, it would be ideal if we didn't have to resort to deceptive marketing, but companies aren't made to think like you and I.
No. They're both computers. The difference is PS has only one store run by Sony.
>The difference is PS has only one store run by Sony.
PC gamers only want one store ran by West coast democrat donors. PS has physical.
PC has it too. I don't know if you know, but you can copy data to your favorite media. Yes, on consoles you are not free to copy and paste data, but it is because they are PCs whose access is forbidden even to the owner of them.
Piracy is not buying games.
I'll get a shit load more of out gaming through piracy than buying the same decade old ports every few years through your shitty locked "online services". My files will last til my death, you'll be paying a subscription til yours.
Right they can only work on one version at a time and threw the S under the bus as a excuse even though the game will release just fine after they're donde with PS5 version.
You can't forget alot of devs are unabashedly biased towards Sony for some reason. There disingenuous at best
Its not just devs that are biased! All the consumers are too! Their bias has led to playstation dominating the console market (not the handheld market tendies) while xbox grapples with this world wide conspiracy against them.
>LOL people just don't understand that we DON'T want to do the jobs we are paid for
>It's easier to just have players buy a better GPU than to optimize our games
We should all be thankful the SeriesS exists and that Microsoft puts their future down on its release rules. I am scares to think of how shitty and unplayable this game would be if they didn't HAVE to optimize it.
And do you think they are optimizing anything? There's a reason there's basically no current gen title that looks better than RDR2. Devs are just doing the bare minimum to run on Series S then cranking stuff that scales like shit for regular consoles. If it didn't exist they would actually be using their modern and powerful hardware, but since they are limited by this piece of shit that's what you get, a bunch of last gen titles with 4x the viewing distance.
Soon enough games will probably just skip Xbox entirely at launch. It's a Game Pass machine and games don't sell on it anyway, there's not really much incentive unless Microsoft is paying them to port their games.
Rockstar spent 8 years making RDR2, any games on PC that are more polished? Stop pretending random devs could achieve better than fricking Rockstar if the S didn't exist
Graphically yes, they could. The new hardware is over 5x more powerful than last gen, again, Sony does it.
>There's a reason there's basically no current gen title that looks better than RDR2
lol, there is like 10 games that look better than it.
name them
Cyberpunk with RT
Metro Exodus with RT
Dead Space 2023
Demons Souls
Ratcher and Clank Rift Apart
Returnal
FF16
Horizon Forbidden West
RDR2 has good scale but it's tech is very much 2013 era
That's 8 games not 10.
Notice how they either aren't on Series S or use features the Series S doesn't support.
snoy moment
moron moment
Cry me a river, there are people making games for the fricking SNES, you'll be able to manage a turn-based CRPG at 30fps on a Xbox One X ffs.
because they are morons like you
Except later they regret their words and those devs are just incompetents, not like in other cases.
>regret
Sony had to pay Valve for Orange Box, and it was handled by another studio. Gabe was right, it was a waste of everybody's time, but at least he was profiting.
Most devs are shitty at optimization. You wanna know why so many games are ballooning the shit out of hard drive space? Because compression requires optimization, and moderns devs have just gotten used to just shoving shit onto a game with zero accountability.
that's not really true. a lot of the move towards uncompressed assets happened during 8th gen when memory was (for a while) no concern and the CPU was the biggest bottleneck. decompressing audio cost performance so leaving much or all of the audio uncompressed as actually a form of optimization, specifically for 8th gen consoles. of course it never made any sense on PC and it certainly doesn't make sense on 9th gen.
>Communications director
not a game developer
not even a real job
>not a game developer
He works with Remedy Engineers daily. No one is more qualified than them to speak on Series S being trash. That is definitely something that has been communicated to him. Thats his wheel house.
no, his wheel house is spinning the truth into lies to make the company look better.
Remedy doesn't have a parent company.
It isn't a corporation. It is a games studio. He literally has no reason to speak on the Series S as it isn't his studio or game thats having issues with Series S. If anything Remedy is showing sympathy with a different studio to send a message to Microsoft to stop releasing such underpowered piles of garbage.
The Series S is much more powerful than the fricking Deck, if these games run on that shitheap they should run on Series S, unless the devs have some other angle.
This is the most obvious self-report.
Series S is a console, not a PC. The APIs for PC are intentionally on a higher level of abstraction for compatibility reasons. With console that isn't the case. You can't just build a game for the high end and then scale it down for the Series S.
You need to do a lot of extra work to get it to run efficiently on there. It also has some very obvious bottlenecks such as low RAM bandwidth and footprint. The RAM footprint situation will literally make your game crash outright once its exceeded, OR it will just not load in the assets at the quality level needed.
This is the exact thing that happened with TLOU remake on PC.
Next-gen game engines shouldn't get bogged down trying to be compatible with garbage hardware like that. Its holding back technology in a wider sense.
>You can't just build a game for the high end and then scale it down for the Series S.
You fricking moron. Series S has literally the same CPU as Series X. Same clock speeds, everything. The GPU is from the same family just clocked much lower with much fewer cores. So yes, you can literally just fricking scale down the resolution and the textures, and that's what developers have been doing exactly.
Software illiterate morons should be barred from posting sometimes.
Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores within a certain amount of cycles just to do internal rendering that prepares data that needs to be available every frame. This is regardless of resolution.
What if you need more RAM? Both bandwidth and footprint?
What can Series S do to make up for that?
>Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores within a certain amount of cycles just to do internal rendering
And you call others software illiterate, kek
So you can't use the GPU to prepare data? How do you think devs get around certain memory bandwidth bottlenecks?
No game has ever had an engine that has such high and exact requirements. Ratchet and Clank was made as a full PS5 exclusive and can still scale to potatoes after being ported to PC. Also 90% of games just use UE4/5 which also doesn't have such crazy exact requirements. Just shut the frick up.
>Okay so what if the rendering tech needs exactly 26 cores
You should probably not develop your tech in a way that scales that poorly. What, are you making monolith Shaders for every character too?
If your shaders or asset streaming are so intense that you need 26 cores MINIMUM to render an image at a reasonable 30 fps, then your game better look better than god because I guarantee you you're probably wasting resources on shit that doesn't matter.
>What if you need more RAM
Uh, create lower-size assets?
>Both bandwidth and footprint?
Sampler Feedback Streaming + DirectStorage?
When left to their own devices devs will go for 720p 20 fps on the ps5, so yes they should be held back. With the series s as a baseline you can go for a more powerful console for more frames. With the series x as a baseline all you'll get is low frames and no other options available.
>When left to their own devices devs will go for 720p 20 fps on the ps5, so yes they should be held back.
I don't know of a single game that caps out at that on PS5. Care to give me an example? And no I don't want to talk about glitchy special modes with VRR, PS4 software in BC or some random performance mode with broken resolution scaling. I am talking about a game that cannot perform better than 720p 20fps no matter what mode you have activated.
Jedi Survivor aims for 60 FPS but renders at something like 45 FPS with screen tearing and an internal resolution of 648p
But that is nowhere near the highest the game can run. In the resolution mode it runs a lot more consistent and at a lot higher resolution.
Sure. But we aren't arguing whether or not a game 'has' done it we are arguing whether it can be done or not. And besides Rift Apart is mostly based on last-gen tech with some things bolted on like ray tracing and a larger amount of portal jumping sequences due to the SSD allowing for it.
The insomniac engine is amazing but it hasn't really left PS4 tech behind just yet. But it is making strides to do so as we see in Spidey 2. They are iterating on it clearly.
>You should probably not develop your tech in a way that scales that poorly. What, are you making monolith Shaders for every character too?
Why not? If it isn't made to be played anywhere else, I don't see an issue.
>If your shaders or asset streaming are so intense that you need 26 cores MINIMUM to render an image at a reasonable 30 fps, then your game better look better than god because I guarantee you you're probably wasting resources on shit that doesn't matter.
Don't worry it looks better than god, thats why.
>Uh, create lower-size assets?
Okay but what if the visual style stops being viable then?
>Sampler Feedback Streaming + DirectStorage?
Series X also uses that. So you can't use it to make up for it when its already being used in the first place.
>Why not? If it isn't made to be played anywhere else, I don't see an issue.
Because it's bad engineering. Good engineering gives you room to adjust things while you're working, which means things should be at least a bit scalable and a bit modular.
This is like saying "I have 8 Gigs of VRAM, so I'll just make one super huge mesh+texture file that is 8 gigs large"
It's a bad idea because you're basically assuming that nothing will go wrong, that every machine you play on will be perfect or that you'll never need to re-use this code for something else.
Sony sort of pays for this in some ways to this day wherein the API on their games doesn't scale to more powerful hardware, so the best they can do is to literally turn off entire CUs when the PS5 or PS4 Pro needs to run a base-PS4 game.
Making your tech modular, reusable and scalable is both cheaper and more useful in the long-term than customized software that fits only one piece of technology
>Don't worry it looks better than god, thats why.
That's not true given that some of the best looking games around still were designed for 4 GB GPUs
>Okay but what if the visual style stops being viable then?
That has not been true since the PS2 era. The PS2/Xbox/Game Cube were where every art-style became viable on console hardware
>Series X also uses that. So you can't use it to make up for it when its already being used in the first place.
SFS is not being used in most Xbox games tho. It's a software solution you need to integrate into your engine, it's not 'On' by default or anything
>It's a bad idea because you're basically assuming that nothing will go wrong, that every machine you play on will be perfect or that you'll never need to re-use this code for something else.
You need a cut-off point anyway though. If you don't set a cut-off point then you'll spend the rest of eternity optimizing unrealistic builds that should be left behind.
>Sony sort of pays for this in some ways to this day wherein the API on their games doesn't scale to more powerful hardware, so the best they can do is to literally turn off entire CUs when the PS5 or PS4 Pro needs to run a base-PS4 game.
This is for backward compatibility. The games scale upward just fine. It's downward they have a problem because they optimize their games to use as many resources as possible to satiate the ever-increasing complexity and demands needed for new games tech.
>That's not true given that some of the best looking games around still were designed for 4 GB GPUs
But not the actual best-looking games though. Which is why we are seeing games using PS4 tech like TLOU remastered, or Rift Apart being completely unplayable on 4GB GPUs.
What games are you even talking about that run at the intended experience on a 4GB gpu?
>That has not been true since the PS2 era
That's not true at all. They still have to make calculations for every game where they determine given the general camera position, which assets need to be loaded in when and at what quality. If they don't have enough time to engineer around those constraints then the visual style stops being viable.
