Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Baldur's Gate 3 Lead Says Xbox Series S Isn't Holding Back Current-Gen

Swen Vincke likened developing for the Xbox Series S to minimum spec PCs and the Nintendo Switch.

www.thegamer.com

"Larian Studios CEO and Baldur's Gate 3 creative lead Swen Vincke says that "the platform is perfectly fine".

"Do I think it holds [gaming] back?" Vincke said in an interview with Skill Up. "It just defines certain parameters within which you have to develop. There are ways of doing that - it just takes development effort [...] Despite us having grown, we don't have infinite resources. That means we can't do everything at the same time."

Looks like more a question of resources.

Looks like more a repeat of what Sony did with the PS3 where devs were having a hard time porting 360 games due to the esoteric Cell processor.

 

[jm89]

Yeah but it's still a much lower specced SKU that HAS to be supported by PS devs, right? Unless Sony is going to start shipping games with Pro-only features or entire Pro-only games.

Well it won't be much lower speced sku like the series s.

And ps5 pro will be optional enhancements for devs like the ps4 pro, baseline will be ps5.

 

[balls of snow]

The only good thing about the series s is it keeps my laptop viable until next gen. Who says you need more than 8gb vram.

 

[SlimySnake]

Such a terrible decision by Phil

Just really bad strategy and thought leadership on his part that’s going to hamstring this gen

People should be writing entire thesis on this bizarre, boneheaded, selfish and anti-consumer move but as the article says, games media like Digital Foundry downplayed concerns before devs finally came out and called this console a potato.

Everyone wants to be friends with CEOs in this industry. There is zero accountability. I have not seen anyone pick up the phone and ask Phil or Jason Ronald to comment on literally dozens of games that have shipped without ray tracing or 60 fps modes on the series s despite MS claiming parity of features in marketing this console. The gaming journalists are too busy focusing on developer crunch or diversity issues. Great, now can we also focus a little bit on the consumer?

Here is what I would love the journalists to cover:

- Why was this thing greenlit after devs trashed it for being too underpowered? DF had several sources before its reveal saying devs were vehemently against it.
- Were the devs concerns addressed and specs upgraded? If not, why did Phil and co. ship this thing knowing devs had massive concerns about supporting it.
- At what resolution does MS step in and say it is unacceptable for a console they advertised as a 1440p console. DF said Matrix demo dropped significantly below 533p. Metro was at 512p. What are their standards for games to pass certification? 480p? 360p?
- Why should XSX owners who paid $250 extra for their console be punished with a delay because of a console they did not buy.
- What is the sales split between the two consoles? How many xss users are going to be affected by this? Why keep the sales split a secret?
- What exactly are the devs concerns? RAM, GPU, both? Go off the record if you have to, but its very surprising how few articles have been written about this. Even this one sources twitter instead of reaching out to devs themselves.
- If the pricepoint was a key target then why not take the loss like console manufacturers did in the past instead of passing down the cost to unsuspecting buyers who may not know about RAM and tflops bottlenecks. As a trillion dollar company, surely they can afford $6 per GB of vram. Sony, MS, and Sega all used to take $100 losses on these consoles. Sony took $250 losses with the PS3 for the first two years. Why cant a company that can afford to pay $70 billion for activiision while making $40 billion in profits last year spend an extra $36 to ensure ram parity?

 

[Vox Machina]

Well it won't be much lower speced sku like the series s.

And ps5 pro will be optional enhancements for devs like the ps4 pro, baseline will be ps5.

Sounds like we're just saying the same thing, tbh. How does a PS5 Pro that has over double the compute power (saw a rumor on Twitter putting the Pro at 20+ TF), and more (and faster) memory, not make the PS5 "much lower specced" by comparison?

 

[Gaiff]

Baldur's Gate 3 Lead Says Xbox Series S Isn't Holding Back Current-Gen

Swen Vincke likened developing for the Xbox Series S to minimum spec PCs and the Nintendo Switch.

www.thegamer.com

"Larian Studios CEO and Baldur's Gate 3 creative lead Swen Vincke says that "the platform is perfectly fine".

