148

Baldur’s Gate 3 Delay Shows The Xbox Series S Still A Headache For Developers (www.kotaku.com.au)

submitted 1 year ago by yesterdayshero@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm not sure Microsoft did this generation of consoles any favours by launching the Series S.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Reaphenex@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

For those curious Swen spoke a little about the issues with Xbox they've been having and why they haven't officially announced the game for Xbox yet in this interview on SkillUp a few days ago.

Basically, the gist is that it's just not ready yet. They are currently trying to optimize it well enough so it runs 60fps even with 4 player co-op split screen which is a tall ask for the series S. Rather than hold PC and PS5 back they are instead focusing on their release and then will continue to work on Xbox after much like they did with Switch for DOS2.

[-] Lord_Logjam@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Although this is frustrating for XSX owners like myself, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I've played a little bit of early access on Stadia and I hope all the PC and PS5 players are having a blast.

[-] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

The Series S specs exceed all the listed minimum specs on the BG3 Steam page for PC. How is the Series S holding anything back when they apparently support their game on shittier PCs?

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

The problem is that they have couch coop play. They struggle making it work with Series S. From what I understand, they cannot just make a separate version without coop just for Series S. All game features in Series X must also be available on Series S. I guess that’s a limitation imposed by Microsoft.

With PC you don’t have that limitation. If your computer can’t do couch coop then too bad for you. Minimum specs probably doesn’t account for coop.

I’m not sure why they don’t remove couch coop completely from the Xbox versions. Probably because they think it’s removing too much of their vision of the game.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] Dum@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

It may be due to Microsoft demanding certain minimum configurations: at the very least minimum resolution and minimum frame rate. On PC you can always go down to 240p and/or live with 10fps in very high density scenes. Microsoft can (and will) just say "no" if they try that on the Xbox S

[+] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca -6 points 1 year ago

I understand that but surely the articles should be “developers lie about minimum specs on PC” surely. I believe the concept of a lower priced and accessible console should be encouraged. If that means developers have to try a little harder to support people who buy a cheaper console then so be it.

[-] Dum@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

I guess that's debatable, depends on how you define what "it runs" means. PC gamers with dated hardware may be fine with playing on 1080p, while on the Xbox Microsoft might veto if it doesn't run on 1440p and 30fps. Of course weaker hardware won't run everything faster hardware can, you can't just sprinkle infinite magic optimization dust on a game, there are simply limits what's possible with weaker hardware, and once you've reached them you can't just shout "enhance" like in CSI Miami.

[-] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago

So MS enforcing a level of quality is a good thing then. The alternative is 12 fps at 720p.

[-] Dum@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Not in my opinion: if you read the article, it clearly says that Microsoft enforcing a level of quality for dated hardware leads to devs abolishing features that the hardware series S hardware won't be able to support. They also can't decide to not support the S unless they abandon the Xbox series X as well. It leads to lower quality games for everyone, not just series S owners.

[-] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Probably because MS wants feature parity for both consoles where every feature runs at acceptable frame rates. Like the minimum PC spec most likely runs split screen like dog shit. But MS will not accept that for the Series S. While PC gamers with weak hardware accept that the game will not always run optimal

[-] Thadrax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

My PC is above minimum specs and BG3 ran really poorly even on low. Maybe they got a similar issue with the s.

[-] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that’s the problem, they obviously lie about minimum specs on PC but that is OK for some reason. Xbox enforcing a quality experience for its users is somehow “holding the industry back”.

[-] yesterdayshero@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago

Mate the Xbox is a PC with better support and static specs. And yes Most games are available on every platform on day one.

[-] yesterdayshero@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] EarthlingHazard@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I have a feeling all of these complaints about supporting the Series S will disappear once the Switch successor releases and devs have a new console with weaker specs to complain about

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

But devs already have the Switch which has weaker specs.

[-] EarthlingHazard@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes but most devs leave it out since publishers originally let them. Activision recently said ignoring the switch was a mistake so I doubt publishers will be making the same mistake again when we have a new switch

[-] Neato@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

With how little power the switch 2 likely will still have, developers will still ignore it.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I imagine it won’t be much stronger than the Steam Deck, and I’m dubious that that will serve 4-player splitscreen 60fps.

There’s a kind of upper limit we’re hitting with tech in regards to what can be delivered conveniently in a handheld format with a reasonable battery life. It might even explain why the Xbox S|X and PS5 are quite a bit bigger than predecessors.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

For those interested, a certain analytics company claimed on vague terms that certain markets sell more Series S than X consoles.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/ampere-xbox-series-s-outselling-series-x-in-key-markets?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en-US&safesearch=moderate

So that suggests, if Microsoft had never released that lower-power console, they’d be selling fewer of the pair this generation.

Ultimately, this issue seems specific to the devs’ wish for a 60fps 4-player split screen mode, something that certainly does seem computationally expensive even if resolution is lowered.

[-] yesterdayshero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

“No data provided” is going to be relatively common for sales of consoles/games, especially when going specific to certain markets. That data is literally valuable, and might be purchased by publishers looking to make development or release decisions.

As such, when we do get it for free articles, it’s from relative comparables, like “More oranges than apples”. Anyone in comments that happens to work for a publisher is likely under NDA agreement not to just give it out.

I agree that I’d like to see more recent data, and made an effort to find what I could - but it’s also hard to say if any specific change in circumstance might reverse sale rates between the two models.

[-] Ilikepornaddict@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it suggests that at all. I think people just saw their options, and went for the cheaper one. If there was no cheaper option, they would've just bought the X.

[-] utopianrevolt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well, there is a decent chance they would have gone for the PS5 instead.

[-] lorty@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Developers can shit on series S as much as they want, but if Microsoft relax the feature parity it would be a death sentence for the series S.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

More of a death sentence than games just not coming to Xbox?

They could just run the game on xCloud for certain titles.

[-] lorty@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

They could just run the game on xCloud for certain titles.

Not a bad idea honestly.

[-] MrLuemasG@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Except you'd have to be always online to play it that way, and forcing always online as the only way to play is a huge part of what killed the Xbox One. It wouldn't surprise me if Xbox isn't ready to try and push that again (as the only option, they're obviously fine having it be AN option on their console)