>SFS is not being used in most Xbox games tho. It's a software solution you need to integrate into your engine, it's not 'On' by default or anything
But that isn't what this is about. It's about whether or not Series S can use it to alleviate its memory bottlenecks not present in Seris X. But it can't do that if it's already in use in Series X to alleviate even bigger bottlenecks.
You realize the Xbox runs on DirectX, same as PC?
And we KNOW that BG3 uses DX, even if it is 11 instead of Xbox's 12U
Xbox and PC use the same API, an API we KNOW that BG3 supports
>You realize the Xbox runs on DirectX, same as PC?
It uses a special version of DX12U. It gives devs more access.
>And we KNOW that BG3 uses DX, even if it is 11 instead of Xbox's 12U
>Xbox and PC use the same API, an API we KNOW that BG3 supports
But BG3 supporting those APIs high level is not enough to getting a game to run smoothly. In general, games nowadays need a lot of RAM to make sure the right data has as low latency to the GPU cores. And if you shrink that below what is necessary then it's a massive problem that demands enormous amounts of engineering effort to make it run. It sounds like they could ship it if they cut the split-screen functionality but Microsoft won't let them.
>It uses a special version of DX12U. It gives devs more access.
Sure but, even with DX12's existing changes from DX11, it's not SO different
>But BG3 supporting those APIs high level is not enough to getting a game to run smoothly
Agreed
> In general, games nowadays need a lot of RAM to make sure the right data has as low latency to the GPU cores
Agreed
>And if you shrink that below what is necessary then it's a massive problem that demands enormous amounts of engineering effort to make it run
Yes, but the requirements for BG3 on PC min-spec are a GTX970 (4 Gigs of VRAM) and 8 gigs of normal RAM. And while BG3 does have a lot of persistence in its environments, I run BG3 on my laptop where I don't even have 2 Gigs of RAM available when I start the game up (I do have 4 Gigs of VRAM tho)
>It sounds like they could ship it if they cut the split-screen functionality but Microsoft won't let them.
They can't cut split-screen from JUST the Series S, but they could cut it from both versions if they wanted. The parity-mandate only applies between the two Xbox SKUs, not between Xbox and PS5
>Sure but, even with DX12's existing changes from DX11, it's not SO different
It is different enough that it demands a lot of engineering to get certain features within the rendering budget.
>I run BG3 on my laptop where I don't even have 2 Gigs of RAM available when I start the game up (I do have 4 Gigs of VRAM tho)
Right but the issue with Series S is the split-screen situation as far as I understand. And the environment persistence is truly stressed in that mode.
>they could cut it from both versions if they wanted
You might be right. But if I was Larian I would be really fricking pissed if I had to do that. They would have to degrade their relationship with the player because the platform holder has some stringent rules. I'm positive the only reason they are being so vocal about it in public is because they want the rules to change.
Pic-related is just not acceptable performance. People need to stop talking about whether or not a game is running at all and start focusing on the quality of the experience.
>It is different enough that it demands a lot of engineering to get certain features within the rendering budget.
I appreciate that. But it's not insurmountable. Tho, I imagine that DX12 hasn't overtaken DX11 yet is maybe proof of that severity of differences
>Right but the issue with Series S is the split-screen situation as far as I understand. And the environment persistence is truly stressed in that mode.
I would imagine, yeah. I don't think it would be easy, for the record
>You might be right. But if I was Larian I would be really fricking pissed if I had to do that. They would have to degrade their relationship with the player because the platform holder has some stringent rules. I'm positive the only reason they are being so vocal about it in public is because they want the rules to change.
The rules aren't going to change because that would frick up Microsoft's relationship with the players
Beyond that, I'm sort of suspect that this is about the players. I wager that the vast VAST majority of multiplayer done with ORiginal Sin 2 was online rather than split-screen. And we KNOW that they didn't put it into all versions of the game (they omitted it for the Switch version).
So the question for me is why wouldn't they just release a version of the game without split-screen and then patch it in later?
>So the question for me is why wouldn't they just release a version of the game without split-screen and then patch it in later?
I'm guessing because they decided the extra resources would be better spent elsewhere and then they could give it the full attention it needs when they are done with the PC and PS5 versions. I also imagine it has to do with the Xbox version simply being a lower priority since it almost 100% certainly will be the lowest-selling version of the game.
This seems reasonable to me
And, shitposting aside, I do think that the current console version coming out around the same time as Starfield (which is Xbox exclusive) makes an Xbox version also seem like it would normally go to odds with another big RPG that is on a subscription service would probably hurt any potential Xbox sales even more.
Like, BG3 coming out near Starfield means they're going head to head while STarfield will be at its hottest.
But if they release during a quiet month in January or February, then it'll do better sales-wise
>anon proves he's never had a job
I guarantee you a communications director at any company has never had a conversation with a developer or engineer. Every corpo entity silos their departments
Its not like every game I've played on PS5 hasn't released with major issues. And performance modes that actually causes the games to run worse because the studio mandates that game have to use ray tracing even though it makes the console run like shit unless the game is capped at 30fps.
5th? Only 5th?
Every fricking dev team, every engineer, every artist, fricking hates that shit console.
It's so fricking shit, we have to make a separate lighting spec for that stupid console on our next game, and have to upscale from 600p, despite the fact our game can run 60fps on a 1060 with Nanite and Lumen. It's a pile of hot garbage ass shit.
whats the reason? it cant be hardware its clearly as good as 1060 atleast
Sounds like you don't understand game development. For a console you do have to understand the limitations of what you can do because they can't just upgrade it like a PC can even if they have to lower the quality to make it run on there.
Yeah, but everything next to the gpu is the same, and from a pc gamers perspective you could just lower the resolution, even below 720p and it should work.
If some of ny mates can still play new games on a gtx970, so can a series S. Unless they put things that the cpu can do on the gpu. Then you can blame the devs for sure
>sounds like shitty devs to me
This.
They just need to set the games to 720p30fps and make low poly models.
Just make the gane lokk like trash.
What are they so scared about?
Games used to have low graphic settings that significantly reduced the fidelity. Why can't devs do that now? What's the excuse?
Laziness and diversity hires mostly.
Its a lose lose.
If you want it on series S you have to make it look like a ps3 game and have people crap on you about out dated the game looks.
Or provide you a stuttering mess.
Either way this is honestly on xboxs head.
When ps5 and xbox x came out it was already a generation behind.
The series S is a tragedy and should only have been sold as an emulation device
>When ps5 and xbox x came out it was already a generation behind.
what the frick does this even mean? Generation behind on what? The PS6?
The cpu and gpus used were a generation behind what pcs are using.
Ps5 and xboxs are juat glorified pcs now so they should always be compared to pc builds.
>generation behind
You make it sound like this humongous gap. In reality the difference is 10-20 frames best case scenario
>You make it sound like this humongous gap. In reality the difference is 10-20 frames best case scenario
At at release it was nothing but now its a huge ass difference now.
Consoles are struggling to bring 1440p with decent fidelity.
Or they could just learn to not be shitters.
>It MUST be realistic graphics with zero polygon optimization and zero texture optimization
opinion discarded.
You're a fricking moron
Works on my console. Should like shitty series s.
SPBP. When they say,
>"you have to take into account the technical limitations from the beginning of development"
what they mean is,
>"we made a bunch of models with 69,000,000 tris and the game is slow, wtf????"
This. Baldur's Gate 3 doesn't even look good. A decent developer could make it run on a PS2.
Here's is the truth that Ganker won't want to accept, it's: actually both. Both weak hardware AND shitty devs are holding us back.
>t. coping larian dev
spbp all I can hear is seething diversity hires. if weak consoles actually held back games we wouldn't have gotten the best games ever made coming out all in the PSX/2 gen.
agreed.
We have games that struggle to run on a 4090. Anything that forces these fricks to do a little optimization is a good thing.
Technically BG3 is a mess. Vulkan version runs slower than DX11. Textures and assets load like it's like a PS4 game, cutscenes are bugged, controller implementation is buggy, there are numerous glitches after all these years.
Sure SeS doesn't have that much memory but the minimum pc specs state 8 gigs is enough and I don't recall seeing that much memory usage - it's around 6 gigs unless I'm mistaken.
These twitter homosexuals are turning this into some political virtue signaling once again.
Technically game is shit, as simple as. Sure it's not dogshit but barely good enough.
Based af. Everyone that disagrees with you is a moron that slurps up titles that are not optimized
My PC handheld has 32GB RAM. Three times more than SeS lol
This game runs at 1080p60 on max settings on a GPU that's about on par with a GTX 1070 from 6+ years ago, there's no reason why a Series S shouldn't be able to run this game at 1080p60 on medium at the bare minimum.
the problem is they're having trouble with the split screen mode and microsoft requires feature parity between S and X versions of the console. If they were able to release it without the split screen it would probably come out around the same time as ps5 release on xbox
Why can 't they just add it in via a patch like sane normal non degenerate devs do?
Because it’s a feint, and they don’t want to release on Xbox the same day as Starfield comes out. This way they can say “uwu it’s taking a bit longer” so they can get PS5 sales from snoys who have been tricked into thinking it’s the witcher and get another marketing beat in 3 months when Starfield hype has died down.
suddenly, the lack of splitscreen on halo infinite makes a lot of sense
Halo runs on an xbox one
When you build an entire console and sell it for $300, you get a gpu that's not as good as a 1080ti
Good thing anon said 1070 then. Gpus that beat that can be bought used for $100.
>GTX 1070
That's almost on par with a PS5. The Series S is closer to a 1060.
XSS gpu is around 1650 which is worse than 970 or 1060(the minimum requirement on PC)
Also 10gb ram means that it won't meet the 4gb vram + 8gb system ram requirement too.
Consoles don't run (regular) Windows, so you shave around 2GB RAM from the requirements and then everything fits.
Series S is even more gimped than you think, it has 10GB but it's actually 8GB@224GB/s for games + 2GB@56GB/s for system stuff. It has 8GB for VRAM and RAM to run modern AAA titles. It's fricking garbage.
>It's fricking garbage.
I'll start thinking it's garbage when the average AAA game starts looking at least AS GOOD as the basic PS4 exclusives like FF7R, Detroit Become Human or GoW 2018.
Say what you want about the gameplay in those games but, from a pure visual fidelity level, they were better looking than shit like Jedi Survivor, Deadspace or BG3.
My experience is that the more power/resources you give engineers, the lazier they get
>XSS gpu is around 1650
So the XSS has the equivalent of the most popular and common PC spec. And the devs can't port to it.