"Do I think it holds [gaming] back?" Vincke said in an interview with Skill Up. "It just defines certain parameters within which you have to develop. There are ways of doing that - it just takes development effort [...] Despite us having grown, we don't have infinite resources. That means we can't do everything at the same time."

Looks like more a question of resources.

Most roundabout way of answering, "Yes, the Series S holds us back?"

 

[Klosshufvud]

RDR2 took ~400 million to make and 8 years. It's the fuck you money they made from GTA Online, do you really think its common in the industry?

And lower specs to keep devs in check? What does that even mean?
Do you have any idea about software development?

I know enough to know that current-gen games have been bloated, poorly coded trainwrecks on PC. Gotham Knights, Jedi Survivor, Hogwart's Legacy...they all tell the same story. The more resources they are given, the more shortcuts are taken.

 

[jm89]

Sounds like we're just saying the same thing, tbh. How does a PS5 Pro that has over double the compute power (saw a rumor on Twitter putting the Pro at 20+ TF), and more (and faster) memory, not make the PS5 "much lower specced" by comparison?

Because any enhancements done on ps5 pro will be optional just like the ps4 pro.

If we look at current gen expectations ps5 and xsx is what devs are wanting, and it works well for devs as they are somewhat aligned spec wise.

Now for xbox they are doing extra work(mandatory because of parity clause) for the series s to make things work making comprises.

With ps5 pro they don't have to. They develop for ps5 and whether they do any more work for ps5 pro to enhance is optional.

 

[Vox Machina]

Because any enhancements done on ps5 pro will be optional just like the ps4 pro.

If we look at current gen expectations ps5 and xsx is what devs are wanting, and it works well for devs as they are somewhat aligned spec wise.

Now for xbox they are doing extra work(mandatory because of parity clause) for the series s to make things work making comprises.

With ps5 pro they don't have to. They develop for ps5 and whether they do any more work for ps5 pro to enhance is optional.

So if a PS developer wants to make a feature or game that needs the extra compute power or memory in the PS5 Pro they literally couldn't because the PS5 would be incapable of running that feature? How is that not holding games back for Pro owners?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Sounds like we're just saying the same thing, tbh. How does a PS5 Pro that has over double the compute power (saw a rumor on Twitter putting the Pro at 20+ TF), and more (and faster) memory, not make the PS5 "much lower specced" by comparison?

Can we stop comparing the PS5 to the Series S?

Thank you.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Can we stop comparing the PS5 to the Series S?

Thank you.

I am glad I'm not the only one who saw that intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Vox Machina]

Can we stop comparing the PS5 to the Series S?

Thank you.

I'm not. I'm comparing the PS5 to a PS5 Pro. The idea is the same.

 

[GetInTheRobot]

Such a terrible decision by Phil

Just really bad strategy and thought leadership on his part that’s going to hamstring this gen

I don't think making long term decision around Baldurs gate 3 is really in Xboxs business plans. Especially considering MS considers the PC a huge platform anyway. This game will do best on PC and if anyone buys a new PC for it its a win for MS anyway.

 

[FunkMiller]

The retarded little brother strikes again.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Ms fans be like

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm not. I'm comparing the PS5 to a PS5 Pro. The idea is the same.

Context and nuance are a thing. There is a far greater gulf in game design when the XSX/PS5 is the baseline vs. The Series S.

Everyone knows that a pro machine is there to enhance that baseline, what you don't do, is launch your "pro machine" the same year as your baseline box (going by DF's new approved narrative), when your pro box is trading blows with the competition's baseline box. Especially when your baseline box can't even run last gen games in the enhanced modes due to memory limitations.

Especially if that parity clause box is going to be a boat anchor for the "XSX2's 2026 launch" you were keen to support.