Hmmmmmm I WONDER if it's the devs or the hardware.... kek
>XSS gpu is around 1650 which is worse than 970 or 1060(the minimum requirement on PC)
It runs perfectly well on a friend's 1060, he just had to limit it to 30 FPS. Everything is set to the default high settings. This should be doable for Series S too.
There is more to a PC than just the GPU
There's a CPU and ram that are minutely worse than the X
They only have issues with splitscreen coop
>Also 10gb ram means that it won't meet the 4gb vram + 8gb system ram requirement too.
You don't need as much unified memory, as ram+vram on pc, because both cpu and gpu have equal access times to it
>medium
>at bare minimum
So it would run on minimum
PS5 has a split-screen option which the S can't run but Microsoft demands that is included or no release at all.
It runs on the fricking steam deck too, what exactly is making the series s so hard to develop for here?
Sony's big bag of money
It's not about the base game you moron. It's about the split-screen mode exclusive to the console versions. S can't run it.
It's a lie. They needed an excuse not to release on Xbox at the same time as Starfield, because they know they'd get BTFO.
It runs and plays like total DOGSHIT on Steam Deck, and I love my Deck. Even at everything set to low it barely hits 30FPS. In cities like actual Baldur's Gate it drops to 10FPS. It's not a very well-optimized game, and loads in a metric frickton of detail all at once with very high-res LODs. I have to drop the resolution on my 2070 which I know is getting up there.
>it runs on steamdeck
Yeah, at like 15-20 FPS with everything set on ultra low and rendering at like 480p.
I use my deck all the time and installed BG3 the minute I could on it and uninstalled it after about 20 minutes of trying to get it at least at a stable 30 FPS.
Series S is shit, but the developer is also shit for not understanding what you need to do when making a game for a console. There is no stage "when everything is possible" unless you are extremely stupid.
well the issue is the series s only uses 8 gb of ram because 2gb is taken up by the os. starfield has a minimum requirement of 16gb on pc so yeah. we'll see how starfield works on the series s next month. it might be running at 720p or something, we'll have to see what workaround they figured out.
I would say there is a 50/50 chance that Starfield gets delayed. They will need more time to optimize and bugfix.
after the extra year they already were given?
It was ready last year.
Xbox stopped them and gave them another year to optimise and bugfix.
>Too sloppy for Microsoft QA
Bad omen.
Nah we might actually get a Bethesda game thats actually decent at launch for a change.
redfall only happened because they wanted to shit it out and forget it because arkane was forced to make it by zenimax and was begging MS to either reboot development or cancel it after zenimax got bought
weird how in every benchmark between consoles the ps5 always comes last, even behind the series S
Does lying make you more of a homosexual, or does being a homosexual make you lie more?
https://versus.com/en/microsoft-xbox-series-s-vs-sony-playstation-5
Almost parity given how much a “better” system it supposedly is.
I'll never forget Gotham Knights when a bunch of devs came out of the woodworks and demanded that prices of games be raised, the series S be abolished and that they should be paid what they're worth and then they release this clusterfrick that only managed to hit the targeted 30 fps on the Series S.
Reminds me of SF6.
>Capcom puts no effort in the Series port
>Series S is just the PS4 preset but with stable framerate in story because brute force
>this accidentally results in the best (lowest) latency out of all the platforms
???
Why are you just posting blatant misinformation?
*fricking consoles
ftfy
The CPU processing is identical, so any problems is down to the reduced GPU. And yeah, that is a bit of a kneecap, but if something is wrong because a weaker graphics processor is the issue, and it's apparently the splitscreen not working quite right, that might be an error in the programming side of matters that higher hardware just brute forces through. Or at least isn't hit hard enough by to really break.
That's an optimization pass that was going to be necessary one way or another.
The GPU isn't the biggest issue. GPU load is pretty scalable since you can do simple things like lower resolution to lighten the load by a lot. The real problem devs have with Series S is memory. It has 10 GB as opposed to X's 16.
Just ship low textures on Series S instead. The difference is basically 1060 3GB to a 3060 8GB (assuming around 6GB dedicated to RAM), and the 1060 can still run modern games on low.
most consumers on pc don't even have 8gb of gpu ram as standard anyway for AAA gaming.
The way a PC uses RAM and the way consoles do is vastly different.
The problem is caused by co-op splitscreen having to load the gameworld twice while both players can be in completely different places on the map.
Why don't these devs just drop consoles and develop only for PCs?
stop being antisemitic
They want to actually make money, PC won't ever have exclusives again.
Literally just lower the resolution and remove the gaytracing, SeS is SeX but with a weaker GPU, it's not that hard.
Also, frick your twitter screencap thread
Devs should just make their games for regular consoles as usual then gimp the frick out of them to run on Series S. They have basically the same specs but the Series S GPU is trash so just make shit run at 720p low 30fps, who the frick cares. Whoever bought that piece of shit deserves the bare minimum.
The issue is splitscreen co-op. When it's an advertised feature on the back of the box it has to work on Series S or it's a no-go. It's not a framerate issue.
Cannot make the game run on a series s but game running perfectly fine on potato pc or steam deck. Sounds like bullshit to me.
I'm starting to get worried about starfield in this regard, I'm happy with the graphics but I wonder about what might have been cut content wise to not break the S
Whats the most ambitious game and why can it run on the S like something like RDR2? Devs complain about the S but have no problem porting there games to the Switch when they want that nintendy money
If cd projekt can get witcher 3 to run on a switch there's no reason larian can't get this shitty turn based game to run on a series s
It‘s not about it running on series s at all, it‘s the fact that ms forces devs to have feature parity across consoles which means that piece of shit with 10gb ram has to be able to run the game in splitscreen mode you dumb frick
And that's why it will never be a widespread issue and MS should just make a one time exception for this singular game. No one gives a frick about a niche feature like splitscreen.
No one will be using splitscreen
>ms forces devs to have feature parity across consoles
Oh no, how dare they make sure the games you buy/subbed to game pass for actually contain the whole game.
It's moronic especially considering the S can't keep up with the X or PS5 as developers finally dive into this gen. Microsoft is going to have to tell people on the S that they need to accept lesser products sometimes.
>cant keep up
Black person devs have resolution dropping LOWER than 720p on xbox and ps5. They don't deserve to dive into everything, they deserve to go to hell and optimize all the shitty games they made for eternity
Series S can keep up on the gameplay front in 99% of games because it has the same CPU as Series X and PS5, and has the same GPU architecture as them too
So what I'm hearing is "NOOOO, WE CAN'T JUST MAKE LOWER QUALITY ASSETS FOR SYSTEMS WITH LESS MEMORY! NOOO, WE CAN'T JUST GET MORE EFFICIENT WITH ASSET STREAMING EVEN THOUGH ALL THE CONSOLES HAVE SSDS NOW!!!"
witcher 3 is an 8 year old game and wasn't split screen coop.
>witcher 3 is an 8 year old game
Thats irrelevant and probably looks better than Bald and Gay 3
Forget TW3, if fricking Larian could get Divinity OS2 running on the Switch there's no reason they couldn't do the same with BG3 on the Series S.
Different teams.
Also, doesn't help their narrative.
And your excuse for PC exclusive titles?
What about the PS5 exclusive titles?
Strange choice of ignorance.
>And your excuse for PC exclusive titles?
>What about the PS5 exclusive titles?
They don't have to optimize for Series S. That's why at this moment Sony is basically the only AAA company making games with actual next gen graphics.
witcher 3 was designed for ps4 base
Min spec(which does splitscreen just fine at low settings) is gtx 970 and 8gb ram. A 1650 can maintain 1080p30fps on ultra. The series s holding the game back meme is pure malarkey.
devs had at least four years to work in support for the series s, which also surpasses minimum specs of every modern pc game out
any yapping about it is literal homosexual cope from I competent gaywads
>oh shit muh incompetent spelin misteak
i guess im a gaywad now
Devs have been hamstrung by last gen consoles more than anything. Off the top of my head there isn't a single game from 3rd party devs which is actually using the full suite of next gen hardware feature. "Next gen" games are usually ports of last gen games with a 60 fps mode or with basic RT shadows or something like that. It makes the consoles look incredibly underpowered for example FF16 running at 720p and fluctuating 40 fps. Series s being weaker is less able to brute force through these issues but with time and competent devs it shouldn't be an issue. I mean after all the matrix demo runs on it with full ray tracing and nanite and all that other fancy tech and that was a work in progress version of UE5 not even the final optimised version.
the coalition helped work on the matrix demo too and that shit runs just fine on series s
1st party devs will always get the most out of the hardware early on but 3rd party devs will eventually catch up as they get used to the new hardware and development environment. Microsoft knew this would happen because matt booty said some devs will probably have some difficulties with their first game on series s but by their second game it won't be an issue, which makes sense because that's how development works. You can always do more the second time round because of what you learnt the first time round. It's why games at the end of a gen are vastly superior tech wise to games at the beginning of the gen.
Literally just use a lower resolution, you stupid fricking idiot.
As the dev said you have to take it into account from the beginning. There's nothing wrong with that and that's literally their job. I don't expect any more issues with series s once devs get accustomed to the hardware after the first wave of games. Also, I bet none of these developers are using the custom decompression tech which significantly decreases memory footprint.
if the switch 2 ends up with 16gb of ram legit expect support to stop altogether and devs to just support that along with the ps5 and pc.
Nah. That's what you want to happen but it will never happen. There's more to hardware than just ram capacity. Memory bandwidth, cpu capability, gpu capability, storage bandwidth, APIs and more all affect the performance of any fixed hardware. They could give the current switch 32gb ram and it wouldn't mean shit because it has extremely weak hardware and power/thermal limits.
well the leaked specs showed it around ps4 pro level, right? so around the same level as the series s but with more ram. microsoft should probably just make a portable series s.
Series s is incredibly more powerful than a ps4 pro. The switch leaks had it around xbox one/ base ps4 according to Bobby koticks testimony in court during the ABK trial.
Only CPU wise, it loses to Series X in basically any other aspect.
Who was talking about series x?
*One X
It's way better than one x. The GPU is capable of far more than the one x. We're talking 2 generations of tech and efficiency upgrades. Devs will be able to do things on series s that would never be possible on one x simply because it's older tech.
nah, it just has a few new features but it doesn't make up for the lack of power. It's like comparing a 1650 to a 980.
Nah its like comparing a 2060 to a 1060. It has tech which one x doesn't have like machine learning acceleration or in the 2060 vs 1060 example, AI cores.
Pascal supports features that Maxwell doesn't, but sure. But in reality doesn't mean much. Make it 1080 vs 2060 and we can agree, it's basically the gap here.
>well the leaked specs showed it around ps4 pro level, right?
HAHAHAHA. The leaked specs made people ASSUME it will be """" CLOSE""" to the base PS4 power wise. But this is Nintendo, they will make it sure it will be underpowered, not just because they are cheap but because it will be a portable first and foremost.
Take nintendo specs with a grain of salt.
I respect nintendo's way of doing, make the games talk not the hardware, so keep in mind, it should be ps4 tier, but running at maaaaybe 15 watts since its portable. Dlss would do the heavy lifting in docked.
Never get hyped for nintendo hardware
>if the switch 2 ends up with 16gb of ram
Switch 2 will be way underpowered and you know it. It will still sell gangbusters and it will have incredible looking games because when a platform is popular then suddenly developers can live with its limitations. Series S is getting shit because it has a small userbase and devs think they can kick it around. Just like how the only time the Playstation was berated when it didn't sell well. Muh Series S is an excuse, ratchet runs on a hdd, FF16 is 720p on the PS5 as an exclusive.
You can't name THREE new gen games that wouldn't be possible on XBO/PS4 and gaytracing is mostly responsible for the performance woes of devs who are suddenly incapable to optimize games when they worked on an already outdated in 2013 hardware just a few years ago.
>FF16 is 720p on the PS5 as an exclusive.
Really? Shouldn't slapping 8K logo in PS5's box be illegal at this point?
>Really? Shouldn't slapping 8K logo in PS5's box be illegal at this point?
They never said the games could reach this resolution. That sticker just means that in theory the console can output a video signal of this resolution. In reality, this would only apply to movies. They did the same shit with the PS4 too.
Funniest thing with the 8K logo is the console can't output a 8K signal. There is simply no support for it on a firmware level. While you can pretend the 4K/120 on the box is theoretically possible the 8K is flat out lie.
Reminds me of this
https://www.engadget.com/2011-10-03-ps3-will-support-4k-stills-after-a-future-update-moving-picture.html
And no, support was never added lmao
I've never encountered a company who lies as much as Sony. I'm not even talking about gaming but with their other products like TVs. They lied about adding HDR to their TVs back in 2016 and more recently they lied about adding 4k120hz to their 2020 TVs. I will never buy another Sony product ever again I fricking swear.
>Really?
Yep. it drops to 720p in combat on performance mode to maintain a locked 60fps in combat.
Sony used their big reach in entertainment media and technology to slap the 8K logo on there because it could "theoretically" play 8K movies and that's enough to justify the official stamp. It helps that they're a card carrying member of the Video Electronics Standards Association too.
I knew that the addition of raytracing would be a detriment to this generation.
Fricking FF16 still has the piece of shit enabled even in performance mode.
Sucks that after all these years thickheaded gamedevs can't comprehend that people.prefer stability over some egotripping visual effect.
Blame Nvidia shills that do nothing but talk about GayTracing.
At least it is genuinely a thing, unlike hairworks.
As things are at the moment it should be exclusive to high end GPUs not consoles.
Raytracing and targeting 4K. It doesn't matter the consoles were relatively beefy this time, the jump from 1080p aand "4K" is insane. Also it is more and more clear everyone bet on FSR being able to pull DLSS levels of upscaling and it can't. There is a rumor the PS5Pro will have some dedicated hardware for proper upscaling because the low internal resolutions these newer games have (FF is like 720p internally, Jedi Survivor is 850) look absolute ass with FSR. Early in the gen people laughed at the Series S because FSR looks worse if the internal res is low and now the big consoles get the same treatment. Jed Survivor 60fps mode looks like absolute ass on a big TV.
At no point in gaming history did new visual effects get ignored because some moron on Ganker thought it was useless. Even when DirectX10 got mostly ignored for a generation because that's when developers opted to become consolegays and stick with DX9.0c for 8 years, they ported new visual features from DX10 to 9.0c. No developer is going to ignore raytracing, the future of game lighting, in favor of old methods and baked static lighting just to sate your autism. When bloom and "HDR" (the old ca. 2006 type, not actual 10-bit displays) were new features, even nintendo tried putting at least some form of it in their gamecube 2 aka wii titles.
That was never a thing. Developers have always pushed hardware to its limits. That's why PS1 and N64 games looked as good as possible for the time, but mostly ran at 10-25 FPS because the hardware was putrid shit only nostalgia addicts can defend. You may as well claim Atari 2600 games are actual unironic masterpieces because moving with a joystick and having one button to play games at probably 32x32 resolution and some cherrypicked simplistic games worked okay.
I can't think of one game that really uses raytracing all that well. From my testing the only one that "changes" the image is ray tracing ambient occlusion. I find shadows and reflections to be a meme that have been done as well in software or other workarounds. Before you call me poor or something, I built this before the 4000 series came out, and those suck. I also have a ps5 that collects dust because no games.
Forgot image.
>No one wants to think about optimization
Yeah no shit. No wonder games are ungodly unoptimized bloated trash these days.
We reached the point of diminishing returns with the PS4. Only thing holding game development back now is shitty developers with no talent or imagination.
Remember when doom eternal got ported to switch? i do
Skill issue
its a turn based RPG those games worked on the NES already.
Black person this game can run on a Steam Deck. They're lazy as frick. Nothing about Ballhomosexual 3 looks like a 9th gen game, from its graphics to its game mechanics to its scope. It's all ps4 level shit.
Series S can run Modern Warfare 2 at 1440p, 60fps. It really is an issue on Larian's end.
Yes, it's weaker than the PS5 and Series X, but it's not a total piece of shit or anything. It's much stronger than the last-gen consoles.
It's actually weaker than one X and has less ram
it emulates 360 far better then the One X...
(not on about devmode emulation)
Because it has better CPU...?
so its not weaker then the One X then.
The CPU in the S is much better than the One X's, but it has less ram and the gpu is a little worse.
Not an argument. They had to make it run on toaster PCs anyway.
So why is nobody complaining about the switch?
Why aren't mobile devs complaining that phones aren't as powerful as PCs?
The vast majority of PCs are about as powerful of a series S, according to Steam surveys
These devs can go frick themselves for not thinking of optimizing their fricking games for the majority of people
>no we PLANNED for the game to have zero optimization and just let the consumers foot the higher hardware bill to run it, you can't take that away from us!
Maybe try being less shitty of a dev and make things run well?
Does Microsoft even have a team dedicated to helping third party dev studios optimize their games (for free of course)? Feels like they don't. Doesn't seem very smart of them to not have at least some people doing something like that, considering Sony are already doing it.
They do and thats exactly what they're doing
Well then either the team is incompetent or it's only comprised of a single guy lmao. BG3 was in early access for nearly 3 years. Microsoft had 2 years to work alongside Larian, but it feels like they only started to work with them 2 months ago. Seriously, what is Phil doing? He's so fixated on selling gamepass but he forgot he needs a playerbase to sell it to.
No. They just give you a dev console that emulates the hardware from SX down to og Xbone (changes ram, vram, clock speeds etc to match each gen) and a docummentation and that's it. The process is so easy and straightforward that you even have PRESS ME, moron button to scale down the settings for your build to match requirements of each gen. This is how insanely incompent modern devs are.
I'll take "Posts from users that have no idea what they're talking about" for 500, Alex.
He's not lying though. That's what the 1st gen kits are. Over glorified PCs emulating hardware. Eventually, microsoft sent out actual Anaconda and Scarlett Kits with retail OS and specs (but with more RAM for debug tools).
They provide frick all support for their 3rd party developers. If they do provide support, it's on a priority basis and on a last-resort. They don't hold your hand much through development. 3rd Party devs don't even have access to the Microsoft-circle jerk community, where 1st party Devs all suck each other off on a monthly basis and provide assistance to each other.
>a game as complex and good looking like Red Dead Redemption 2 can run on the Series S (and previous gen for that matter)
>a fricking turn based RPG can't
>8GB RAM for the rest of the generation
Lmao, Series S is a fricking joke
But Nvidia told me that's enough???
It's worse, 8GB of VRAM+RAM. 2GB is dedicated to running the system.
Its supposed to be a fortnite box but microsoft and phil spencer are so moronic they actually forced devs to build their games for both system. fricking morons.
>Nobody wants to think about technical limitations when making a game
>Most popular card on Steam is GTX 1650
Baldur's Gate 3 is verified on the fricking Steam Deck.
Series is way more poaerful than that.
deck is a pc moron people can just being the settings
that's the point
First off Deck is a computer so whatever they do on PC trickles down to that.
Secondly, their main audience is on PC. It's a waste of time to try and rush an Xbox port when a majority of their sales will be on Steam anyway.
Can a dev answer whats so hard about it? Isnt the only difference between X (or ps5) and S that the S has a worse gpu and less memory(thus vram)? Whats so difficult about turning settings to lower than low and reducing the resolution if needed? Hell they could even limit it to 30fps and nobody would care since its a turn based rpg anyway.
There literally isn't
Modern devs are simply butthurt that they have to make lower end presets
moronic Black person, you render 2 different games at the same time
what do you think
why did games like Crysis have lower presets then??
Turning game into a fricking switch port is not a good look, dumbfrick.
Gears 5 split screen worked like shit on xbox one, because it doesn't scale well.
BG3 straight up renders 2 different game instances, because it needs to support rendering of 2 different maps at the same time. Your friend can engage in a big brawl on the right side, while you are solving a puzzle in a completely different place on the left.
So why did it used to be ok to have lower presets, moron???
You sound like a fricking zoomer who's never played a PS2 game.
>So why did it used to be ok to have lower presets, moron???
Because you have rendering pipeline A and B.
A is much more older and lacks graphical features of B
B is much more modern and fully utilizes modern hardware
As time goes on, A becomes completely obsolete, and hardware gets more powerful, now everyone uses pipeline C.
Now you have baseline B and you can't go any lower without completely nuking graphics into fullbright mode.
And? We could do that shit on consoles generations ago. Hell, we used to do 4 way split screen, not merely 2 way. Are you trying to tell me you think something that used to be industry standard for virtually every multiplayer game is now suddenly black magic?
Loading 2 different maps on the same screen at the same time, with its own scripting, physics processed on one thread?
Yes, now cope and seethe.
Show me it then.
>4 hours later
>no reply
I see.
>Gears 5 split screen worked like shit on xbox one, because it doesn't scale well.