 

[jm89]

So if a PS developer wants to make a feature or game that needs the extra compute power or memory in the PS5 Pro they literally couldn't because the PS5 would be incapable of running that feature? How is that not holding games back for Pro owners?

What?

Of course they can. But it's optional.

And if ps4 pro is anything to go by, ps5 pro owners may end up getting better framerates for free.

Nothing is being held back like the series s.

 

[yamaci17]

People should be writing entire thesis on this bizarre, boneheaded, selfish and anti-consumer move but as the article says, games media like Digital Foundry downplayed concerns before devs finally came out and called this console a potato.

Everyone wants to be friends with CEOs in this industry. There is zero accountability. I have not seen anyone pick up the phone and ask Phil or Jason Ronald to comment on literally dozens of games that have shipped without ray tracing or 60 fps modes on the series s despite MS claiming parity of features in marketing this console. The gaming journalists are too busy focusing on developer crunch or diversity issues. Great, now can we also focus a little bit on the consumer?

Here is what I would love the journalists to cover:

- Why was this thing greenlit after devs trashed it for being too underpowered? DF had several sources before its reveal saying devs were vehemently against it.
- Were the devs concerns addressed and specs upgraded? If not, why did Phil and co. ship this thing knowing devs had massive concerns about supporting it.
- At what resolution does MS step in and say it is unacceptable for a console they advertised as a 1440p console. DF said Matrix demo dropped significantly below 533p. Metro was at 512p. What are their standards for games to pass certification? 480p? 360p?
- Why should XSX owners who paid $250 extra for their console be punished with a delay because of a console they did not buy.
- What is the sales split between the two consoles? How many xss users are going to be affected by this? Why keep the sales split a secret?
- What exactly are the devs concerns? RAM, GPU, both? Go off the record if you have to, but its very surprising how few articles have been written about this. Even this one sources twitter instead of reaching out to devs themselves.
- If the pricepoint was a key target then why not take the loss like console manufacturers did in the past instead of passing down the cost to unsuspecting buyers who may not know about RAM and tflops bottlenecks. As a trillion dollar company, surely they can afford $6 per GB of vram. Sony, MS, and Sega all used to take $100 losses on these consoles. Sony took $250 losses with the PS3 for the first two years. Why cant a company that can afford to pay $70 billion for activiision while making $40 billion in profits last year spend an extra $36 to ensure ram parity?

truly one of the snakes of all time !

 

[poppabk]

Who knew that Xbox creating the Series S would end up being just as retarded as a decision as the "always online" protocol from the Xbox One reveal.

It sounds good in theory, we'll help out people that want to play new generation games but don't have a lot of money with a machine that they can afford.

As time goes on we may see third party studios only releasing games for PS5 and PC if the policy doesn't change.

It really seems like Microsoft just can't win.

In other news - Jedi Survivor to release on PS4 and Xbone.

 

[BossLackey]

There it is. POS box for 2023 and beyond hampering design phases for games due to the parity clause.

They sure do want to "disrupt the industry."

 

[analog_future]

I've been a Series S defender from the start, but it's hard to continue to be positive about the console when it's actively holding back new games from coming to the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[Vox Machina]

What?

Of course they can. But it's optional.

I don't think that's true at all. Did last gen. see any PS4-pro specific features or PS4-pro specific games. If it did then hell yeah console gamers. If not, then it just seems like these "Pro" versions should just be separate gens and let developers make the call on whether or not they want their game to be cross-gen, or, if it requires the enhanced specifications, make that the lowest hardware spec it supports.

Edit: FWIW I do think they should relax the parity clause and allow games to ship with different featuresets if they literally cannot support it at launch on the lower-specced units.

 

[Mokus]

just make the games run at 240p and be done with it i say!

You can't compensate the lack of RAM by reducing the output resolution. It helps when the GPU and/or the CPU are struggling with the game. When you don't have enough RAM (or it's too slow for the software) that's it. When somebody jumps in with you for the splitscreen gameplay in BG3 on the Series S, the game will crash or it's going to be sluggish until it crashes.