Where do you get this? I played Gears 5 on the base bone. It is one of the best optimized titles of on the system. The only thing you notice is they probably tried to squeeze out the maximum from the system and the quick system menu can be choppy if you bring it up while playing.
Split screen used to be super common a few generations ago. b***hing about it is a cop out. Then again you probably weren't alive back then.
>make awesome game
>have to dial everything back for shit hardware
>players play awesome game dialed back on shit hardware
>”this game sucks. That company sucks.”
If they could do it easily then they would have. Some other dev mentioned that pc scales differently than consoles and that its easier to do on pc for some reason.
it's really not the series s it's lazy Devs who seriously can not optimise or figure things out hell most Devs on PC now use dlss as a way to cheat optimisation
>Series S can't run Baldur's Gate
>Steam Deck can run Baldur's Gate
>Series S can run Starfield
>Steam Deck can't run Starfield
Anon, series S is absolutely not going to be able to ruin starfield
it will in 20fps low settings 720p
How is it so hard for devs to put the graphics settings to low and the resolution to 480p with fsr
Boom, fixed
durr its too hard 🙁
Maybe stop chasing negligible GRAFFIX improvements? The leap between this gen and the last has been tiny yet costs about three times as much.
>t. blind poorgay with shit hardware
Because the unemployed children and morons who have integrated graphics or 750Tis aren't even going to consider playing new games. They're the demographic that stuck with skulltag mods well into the 2010s, and are now playing ancient source engine games, f2p esports titles, and making posts on Ganker about how modern graphics are bad or a scam run by corporations.
>Series S = unemployed
>Series X = working class
>PC = employers/job makers/CEO
I’m tired of this
S = unemployed
nah. the series s is a glorified scam. you need to buy a hard drive so that's a hidden cost and the games are always pricey because no retail
What if they delayed the launch of the game on Xbox so it wouldn't interfere with Starfield, as as Microsoft paid them to delay.
>shills defend
>xbox series s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cjll4QkxQeY
>shorts
No.
As a non-Series S, non-BG3 player, I am under the impression that splitscreen in these types of games is a bit more complicated then 4-player Blood Gulch or Rainbow Road splitscreen (single world instance).
>Create design
>dont think about limitations of technology currently
Said no successful design team ever.
>turn based rpg
>graphics is not even that good, worse than rdrII
why this shit demand so much?
Because RDR 2 has good looking lighting, with realistic color correction. Outside of it, the game is blurry as frick. And don't let me start on how their TAA completely shits itself to resolve trees and greenery.
Series S is more than twice as powerful as a PS4.
95% of Sony's AAA releases run either on a PS4 or on a Steam deck.
If Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring and Hogwarts Legacy can run on the Series X, why Balder's Gate 3 not?
Series S***
All of those run on the Series S too
>technical limitations?
>When everything is possible?
So another super high graphics story "game" with less gameplay interaction/mechanics than ps1/ps2 games decades ago.
Look at what Nintendo did with physics in an open world game on that shitty fricking mobile tegra chip?
I'm not the hugest fan of Nintendo, but at least they innovated in gameplay, can't think of that last AAA that really did that.
>you have to consider this from the beginning!!!
so like every pc game?
There's no reason for it to exist. They should have just released the Series X and called it a day. Yeah, mine was a gift but frick poor people and their mid as frick consoles. The series X is a beast, and what game has shown it's true potential yet? Not one.
The Series S is the last thing what holds the Series X back. MS is incapable of making a single game that comes close to the snoy movie games on the PS4. If Xbox had games on the level of TLOU2 / Horizon at least then you could have an argument. I'm saying this as an Xbot, it is ridiculous aside maybe the Coalition MS has no high quality graphics team and they waste their talent on trying to keep Gears alive. At least Playground might deliver with Fable and maybe they will be allowed to make other things than Horizon sequels.
>The Series S is the last thing what holds the Series X back.
Yes.
>If Xbox had games on the level of TLOU2 / Horizon
LMAO
>level of TLOU2 / Horizon
Why would they want to drop that low from hi-fi rush kino levels?
I'm not fan of movie games but not having even one when the competition has multiple is just one of the numerous things that kills the brand. Casuals need their slop.
>muh snoyslop
larian sucks anyway
If you were dumb enough to buy an Xbox you get what you deserve
Why don't MS just make Series S optional for devs to put games on?
Microsoft really dont want to start giving out exceptions to their gameplay parity between series mandate because if one dev does it then other devs having issues with series s can point to bg3 getting special treatment.
>Make shitty, outdated hardware for poorgays while also demanding every dev porting to Xbox accommodate for it
This sounds like just a way for Microsoft to get you to build around their particular ecosystem, which isn't really unusual for them.
Can someone tell me why nobody complains abou this when they make a PC game yet it's clear that 1/3 of all people use integraed graphics on a laptop while the other 2/3 is on 6 year old GPUs. With only the last 1/3 having about PS5 level graphics cards.
What happened with Sony that is making the snoys cope extra hard today?
>n-nooo this is all SNOYS fault
Kek. Looks like you should have bought a PS5
No worthwile game on PS5 at all. All they have is Spider-Man 2 but that just looks the same as the 1st game but with a new area.
That and Starfield is not coming to PS5 either.
I dont get why this game has such high requirements when its a top down turn based game.
>NOOOOOOOOO WE DON'T WANT TO OPTIMISE OUR GAME!
God I hate modern devs so fricking much it's unreal.
How is it that something like RDR2 or Batman Arkham Knight can run on Xbox 1 and look much better than modern games with much higher systems requirements?
Modern devs are fricking dogshit at thier job now, they don't want to optimise games because it's a drag for them aka being lazy.
They think that people should just upgrade to better hardware so they can bruteforce the performance.
This
How the frick does an enhanced port of a wii u game run at 30 fps with locks to 20 sometimes
You should add that TOTK is using AMDs FSR.
That helps it somewhat.
Triple buffer vsync is the reason it locks to 20.
I'll tell you how:
720p 30fps
low draw distances
1k/512 textures
Zero AO
Zero volumetrics
Massive reduction of Draw distances on foliage
Reduction on quantity of foliage
Low quality foliage
Low quality paper VFX/sprites
Static lights and rasterization only (no dynamic lights)
Flat meshes for hair, rather than 2D planes emulating hair movement
Lack of wind simulation on grass/foliage
Lack of reflections
Want more?
>series s is slightly worse than a 1080ti
On 1080p you shouldn't be struggling to get a good framerate, that's devs fault. 1440p I can understand.
>series s is slightly worse than a 1080ti
It really isn't lmao
devs are complete shit these days, and also massive homosexuals
I'm playing it on low settings at 30fps on my laptop that I usually just use for emulating old games and I'm still enjoying it.
Ryzen 5 5600H
Nvidia Gtx 1650
16gb ram
Why did so many devs fall for the ray tracing meme?
Nvidia pushed for it hard so they can sell more gimped vram GPUs
Its supposed to save time iterating since you dont have to spend hours baking lights each time you move something but you still need to do that anyways since consoles or AMD cards still suck at it do you need a backup.
nvidia cards can't either
>remember when hardware technical limitation fomented software artistic creativity
i won't say this is the main reason why modern devs are so shit, but it's up there
We have more than one game hitting 720p on a PS5 already. Devs are NOT competent enough to make more demanding games right now, if anything having to run on a shitty machine is a blessing. If they Jedi hits sub 720p on the strongest console it released on, imagine if that console was the baseline, instead of "the ultimate version".
No one paid for 720p, frick you
reminder, all of this is because of Larian's idiotic couch co-op splitscreen that literally nobody in the entire world uses. The game itself can run on the series S perfectly fine, it's just running into issues when it has to handle 4 different player splitscreens. The entire release is not held back because of the Series S, it's held back because of one gameplay feature that less than 1% of the playerbase will ever use. Midrange PCs also completely crumble in 4 player splitscreen mode by the way.
Right, and that feature happens to run poorly on series S,
Ps5 can do it. It might very well run like shit but the series s version had to have been noticeably worse for Larian to delay the xbox version.
yeah but the point is that most people will not use this feature, yet the xbox version is held back just so that a tiny minority can play couch co-op splitscreen when the game would be perfectly playable for the 99% of people who just want to play it solo or with online multiplayer. I don't think a single person would have complained had Larian decided to simply state that splitscreen coop won't work on the series S, so the series S version will be shipped without it.
MS would
Only problem is Microsoft wont allow series x to have couch co-op and not series s.
well in that case that was a huge blunder on Microsoft's part. It would have been infinitely better for them had BG3 been allowed to release at the same time as the PS5 version and the Series S simply had the splitscreen feature removed.
It's not a blunder because if they become lenient it sets a precedent. If one dev gets special privileges then all the rest will ask for the same and use the lucky dev as a reference. That then means devs can make up any excuse to exclude series s even if it's not a legitimate excuse just to be lazy. Microsoft sticking to their guns will make developers do their due diligence and make good ports with good optimization.
It is not a huge blunder. If they allow 1 studio to cut the corner, every single one will start shitting on series s. What they should've done is disable coop on xbox untill series s is ready.
True. We're still stuck with 2015 specs and EVEN THEN games often look like shit.
It's been a decade, and these
are still unrivaled.
Let that sink in. Ten years of """""""""""""progress""""""""""""""" and graphics are not only the same as before but in many cases worse. Except now demanding much higher specs and memory.
It's a scam. You were born just in time to experience an industrywide vidya scam.
It's only going to get worse. We're going to see more and more veteran game developers leave the industry as they age out and be replaced by people who only know how to follow flow chart development with engines like UE.
Engines like UE make game development easier but also make game more optimized by default.
If you don't trust zoomer developers to optimize well, then it's better that they use UE that optimizes as much as it can by default.
It's going to take a long time for Microsoft to discontinue the Series S and focus on Series X.
I can understand them wanting to deliver more affordable hardware, but when it results in a lacklustre game library by having to develop for two consoles, it raises those kinds of questions.
Why should series S be discontinued? As said many times before itt, the only issue bg3 has currently is splitscreen coop, which is laggy shit everywhere
You are acting as if this has happened before. BG3 is the only game so far that had to be delayed due to issues with the series s. And again, it's not because the game itself is a problem to run, after all, it's just the DoS2 engine which runs perfectly fine on series s. It's one specific game mode that fricks the series s because it doesn't have the ram to compute 4 different players at the same time in splitscreen co-op.
No one else has problems with the Series S.
I love my series s the tho g runs game alike a champ it runs cyberpunk how can a turn based rpg have a problem running on it?