Resolution reduction was useful for the lack of RAM on PC with the old 2D games like Age of Empires 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Diablo 2...

 

[DeepEnigma]

People should be writing entire thesis on this bizarre, boneheaded, selfish and anti-consumer move but as the article says, games media like Digital Foundry downplayed concerns before devs finally came out and called this console a potato.

Everyone wants to be friends with CEOs in this industry. There is zero accountability. I have not seen anyone pick up the phone and ask Phil or Jason Ronald to comment on literally dozens of games that have shipped without ray tracing or 60 fps modes on the series s despite MS claiming parity of features in marketing this console. The gaming journalists are too busy focusing on developer crunch or diversity issues. Great, now can we also focus a little bit on the consumer?

Here is what I would love the journalists to cover:

- Why was this thing greenlit after devs trashed it for being too underpowered? DF had several sources before its reveal saying devs were vehemently against it.
- Were the devs concerns addressed and specs upgraded? If not, why did Phil and co. ship this thing knowing devs had massive concerns about supporting it.
- At what resolution does MS step in and say it is unacceptable for a console they advertised as a 1440p console. DF said Matrix demo dropped significantly below 533p. Metro was at 512p. What are their standards for games to pass certification? 480p? 360p?
- Why should XSX owners who paid $250 extra for their console be punished with a delay because of a console they did not buy.
- What is the sales split between the two consoles? How many xss users are going to be affected by this? Why keep the sales split a secret?
- What exactly are the devs concerns? RAM, GPU, both? Go off the record if you have to, but its very surprising how few articles have been written about this. Even this one sources twitter instead of reaching out to devs themselves.
- If the pricepoint was a key target then why not take the loss like console manufacturers did in the past instead of passing down the cost to unsuspecting buyers who may not know about RAM and tflops bottlenecks. As a trillion dollar company, surely they can afford $6 per GB of vram. Sony, MS, and Sega all used to take $100 losses on these consoles. Sony took $250 losses with the PS3 for the first two years. Why cant a company that can afford to pay $70 billion for activiision while making $40 billion in profits last year spend an extra $36 to ensure ram parity?

You are asking "journalists" to actually be journalists. That may be harder than designing current and next-gen games around the S.

 

[yamaci17]

You can't compensate the lack of RAM by reducing the output resolution. It helps when the GPU and/or the CPU are struggling with the game. When you don't have enough RAM (or it's too slow for the software) that's it. When somebody jumps in with you for the splitscreen gameplay in BG3 on the Series S, the game will crash or it's going to be sluggish until it crashes.


Resolution reduction was useful for the lack of RAM on PC with the old 2D games like Age of Empires 2, Baldur's Gate 2, Diablo 2...

Actually 240p maybe... can help. I mean actually there are ways that... games can survive on limited memory.


like this for example. maybe some dev can release their game like this as a way to answer "here, this is how it looks like with ram usage reduced!". but then of course "x game looked better on y" comments would ensue
i mean look at how gtx 660 renders tomb raider and arkham knight




interesting, innit? gtx 660 users must revolt. how dare hogwarts legacy look like that on 2 gb ram when the above games exist? right? them lazy devs, surely. we blamed NVIDIA for giving those gtx 600 700 GPUs 2 GB VRAM but it was lazy devs all along.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'm not. I'm comparing the PS5 to a PS5 Pro. The idea is the same.

No it isn't.

 

[Fuz]

Well, this is the same thing that always happened to PC because of consoles' existence.

 

[Vox Machina]

No it isn't.

When developers are prevented from shipping features or games that need the higher specs provided by the higher spec unit then yes, it is.

Well, this is the same thing that always happened to PC because of consoles' existence.

Yeah PC gamers have been dealing with this for decades tbh.