My nephew has a series s and it runs every game he wants to play flawlessly without issues. People are way too focused on one game which has issues but the developers have said they're progressing at a rapid pace on getting the issues resolved and have several engineers on it. Sure it's a weaker console and it'll take some getting used to but as far as the end user is concerned it's a perfectly fine way to play games at a wallet friendly entry price. I read online that it's the most popular console in Brazil right now because of high taxes on consoles making the series x/ps5 over $800. It has its place in the market. I'd be willing to bet that when baldurs gate 3 eventually does release on it it'll be perfectly fine.
It's okay when Nintendo's console holds everything back
it's actually hilarious just how much more powerful the series s is compared to the switch, yet every single one of these devs who would shit on the series s would never be caught dead saying anything remotely negative about the switch.
Theres so much negativity in gaming in general towards Xbox outright.
Everyone seems to have a complete hateboner for them. Like no matter what they do the media seems to find a way to spin it into a bad thing.
Like the recent one I can think of is that Xbox is heading to gamescom, though they said Starfield will not be playable there.
Bethesda games have never been playable at gamescom not even once.
But they completely forgot or never mentioned that PlayStation is completely skipping gamescom.
It was all about Xbox and Starfield not being playable.
As if modern third party AAAs are being released ont he Switch, not just some rare extremely downgraded ports that comes a year or two later.
The absolute fricking victim complex you neanderthals have lmao. What games are being held back on the Switch? None of them because third parties don't even release games on the Switch. The whole reason why the Series S is getting dunked on is because these talentless devs need to have feature parity between the S/X and they're too moronic to lower the settings and reduce polygons and particle effects so that features like split screen can run on the S.
Noooo I must blame something for why games run like dogshit on my $500 paperweight compared to an actual gaming PC!
games run like dogshit on actual gaming PC too
The irony is that the devs also are outright lying by saying "We don't want certain players to have fewer features than others" when they literally do that with the Switch version of OS2 where they dropped splitscreen
They are just lying to cover for not wanting to release on Xbox at the same time as Starfield. Balturds Fail would be fricking crushed by God Todd and they know it.
So the Microsoft engineers are lying about helping Larian to get the game working on Series S, too, schizo?
The lie is that they won't release the game with split screen disabled because "it would be unfair to the gamers". If Starfield wasn't getting released now, they'd release it on both X and S with split screen disabled (to fulfil the parity requirement) and then patch it in later on both platforms after Microsoft helps enabling it for the S.
You just glossed over the part where I mentioned that MS themselves are working with the devs to solve the issue they're having with the Series S version. If there were no issue that wouldn't be needed, so you're conspiracy theory implies MS is also lying. Just take your meds and stfu.
Try reading my post again, idiot.
I did, you're still ignoring the fact that MS has acknowledged the issue themselves and sent their own engineers to Larian Studios. They wouldn't be doing that if they were lying, you fricking moron.
Are you really this stupid? I'm saying that the lie is that they can't just release on S/X without the feature. If they wanted, they could just let people play without the stupid split screen, and patch it in three months later with Microsoft's help.
>but but the parity requirement!
That's why they could just ship both S and X versions with the same features, that is SPLIT SCREEN MISSING ON BOTH, if they really wanted to release on Xbox at the same time as on PS5.
>they could just let people play without the stupid split screen, and patch it in three months later with Microsoft's help.
Split screen couch co-op was a massive selling point for DOS2 and is a massive selling point for BG3.
Launching without it would be worse than just delaying it until they can get it working.
Literally nobody gives a shit about this feature. They stripped it from the Switch version of Original Sin 2 without a second thought.
The Series S has better specs than the minimum requirement on PC.
Apples to Oranges.
Why? It's an x86 machine using directx for graphics which is about as close to apples to apples as a console can get.
>Lazy devs just optimize better you need to work harder!!!
And then what actually happens is that devs just say frick it and either release a compromised version that runs like garbage or no version at all like the N64 and PS3. The whole "Uhhm the system isn't the problem YOU are!!" excuse has never worked and never will.
Not even a valid comparison. Ps3 required an entirely new tool base for ports. It was fundamentally different from anything else on the market. The series s is the exact same as the series x, ps5 and modern x86 PCs and uses the same graphics API as all windows games (directx). The only difference is the GPU is weaker and has less memory than the bigger consoles. That should be a minor learning curve for developers as opposed to having to redesign entire engines to work on the ps3 cell processor.
only shit craftsmen blame their tools
n64 used carts that could have lile 16mb of data when ps1 used cds that could take 700mb.
in this case, the devs really are the problem though. Also keep in mind that the PS5 and Series X are constantly getting releases that have huge performance issues. Those consoles were once advertized as 4k 60 fps machines and now there are countless of releases that run at like dynamic 1080p and 45-55 fps at best on the premium consoles. The series S isn't holding anything back, if anything, the series S is the reason why games aren't running even worse on PS5 and Series X by now. The only times those 2 consoles are getting a proper 1440p 60 fps game these days is if the game is also very well optimized on the series s.
This. People don't understand if the Series S is the true baseline the every game should run in 4K60 on the PS5 and XSX yet they don't. Imagine if these shitty devs didn't need to take the Series S into account. How badly would these games run? Again, FF 60fps mode is unplayable on the PS5 and drops to 720p in battles. The 30fps mode is around 1180 with terrible motion blur and FSR jaggies. The game was "custom" developed and released for the PS5 only. There is literally no excuse for it to run in sub 1440p resolution for any reason yet it does.
There are a bunch of "old gen" XBO games with 4K patches and fps updates that look better than most new gen games. Far Cry 5 is 4K60 and looks as good as any modern open world game except it is sharp and has a stable frame rate. Instead devs put in shitty effect most people won't even notice in most games and release a buggy, stuttering mess then pat themselves in the back.
>People don't understand if the Series S is the true baseline the every game should run in 4K60 on the PS5 and XSX yet they don't.
Because devs just crank up settings that scale badly for regular consoles, like having twice the render distance and twice more grass, which makes shit more demanding in an almost exponential scale. If they kept the same graphics shit would indeed run at 4K60fps.
>I'll start making a game without considering the platforms it will be on
Definitely not part of the engineering or management team
The Xbox Series S was specifically sold as a console that "Dude, you won't even NEED to develop with it in mind! We've developed super advanced scaling technology that just makes the Series S render Series X games at lower fidelity for you!!!"
Turns out that was just PR bullshit and you 100% need to develop with the Series S as your baseline.
It was created based on the assumption that devs would target 4k on the Series X. That's why the CPU is identical but the RAM and GPU aren't as a lower res/graphics settings requires less VRAM.
what are you even talking about? The Series S version literally is just a scaled down version of the Series X. BG 3 is the only release so far that has a very unique issue with the series S.
Xbox has already shown the tech which significantly reduces vram requirements but no dev is using it yet. Only Microsoft flight sim uses it so far and that runs fine on series s what a shocker. In fact cross gen has held us back so much that the first game to utilise the tech on PC is rachet and clank from a week ago.
the original plan was that the Series X was a 4k machine and the Series S is a 1080p machine. Now the Series X and PS5 have become 1080p machines and the series S has fallen appropriately behind. The main issue absolutely is developer incompetence. The Series S suffers the most from it, but the PS5 and Series X are also constantly getting terribly optimized releases these days.
4K was never going to be a viable thing for PS5 and Series X, it's way too much of a resource hog for way too little pay-off. Rendering at native 4K is just stupid as frick when you could be targeting a lower resolution with pseudo 4k trickery, 99% of console users won't even care if it means higher fidelity in stuff like lighting and character models etc
i ran this shot just fine when it was in EA on my 1050ti i5 4570 shitheap build with 8gb ddr3 built from a recycled office pc. the series S is a lot more powerful than that. something sounds fricky to me.
the game itself can run on the fricking steam deck. It's purely the splitscreen mode that is the reason for the delay on xbox. That mode runs like ass on anything but high end PCs.
The devs said it runs fine on series s in the single player mode. It's the coop splitscreen mode which is having issues because apparently it requires a lot of vram. So they're working on optimising the game to bring the vram requirements down but it's causing a delay for the xbox port. It's more of an optimization problem than strictly a hardware problem.
Guarantee Rockstar gets GTAVI out on the Series S and it will have much higher tech and be way more demanding than this CRPG.
>One of the biggest game devs in the world with infinite resources and money are gonna make a game more impressive than one who had literally just released their first ever AAA title and who usually makes crowdfunded indie titles.
Wow you think?
while I do hate modern devs for being incompetent at optimization, it is fricking moronic that Microsoft would release a game console that was SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POWERFUL THAN THE CONSOLE THEY RELEASED 3 YEARS EARLIER.
This isn't true though, the GPU is essentially the same but the CPU is much better.
It really isn't though. In terms of performance and efficiency it's a very powerful machine for the power it draws compared to the one x and it also has a vastly more powerful cpu but the raw gpu compute is a bit less. But it's capable of more than what the one x was capable of because it uses the newer RDNA 2 architecture with mesh shaders and whatnot which modern game engines will utilise. If a dev wanted to really push the boundaries of each machine and built their game accordingly, the series s would have much better results than the one x.
Consoles always ruin videogames. Always.
>Can make the game run on a toaster (PC)
>Can't make the game run on toaster (console)
>ConfusedBlackManQuestionMarks.jpg
>games are looking worse, running worse and getting bigger filesizes as time goes on
>instead of optimising everyone coasts off SSDs and DLSS
>reaching 60fps is still considered a herculean feat for consoles in 2023
reminder the PS3 had 256MB of ram. Modern consoles and PCs have 60 times that amount or more and are struggling to run shit. No game should ever recquire more than 8GB of ram or 50GB of disk space
That is a huge part of the issue, especially more so with some of the PC ports we have seen this year.
Developers are now relying too much on those short cuts instead of optimizing their game, like Remnant 2 developers straight out saying their game isn't designed to be run with DLSS off.
They also expect PC users just to brute force shit using high-end hardware, but fricking Jedi Survivor couldn't even maintain 60 FPS at 1440p at launch on PC, and this was with a 3090.
Remnant 2 doesn't run any better on consoles, it upscales from like 720p in the 60fps mode.
you all screech if i say resolutions should have been locked at 768p but it would have prevented your current state
I don't know why you used PS3 as an example when the majority of games on it would run worse than the 360 version.
Xbox 360 basically had the same amount, 512MB unified vs 256MB VRAM+256MB RAM on PS3.
If a game as big as Starfield can run on the Series S then the problem lies with Larian and not the hardware.