 

[SlimySnake]

I've been a Series S defender from the start, but it's hard to continue to be positive about the console when it's actively holding back new games from coming to the Xbox ecosystem.

To be fair, it isnt holding back games from coming to Xbox. Microsoft is. The issue is with the splitscreen coop not working properly on the series s so if MS werent so against it, they couldve literally shipped the game just without splitscreen coop on the series s.

this is a freaking top down turn based action game. It can easily run on the series s, just not a very specfic mode 99% of gamers wont even bother using. MS just made a mess of the whole situation.

 

[Topher]

Well, this is the same thing that always happened to PC because of consoles' existence.

It really isn't though. This is a very specific issue with the XSS and Microsoft's own policies of feature parity. PC doesn't have anything like that in place.

 

[MasterCornholio]

When developers are prevented from shipping features or games that need the higher specs provided by the higher spec unit then yes, it is.

No it isn't. Your just making things up at this point without any evidence.

 

[SkylineRKR]

People should be writing entire thesis on this bizarre, boneheaded, selfish and anti-consumer move but as the article says, games media like Digital Foundry downplayed concerns before devs finally came out and called this console a potato.

Everyone wants to be friends with CEOs in this industry. There is zero accountability. I have not seen anyone pick up the phone and ask Phil or Jason Ronald to comment on literally dozens of games that have shipped without ray tracing or 60 fps modes on the series s despite MS claiming parity of features in marketing this console. The gaming journalists are too busy focusing on developer crunch or diversity issues. Great, now can we also focus a little bit on the consumer?

Here is what I would love the journalists to cover:

- Why was this thing greenlit after devs trashed it for being too underpowered? DF had several sources before its reveal saying devs were vehemently against it.
- Were the devs concerns addressed and specs upgraded? If not, why did Phil and co. ship this thing knowing devs had massive concerns about supporting it.
- At what resolution does MS step in and say it is unacceptable for a console they advertised as a 1440p console. DF said Matrix demo dropped significantly below 533p. Metro was at 512p. What are their standards for games to pass certification? 480p? 360p?
- Why should XSX owners who paid $250 extra for their console be punished with a delay because of a console they did not buy.
- What is the sales split between the two consoles? How many xss users are going to be affected by this? Why keep the sales split a secret?
- What exactly are the devs concerns? RAM, GPU, both? Go off the record if you have to, but its very surprising how few articles have been written about this. Even this one sources twitter instead of reaching out to devs themselves.
- If the pricepoint was a key target then why not take the loss like console manufacturers did in the past instead of passing down the cost to unsuspecting buyers who may not know about RAM and tflops bottlenecks. As a trillion dollar company, surely they can afford $6 per GB of vram. Sony, MS, and Sega all used to take $100 losses on these consoles. Sony took $250 losses with the PS3 for the first two years. Why cant a company that can afford to pay $70 billion for activiision while making $40 billion in profits last year spend an extra $36 to ensure ram parity?

MS obviously wanted to undercut Sony at all costs. And the RAM thing, i don't know what they were smoking. I love my XSS, but the RAM also ensures legacy software uses the Xbox One profile, which means you get the most shitty version of a game, worse than base PS4. Unless they go out of their way to enhance it, which costs resources and manpower. I think the cost of extra RAM would offset the need to enhance legacy games for XSS specifically. Many games wouldn't need to if they just tapped into the X1X profile like the XSX does.

In hindsight MS likely would want to have a cheaper digital XSX and a disc version, like Sony has. This would save a lot of headaches and not to mention bad press. And they would have a 399 system on hand. It wouldn't be a 299, but the value proposition of the XSS next to the digital version of their competitor is rather bad now anyway. If Sony can sell a full PS5 for 399, MS might've been able to sell a 500gb DD XSX for 350.

Form factor is a thing, the XSS is great for this, but with revisions the XSX and PS5 will likely end up being just as small anyway. There also comes a point when the PS5 and XSX can be offered for 299, and I doubt the XSS is viable enough to be dropped to 100. Factor in the Xbox sales right now, and I think we probably won't see this approach again.

 

[Vox Machina]

No it isn't. Your just making things up at this point without any evidence.

Wrong, the evidence is that for last gen., we really didn't see any Pro-console exclusive games or features. The base consoles held developers back from shipping games or features that required the enhanced specs. If thats wrong then I look forward to all those PS5 Pro (and whatever hypothetical future Xbox Series X Pro) exclusive games and features that are enabled by the extra processing power and ram. Somehow I doubt we'll see that, though.

 

[Mr Moose]

When developers are prevented from shipping features or games that need the higher specs provided by the higher spec unit then yes, it is.



Yeah PC gamers have been dealing with this for decades tbh.

PS4 Pro exists.
You're making things up.

 

[Vox Machina]

PS4 Pro exists.
You're making things up.

Sure, where's all those PS4 Pro exclusive games, then? Why did they not increase the scope and complexity of their games to take advantage of the increased specs, if not for the fact that they were actually developing for the lower-specced PS4 in actuality, and simply using the PS4 Pro for simple FPS and resolution scaling?

 

[Topher]

Wrong, the evidence is that for last gen., we really didn't see any Pro-console exclusive games or features. The base consoles held developers back from shipping games or features that required the enhanced specs. If thats wrong then I look forward to all those PS5 Pro (and whatever hypothetical future Xbox Series X Pro) exclusive games and features that are enabled by the extra processing power and ram. Somehow I doubt we'll see that, though.

The problem right now is the difference in RAM between XSX and XSS that is making this split screen mode problematic. Last gen did not have this difference RAM configurations between PS4 and PS4 Pro.

 

[yamaci17]

Wrong, the evidence is that for last gen., we really didn't see any Pro-console exclusive games or features. The base consoles held developers back from shipping games or features that required the enhanced specs. If thats wrong then I look forward to all those PS5 Pro (and whatever hypothetical future Xbox Series X Pro) exclusive games and features that are enabled by the extra processing power and ram. Somehow I doubt we'll see that, though.

no, base consoles did not hold anything back.

there are two critical things that sets a CRITICAL baseline: RAM and CPU.

and guess what? ps4 pro only provided a mere %30-35 increase in CPU frequency. that's it. no way in hell that changes the baseline for game development. as a matter of fact, all it caused some 3rd party studios to target 30 FPS on the faster CPU and let PS4 suffer with sub 30 fps drops more often.

the PS4 pro had the almost exact same memory budget as PS4. so you can literally not design a different baseline game for a PS4 pro. it simply wouldn't even possible.

only xbox one x had more memory over all other consoles but that just was a niche but helped one x to retain native 4k in some games over ps4 pro

there would be no game that wouldn't scale back to base ps4 that is solely designed for ps4 pro. if your game is designed to hit 30 fps on the ps4 pro cpu and designed to fit into the memory buffer of ps4 pro, it will also do so on the base ps4. on cpu fronts, you will simply get drops to 25s on the base console, which is practically what happened with most 3rd party games after 2020

you can design a ps4 pro game that runs at 1080p and ps4 pro can still run it at 540p, even this happened kind of, with the likes of guardians of galaxy, cyberpunk and "avengers" running at atrocious resolutions on ps4. but it happened. even there, you could clearly see devs targeted 1080p/1200p 30 fps on ps4 pro actually.

so nah, not the same situation.

IF PS4 Pro provided a CPU that is 2 times faster than the PS4, then yes, a theoritical game that barely hits 30 FPS on PS4 pro would only hit 15 FPS on the PS4. therefore, to get PS4 running at 30 FPS, the said game would have to be designed around PS4's CPU instead. as a result, PS4 pro would now hit a consistent rock solid 60 FPS.

but neither happened. not with that puny %37 frequency increase from 1.6 ghz to 2.2 ghz. all it did was that devs designed around 30 fps target for 2.2 ghz and ps4 got the short end of the stick. ps4 users got by because 24-27 fps is still somewhat playable in some form.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Sure, where's all those PS4 Pro exclusive games, then? Why did they not increase the scope and complexity of their games to take advantage of the increased specs, if not for the fact that they were actually developing for the lower-specced PS4 in actuality, and simply using the PS4 Pro for simple FPS and resolution scaling?