>If a game as big as Starfield can run on the Series S then the problem lies with Larian and not the hardware
This. Incompetent devs and nothing more.
Oh no, we can't lower the resolution of the textures and the quality of the shadow! That's impossible! Ahhhhhhh!!!
The truth is that except for some simulators with complex physics or other niche games, today's games are not particularly more complex than games from 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, chances are they are even simpler, today's systems, mechanics even AIs often seem more simplistic than what guys did on hardware that didn't have 5% of today's processing power.
So pretty much all the blame for a game not running is because of how it looks. In other words, they only need to change the graphics of their pieces of shit because the logic would work even on a $20 calculator.
True. All consoles hold back devs.
>graphics settings: low
>can't change it
it's that fricking EASY
I love holding back gaming for everyone
>taking the word of a fricking marketer
Granted, the Series S having only 8 Gigs of unified memory for games might be an issue if devs weren't better at using the SSDs in the new consoles to get more granular about culling and such
>If it didn't exist they would actually be using their modern and powerful hardware
Anon, that's not how graphics work.
You have different quality meshes and textures for different hardware SKUs, at least assuming your game is going on PC as well.
You realize this, yes? There is no reason they can't just make lower quality assets for Series S and then keep using the higher quality ones for SeX and PS5.
Or better yet, use some of those fancy new hardware features that Microsoft and Sony liked to talk about leading up to release:
Geometry Engine, Sampler Feedback Streaming and such
You should absolutely understand the technical limitations when you start the project. This is like saying I'm gonna start to design and build a car that defies the laws of physics.
It's time to give Series S the 720p + FSR treatment
Jedi Survivor does that and it runs at a locked 30 FPS on the S. And it's a much more demanding game. Larian are just capping to avoid releasing the same day as Starfield on Xbox.
That actually seems sort of reasonable.
Though I imagine 4-way splitscreen could also be an issue if all 4 players are on different parts of the map
It's like 8 player Smash with Ice Climbers on that mirror stage in Smash Ultimate
At the absolute upper limit, you may run into either memory issues. But Imagine, given the min spec GPU is a GTX 970, there shouldn't be TOO much issue gettig it on a Series S
If they REALLY wanted to release on Xbox they could have limited the max distance between the players in split screen with some visible or invisible wall or some bullshit (on both X and S since Microsoft requires parity), and patch out this limitation later. Or even release on both X and S with split screen coming in a later patch for both. It's not a critical feature to launch the game. But no, because they won't risk going toe to toe against Todd.
>Or even release on both X and S with split screen coming in a later patch for both. It's not a critical feature to launch the game. But no, because they won't risk going toe to toe against Todd.
I do agree that they recognize that an Xbox version would be sent out to die if it came out same time with Starfield
And it probably is for the best: It comes out later during a dry period, maybe even on Game Pass, but far less buggy than even the PS5 version
based xbox one s i just bought for my brother so we could play call of duty together
How come no one has a problem making "next gen" games for the ps4?
>The developers are shit!
No, the problem is the Series S has no fricking memory. It has 10GB of SHARED RAM. But 2GB of this is dedicated to the OS. So it has 8GB of RAM in total. This isn't 8GB of RAM and another 8GB of VRAM. This is 8GB of RAM used by both the CPU and GPU.
Baldurs Gate 3 has a minimum requirement of 8GB of Ram and 4GB of VRAM. Explain how you can get a game that requires 12GB of RAM in total to run on a console that only has 8GB of RAM.
8GB RAM is a PC requirement moron. 4 GB is eaten up by Windows on a good day.
Baldurs Gate 3 uses 5-6GB of RAM on PC on lowest settings. So we still need to fit 10 GB of RAM usage onto a machine with 8GB of RAM.
And split screen multiplayer uses a lot more RAM than 6GB. Closer to 6-9GB depending on where the players are. And split screen is what is stopping the game from coming to the Xbox.
Like I said, if they really wanted to release on Xbox, they could release by disabling split screen on both S and X until a future patch. But they won't. Because they're scared of Starfield.
No they couldn't because Microsoft mandates feature parity with PS5.
>scared of Starfield
LMAO this is peak delusion.
Whatever helps you sleep at night snoy
They cannot disable features, Microsoft does not allow that.
On BOTH CONSOLES, can you not read you stupid frick? What isn't allowed is disabling on S but not on X, you FRICKING IDIOT
>We've run into some technical issues in developing the Xbox port that have stopped us feeling 100% confident in announcing it until we're certain we've found the right solutions - specifically, we've been unable to get split-screen co-op to work to the same standard on both Xbox Series X and S, which is a requirement for us to ship.
>which is a requirement for us to ship.
Why would Larian say split screen co-op is a requirement for them to ship the game to Xbox then?
Are you just trolling now? They say it's a requirement on the S because they want to ship split screen on the X. Microsoft says if you ship a feature on X you must ship it on S. Larian wilfully aren't considering the option of disabling split screen on both S and X and just shipping the game like that. Do you think Microsoft mandates feature parity with the fricking Sony PlayStation 5? Do you have brain damage?
bro your reading comprehension is bad
The Series S and X must have feature parity with EACH OTHER. They do not need feature parity with PS5 or PC.
The splitscreen co-op is not working on Series S. This means that if they were to cut it to ship the game on Series S, they would ALSO have to cut that same feature on Series X.
And evidently, they don't want to do that. So instead of releasing a version of BG3 with no splitscreen or only 2-play splitscreen on Xbox, they'd rather just work on it and release that version later.
Larian has literally said they will not release the game without splitscreen as they do not believe it is fair to release an objectively inferior version of the game on only one platform.
It wont be released on the Xbox until they can get splitscreen working. If that proves impossible, then it simply will not be released on the Xbox.
>If that proves impossible, then it simply will not be released on the Xbox.
I doubt it's impossible, but yeah, I remember them saying as much
That being said, what's more unfair: one group of players not getting the same version as another or one group of players not getting the game at all?
WAIT NO FRICK OFF
THE SWITCH VERSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 2 DOESNT HAVE SPLITSCREEN
You're dumb if you believe this bullshit excuse. It's to avoid releasing on the same day as Starfield.
Yeah, I just put it together because it occurred to me that they don't even apply this logic to past games like ORiginal Sin 2. So it makes no sense that they'd apply it to their biggest new release that they'd want to recoup costs on as quickly as possible
I wonder if Starfield as multi-plat, would they have delayed BG3 on Playstation as well?
Like I said before they're not compatible. Consoles use all kinds of different tech which makes vram comparisons irrelevant.
Windows 10 uses 1.7GB when I'm gaming.
PC requirements =/= console requirements
PC has a lot of overhead to deal with. Consoles are extremely light weight in comparison.
Consoles are not that lightweight anymore, but PC still has the issue of having to copy data to the RAM that Consoles don't have to deal with. Directstorage 1.2 was suppose to fix this but lmao i guess.
Still 8GB unified RAM is frick all in 2023.
If Ganker is to be believed, it's all just shit developers who don't know anything (obvious Ganker are experts on this subject). Why did we even advance past the Playstation anyway? All games could just be optimized until they work on it if Ganker is to be believed.
Karma. Get broken, Xbucks.
BG3 shits all over Memefield, Xbot.
>BG3 shits all over Memefield, Xbot.
>no argument
I don't blame you, the Xbox brand is indefensible at this point. Imagine missing out on the game of the generation, Baldur's Gate 3, because of MS's moronic commitment to feature parity lmao. Couldn't be me.
See
See
Kys moronic homosexual
Except the dev said its coming to xbox. Xbox players aren't missing out on anything. Meanwhile i can't say the same about playstation and starfield. Xbox players will be playing BG3 in a few months. Playstation players will never, ever see another Bethesda RPG again including starfield.
>never, ever see another Bethesda RPG
Fine by me, they take a decade+ to develop, are buggy as shit, and are dumbed down for morons. Oh, and let's not forget the 30fps cap on consoles. I'll take a few months of console exclusivity of the greatest CRPG ever made over Bethesda's hiking simulators.
This post makes no sense but I bet you thought it sounded clever in your head. We're at sub room temperature levels of IQ here.
The Bethestard struggles with basic reading comprehension.
>I'll take only BG3 over both starfield and BG3
Was your reply. Makes no logical sense. Please think before you type.
I'm not interested in Starfield and Bethesda RPGs as a whole, for the reasons stated. I made it perfectly clear, you're just moronic.
Of course you're not, because they're not coming to your platform. Common occurrence with fanboys such as yourself.
Yeah, and I'm sure you didn't jump on the ff16 hate bandwagon the moment it was confirmed ps5 exclusive, right?
Why would I. I've never played a final fantasy except a bit when they gave the 7 remake away for free on PS+ years ago on PS4. I have no opinions on the new one.
>not on your platform
Wrong.
>Common occurrence with fanboys such as yourself
lol weren't you just gloating over the fact that future Bethesda games won't be on PS?
Has any PCfriend come in here claiming that consoles as a whole hold us back?
This might be the stumbling block the series s needs. We know from the devs the xbox advanced technologies group is working with them to resolve this issue so maybe Microsoft could learn a lesson or two from this experience and change their development tools to accommodate for it or refine them, or even develop new tech which assists devs with these kinds of issues.
pussywhipped lazy devs thats the only answer
>cdprojekt can release witcher 3 on shitty tablet
>larian can't even make bg3 work on toaster pc
seems like they are just bad at making games and don't want to admit
why do you care about this guys opinion again?
the game mag he was involved with was pretty good. they used to give honest scores on 1-10 scale, like 6/10 was a pretty good game. i remember them giving god hand 6/10 and players choice award for best game of that month lol.
He seems like an alright guy but I'll never forget that one Q&A segment from Pelaaja where he said that the reason they didn't review PC games at the time was because PC doesn't have game, it has software.
This was in like the sixth gen days when PC gaming was perpetually "a few years away from dying".
Isn't the main problem getting split screen to work on it? That's not really something a PC with equivalent specs has to worry about
I blame splitscreen homosexuals.
Who the frick plays couch co-op in 2023?
People piss their pants over this in Halo as well.
The people who demand splitscreen are the same sort of people who buy the Series S. Cheap frickers who think they should be able to spent less money but get the same experience as everyone else.
>splitscreen bad!!
only insufferable friendless morons would say this
We have had online co-op for 20 years and it's a better experience.
There is no excuse. Even back in the day split-screen looked bad.
how are you going to play online coop in a friend's living room, moron? are you going to set up a pseudo-LAN party just to play some coop? ffs, I hope you're just baiting.