I think the Pro did exactly what it could, it used the same shitty CPU but better GPU. Games would run at higher resolutions on Pro, that was about what they could do with the architecture. What you are asking is a generational leap.

 

[Mr Moose]

Sure, where's all those PS4 Pro exclusive games, then? Why did they not increase the scope and complexity of their games to take advantage of the increased specs, if not for the fact that they were actually developing for the lower-specced PS4 in actuality, and simply using the PS4 Pro for simple FPS and resolution scaling?

Show me a game that skipped the PS4 because it was forced to release on it with troubles getting it to run and not with the PS4 Pro.

 

[Fuz]

It really isn't though. This is a very specific issue with the XSS and Microsoft's own policies of feature parity. PC doesn't have anything like that in place.

Same thing. Games were underdesigned to accomodate consoles.
I'm mostly pissed at the dumbing down of control schemes and UIs, more than graphics.
But it's the same thing.

 

[analog_future]

To be fair, it isnt holding back games from coming to Xbox. Microsoft is. The issue is with the splitscreen coop not working properly on the series s so if MS werent so against it, they couldve literally shipped the game just without splitscreen coop on the series s.

this is a freaking top down turn based action game. It can easily run on the series s, just not a very specfic mode 99% of gamers wont even bother using. MS just made a mess of the whole situation.

The funny thing is that they probably mandated splitscreen coop on Series S because they didn't want the S to be perceived as not being a capable console. But because of this mess they've stirred up, they've put a magnifying glass on the whole situation.

 

[damidu]

get used to potato s to ruin things for everyone, still long ways to 2028 (actually 2030 if you count cross gen years of next-gen)

 

[MasterCornholio]

Wrong, the evidence is that for last gen., we really didn't see any Pro-console exclusive games or features. The base consoles held developers back from shipping games or features that required the enhanced specs. If thats wrong then I look forward to all those PS5 Pro (and whatever hypothetical future Xbox Series X Pro) exclusive games and features that are enabled by the extra processing power and ram. Somehow I doubt we'll see that, though.

Still wrong. There's no evidence that any PlayStation games were delayed because of the PS5.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think the Pro did exactly what it could, it used the same shitty CPU but better GPU. Games would run at higher resolutions on Pro, that was about what they could do with the architecture. What you are asking is a generational leap.

Generational leap comes with new consoles. The Pro is just a console that plays PS5 games at higher settings. For example some PS5 games don't constantly max out the DRS or framerate. A Pro console would increase the DRS and/or improve the framerate. Like FF16 for example. On a Pro console it could run at a constant 60FPs which the PS5 doesn't do at this moment.

 

[SlimySnake]

MS obviously wanted to undercut Sony at all costs.

and I think this deserves a lot of criticism. Everyone knows why the series s shipped with a 4 tflops GPU instead of a 6 tflops GPU like the x1x. They know why it had lower vram bandwidth AND ram amount. It's to cut costs so they could undercut sony. With no regards to the awful product they were selling to consumers.

At $399 they couldve released a 6 tflops GPU with 16GB of ram and it wouldve been more or less fine. Would run everything at half res so 1440p for 4k xsx games wouldve actually been possible. But they knew Sony was targeting $399 so they ended up gutting their console instead.

Phil said smoething along the lines of how he wont lose to Sony on either price or power. Im guessing he still has PTSD from when he had to announce $500 for the x1, but thats no reason to release a poorly designed console. Panello said they literally came up with the sandwich strategy back when they thought the PS5 was 8 tflops. This is why you dont design hardware in a fucking boardroom with suits who have no idea how games are designed and just want to win the console wars for their buddies on twitter and discord.

 

[Mr Moose]

At $399 they couldve released a 6 tflops GPU with 16GB of ram and it wouldve been more or less fine. Would run everything at half res so 1440p for 4k xsx games wouldve actually been possible. But they knew Sony was targeting $399 so they ended up gutting their console instead.

Or a digital Series X.

 

[Mokus]

I'm not. I'm comparing the PS5 to a PS5 Pro. The idea is the same.

It's not the same because PS5 is a proper next gen system next to the PS4 while the Series S is something like the Wii compared to the original XBOX, more powerful but not a complete next gen.

Actually 240p maybe... can help. I mean actually there are ways that... games can survive on limited memory.


like this for example. maybe some dev can release their game like this as a way to answer "here, this is how it looks like with ram usage reduced!". but then of course "x game looked better on y" comments would ensue
i mean look at how gtx 660 renders tomb raider and arkham knight




interesting, innit? gtx 660 users must revolt. how dare hogwarts legacy look like that on 2 gb ram when the above games exist? right? them lazy devs, surely. we blamed NVIDIA for giving those gtx 600 700 GPUs 2 GB VRAM but it was lazy devs all along.

Interesting to see how much was cut back in Hogwarts to accommodate the game for the reduced VRAM. The face animations are completely missing.

 

[yamaci17]

and I think this deserves a lot of criticism. Everyone knows why the series s shipped with a 4 tflops GPU instead of a 6 tflops GPU like the x1x. They know why it had lower vram bandwidth AND ram amount. It's to cut costs so they could undercut sony. With no regards to the awful product they were selling to consumers.

At $399 they couldve released a 6 tflops GPU with 16GB of ram and it wouldve been more or less fine. Would run everything at half res so 1440p for 4k xsx games wouldve actually been possible. But they knew Sony was targeting $399 so they ended up gutting their console instead.

it would have to be 350 bucks at least. 400 bucks means now it is directly comparable to PS5 and especially now with PS plus being a good offer, although not great as much as game pass; it would sway a lot of ppl to ps5 then

4 tflops is fine. userbase had no trouble adjesting to atrociously low resolution bounds. temporal upscalers help "somewhat". it should at least had 12 GB RAM.

I believe resolution alone would be enough to scale a game that is designed for 16 gb console to a 12 gb console. I think that extra 2 GB RAM would do wonders. doesn't really have to be 16, but I think the number 10 was too much of an undershoot.

12 gb would also ensure it could run all xbox one x enhancements, so even a better deal

sometimes being 2 gb shy of some target can hurt a lot. see last of us part 1. 10 gb gpus at launch could play with great textures, while 8 GB GPUs had to wait for months to get degraded but "respectable" textures. people underestimate but memory thing is really hard to scale. even on the GPU front. devs solely prepare texture packs that is suited for the bigger budgets. but now they have to reauthor for a lower resolution, lower budget? that alone is a hassle. if it weren't, last of us wouldn't launch the way it was launched. it is clear that it takes a lot of effort, money and sometimes the dev simply do not see the value in doing so.

 

[Codeblew]

You're basically just saying the same thing. That the base PS5 would hold gaming back for Pro owners, yeah?

Not really. PS5 Pro buyers will know that not all games will specifically target it, just like PS4 Pro. PS5 Pro should get framerate improvements for free though.

 

[SlimySnake]

Or a digital Series X.

probably not possible given how they are losing $200 on the series x. the drive is only $20. they wouldve had to find another $80 somewhere. A smaller chip and cheaper cooling solution along with 500 fewer GBs of ssd wouldve helped them hit $399 but they wouldve lost the console wars with fanboys comparing it to the $399 10 tflops discless ps5.

Basically, it wouldve been better for the consumers thanks to a way more balanced console, but bad for their fans on twitter so they chose to fuck over their consumer instead.