Yeah it's not hard to do that. Friend of mine takes his Series S to my place, hooks it up on my Monitor and then we play stuff together while being in the same room.
Yea. Series S is only $250. It's not unreasonable to have two of them on separate screens in the same house.
Imagine wasting $250 because you can't carry a literally Switch sized device from one screen to the other.
yes, it is, because if there was splitscreen you wouldn't have to know ahead of time that you want to play some fricking coop and prepare by bringing a separate console, having a second monitor/TV ready etc., you'd just be in the vicinity of ONE console and it would be an option to play coop whenever you want. there is simply no way you are this much of a corpo cumguzzler.
they got rid of split screen because publishers are hoping to sell extra copies that way*. it has nothing to do with technical difficult or performance. lots of games pulled split screen off with zero issues during 6th gen and still some in early 7th gen. then suddenly WE LOST THE TECHNOLOGY at the same time as every other aspect of gaming went into hypergreed mode over the course of just one generation, the 7th. holy shit.
*of course the exact opposite of the truth - in reality splitscreen was a huge selling point for games because it means you can try the game at your buddy's house without taking away from his own play-time. then you go home and think "damn, if only I had my own copy of the game I could continue playing it right now". split screen lead to more people trying out a game and more people talking about it and of course more people buying it. but publishers are so fricking moronic, they still pretend that piracy reduces sales and wasting budget on copy protection generates sales, a decade after the former was debunked by the EU study. (the former is the premise for the latter)
>durr just optimize it grafix aren't everything
if they followed your advice, you, the very same homosexuals, would be posting screenshots of the shitgarbage looking console version going OH NO NO NO NO right now instead
Yes :^)
We'll know what's up once the ps5 version launches. If it runs like shit on that then it puts a lot into context. It would be funny if series s ends up performing better than the ps5 version after this big optimization effort for it.
Part of the issue is that games do not sell on Xbox. The money comes from Microsoft subsidizing everyone's copy via Game Pass but adding games to Game Pass on day 1 kills profits because there are consumers that refuse to buy something for $60 or $70 that others are getting for much less and they can still get a lot of Game Pass money later on anyway so it's better to have more initial sales up front to maximize profits.
So people can cry that Larian should optimize the game, but in all honestly why should anyone waste money on optimizing a game on a platform where it won't sell because everyone waits for Microsoft to buy their copy via Game Pass instead? Larian made a fuss about it and Microsoft sent a team over to port the game for them so that Microsoft could save face, it's not the first time Microsoft has paid for ports either, they did it with Nier Automata too and I wouldn't be surprised if Square's recent commitment to bring more games to Xbox is because Microsoft is going to pay for all those ports, potentially having their internal team do all of the work while Square collects free money.
homie do you really think that Larian gave Bill Gates a quick call who then sent some nerds over to fix shit? Lmao
No, I think that Larian went "Yeah we had to push this back because the Series S SUCKS. No idea when it'll be finished" and Microsoft sent over a team to go get it finished to stop it from being a PS5 exclusive and a talking point that Snoys would use for the entire generation.
Doom Eternal Upgrade to Next Gen
Xbox Series X
Performance Mode: 1800p – 120fps
Balanced Mode: 2160p – 60fps
Ray Tracing Mode: 1800p – 60fps
Xbox Series S
Performance Mode: 1080p – 120fps
Balanced Mode: 1440p – 60fps
Ray Tracing Mode: Not Available
Meanwhile, PC can hit 500fps
Doom Eternal can run on Switch
All the more reason why the devs crying about series s are incompetent and lazy.
>Nobody really wants to think of [optimization, the end user experience] when you start making your game, when everything is possible
nuDevs, everyone. thanks for the zero good games people like this have ever created.
>Corpos refuse to do proper talent scouting or offer competitive pay+benefits, inducing catastrophic brain drain across the industry
>Actual programmers overwhelmingly trend towards going independent or just leaving the industry entirely for web dev jobs
wtf bros why are games so unoptimized i bet diversity did this
who cares, microsoft should have never entered the console space.
BG3 can run on the series S just not the co-op mode
I just bought a Series S, how fricked am I? Before you answer, put yourself in my shoes and imagine the Series S costs you 2.5k$, and the series X costs 3.9k$, and a modern gaming PC costs about 13k$ for 2020 parts. Would you have spent that extra 1.4k$ on the Series X?
>would you spend more money to buy a real console instead of a paperweight?
I had the Xbox one for over a decade and never had any issues. If the Series S is stronger then I don't think I'll have any issues. I'm assuming you're one of those gamers who blow thousands of dollars on top of the line hardware
all I'm hearing is
>I'm poor
Yes. Minimum wage here is 300$
And how much is that in freedom units?
300 dollars.
Aint nobody making 300 an hour minimum wage. Get outta here.
It's 300 dollars a month.
Dude ignore most of the people here. Most of them are console warring homosexuals. I have a good gaming pc, a ps5 and I've had a series s for a while and besides a bump down in graphics it's fine. Many seem to forgot that not everyone games at 4k. I've seen someone setup a ps5 with a 1080p plasma tv from like 2010. It doesn't matter. Be happy that microsoft is forcing these crappy devs to support the system even through all these twitter fits.
BG3 would take up 1/3 of the Series S storage space itself, I have a Series X and the 800gb storage is 95% full with 20 games on it.
Nah your fine. Most people are barely moving to 4k if at all. unless you play the latest and most intensive goyslop you really won't feel a huge difference.
Cool. I figured as much but everyone shitting on S had me worried I made the wrong choice. I should've considered everyone here is mostly extremely spoiled gamers from Pc "masterrace" that can't pretend 60fps and above is real and matters
You'll be surprised. I'm a pc gamer and most of the series s hate comes from playstation gays. You'll be fine with the series s. Enjoy it.
You're good tbh. Apparently there are more SeS in the wild than SeX. Devs wouldn't be able to cut it out completely even if it actually were an issue. MS certainly isn't going to drop support for it. It'd be a huge PR shitstorm. Probably even worse than the X1 reveal.
>Before you answer, put yourself in my shoes and imagine the Series S costs you 2.5k$, and the series X costs 3.9k$, and a modern gaming PC costs about 13k$
Jesus do you live in Cambodia?
Brazil. Minimum wage here is 300 dollars a month, and there's a 100-200% import tax. For example, if I want to buy a drone, I'd pay 350$ for the price, and then a 750$ price to import it into my country. Thus, not only are salaries smaller but also everything is extremely overpriced.
>100-200% import tax
why, whos responsible for that?
The idea is for it to force people to buy from their own country and support the local economy, but it doesn't work very well since literally everything technological is imported so we are get fricked all the same.
why not put tax on non tech stuff, is Brazil making electronics at all? I guarantee politicians know its fricking people over but still keep it cause it makes them money.
If gaming consoles (and games) were that expensive for me I would find a different hobby.
the only other hobby in brazil is getting murdered
And do what else? The cheapest bike would be 1k$, a good one 5k$. Cheapest car? 40k$ for something from 2010 with two seats. Travel? 6k$ to go to any country outside of South America, 4k$ even inside South America.
In Brazil we just don't drag it out. There's a turd there, and we have to eat it. We don't chew, we just swallow. That's how we survive in Brazil. Just swallow the shit and don't think about it
You could just murder-rob someone like the rest of your countrymen.
You mean like subhumans from the North. Don't associate us with those mudbloods, even if they live with us.
As for you getting a Series S. I think that's fine. I've been using a Series S for the past 2.5 years. Money was tight. I've recently upgraded to a PS5, but I question the wisdom of that decision. The S was "fine". Sure the higher resolution and ray tracing effects are nice, but they aren't really necessary to enjoy games.
>And do what else?
Save as much money as I could and get the frick out of that shithole by whatever means necessary, for one.
>Literally nobody gives a shit about this feature.
lol
lmao even
just because you don't have any friends to play with doesn't mean the rest of us are playing solo.
You need 50k$ minimum to even be considered to be allowed to live in any better country. You need to have skills that will be valuable to the country you're moving to. If you're married, or if you have kids you have better chances of getting in, but by that point you have no chance of saving money. Your English needs to be good too. Getting 50K$ takes about...on minimum wage, it would take about 18 years. So you need to be a doctor or something and save up for several years to even be allowed to live in another country.
Sounds like you should be saving your money to get out of that dogshit country instead of blowing it on xboxes and other shit, but I have zero real frame of reference for you as I'm an independently (decently) wealthy white dude living in america
I am currently saving money to travel to Japan. I will save for 3 years making so that I can spend it all in 2 weeks even travelling on a budget. Fun innit?
I got something else you can swallow
>guys when will BG3 come to switch??
Nothing about Baldurs Gate 3 screams next gen to me besides textures/player character models. Easily simplified for weak hardware.
Isn't the series S basically ps4/xbox one levels of ass?
sex with series s (the smaller and slower one)...
Cute asian girls!
>Release game on console
>technical limitation
Litteraly moron
Xblunder Series Shit
Anon that's so transphobic
>have to take limitations into account from the beginning
>PS5 and SX versions of everything still run 720p 15fps
Are consolegays smart enough to see the issue? No, of course not.
>oh no the console is too weak and shit we need more graphics, we can't use pc low presets and limit FPS to 30 because we just can't ok
>meanwhile the best games of all time run on toasters
I don't get it
The problem is the couch co-op split screen which takes a substantial amount of RAM to do and the SS only has like 8 GB of RAM. Even if they jack the settings to lowest of low and render it at 720p they're still going to run into RAM issues just from the engine overhead.
Most game devs are lazy about figuring out smart ways around limited memory. This has been true since the 7th gen especially
There aren't any "smart ways" around limited memory. It's just a combination of good texture usage/lack of texture bloat, good level/world design which alleviates the VRAM issues and texture compression. That's literally all it is. This isn't the era of 16-bit where you can get away with those sorts of magic.
That's what I mean. My point is there's lots of dumb ways to waste VRAM during a given scene and some smart ways about making sure you only load in what you actually need.
For instance, have you ever wondered why the explorable version of Garreg Mach in 3 houses runs like shit so badly, even compared to the battle maps? It's becauase they have 3 versions of it loaded in at any given moment while you're exploring, I believe this is for three different times of day?
>they released bg3 on pc before starfield drops
>they will release it on ps5 around the same time starfield drops to capitalize on snoys
>they will release it sometime after starfield dies down on xbox next year
the developers are just being smart from a financial standpoint
No point in rivaling a giant like Bethesda