Support NeoGAF

[Fess]

WOW! Well......more power to you.

Nah just more games for me

I actually bought one Xbox game this year, Hogwarts. But then I had it refunded and bought it for PS5 instead because of a bad framerate and no VRR TV. So, still 0 on Xbox.

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

Just release it without split screen mode, I own all current gen consoles including XSS, as the owner of that little box, I would buy the PS5/XSX version if I want to play split screen. Nobody complained about the lack of RT in many games in XSS.

if Microsoft enforces RT as a parity feature, they will kill the tech in their platform.

 

[Topher]

what if the feature is 4K60?

I'm guessing there are contractual details on the types of features where this clause applies and resolution/frame rate are clearly not one of them.

 

[Crayon]

Yeah this isn't good for anyone.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yeah this isn't good for anyone.

Except MS. I'm "assuming" had they only made the XSX, they would be at 10 million units sold. So there's that.

 

[RoboFu]

Half way into the gen. And it’s still a “ coming problem “.

Seems like MS is willing to help any dev having trouble

 

[TheKremlinBossMan]

Sounds like poor optimization to be honest

Been playing this on PC in beta since day 1. It is definitely not the fault of Larian.

 

[Kaleinc]

MS engineers making split screen work like shit on all the boxes - think out of the box

 

[TheKremlinBossMan]

Are you going anywhere with these questions or just grasping because you lack familiarity with the subject? Balders Gate 3 is a turn based RPG that runs on a 970. Its not a high performance game.

Just because it can run on a potato doesn't mean it isn't high performance, that just mean it scales very well.

 

[geary]

Except MS. I'm "assuming" had they only made the XSX, they would be at 10 million units sold. So there's that.

If they woukd have made only XSX, wouldnt have been a lot more consoles on the market available? Do you think those which bought XSS wouldnt bought a XSX?

 

[onnextflix5]

I want Microsoft gone for good, but someone else needs to step in to compete with Sony. I dunno who that'd be, maybe Apple? But someone.

Yeh would love see a Sega come back, or even Nintendo making a return to home console.

 

[soulbait]

I would not want this to be something that happens all the time, but maybe the compromise is this:

Couch co-op on Series S is via xCloud only.

Could be a way to do it and there will still be people who cannot access it due to poor internet, but it could be a solution..... a bad solution that opens the doors to other bad solutions..... but it is still one.

 

[mckmas8808]

If they woukd have made only XSX, wouldnt have been a lot more consoles on the market available? Do you think those which bought XSS wouldnt bought a XSX?

I'm of the assumption that most people that bought the Xbox Series S, bought it mainly due to the lower price.

 

[The Inventor]

Console wars still strong in effect, I see.

A lot. Dark times indeed.

 

[Corndog]

The effort is the part where it's holding back.like the matrix demo. That one took a "gargantuan effort" according to the DF article at the time. This article paints a bleaker picture for the s going forward.
It's also holding games back from releasing. Given enough time and resources I'm sure you can get most games running on any console within a spec range. It's the time and resources part the article refers to that make it an "albatross"

I don’t believe that the series s is stopping games from releasing unless the game is pushing memory limits. What aspect of the hardware would make a modern game unrunnable?
Cpu power? No.
Graphics? Doubtful though they would have to be paired down.

Memory amount? Maybe in some rare cases. Though the memory requirements for the s should be lower considering the lower res textures and screen buffers.

Memory bandwidth? I don’t know as much on this. I certainly wouldn’t need as much with lower res textures, etc. It could require some optimization though.

Edit: once these limitations are understood future games should benefit.
While I would have preferred a slightly stronger series s, I don’t see it stopping 99% of games from working on it.

 

[01011001]

The effort is the part where it's holding back.like the matrix demo. That one took a "gargantuan effort"

because the engine was unfinished.

with software lumen it would have looked very close in quality and would have been extremely straight forward to port.

but they did want to show of hardware lumen, and they managed to do that

 

[TransTrender]

I'm guessing it's more like, "We ain't working on this for a tiny sliver of sales unless we get 15 MS conscripts for optimization and MS eats the cost."

 

[Duchess]

Why don't the devs just drop split screen from the Xbox Series X version..? That way, they'd have feature parity, without the extra hassle.

(partly sarcasm)

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Why don't the devs just drop split screen from the Xbox Series X version..? That way, they'd have feature parity, without the extra hassle.

(partly sarcasm)

Developers love split screen and they want people to play it like that.

They want to stick to their vision even if there is not much market for it. I can respect that.

 

[01011001]

Developers love split screen and they want people to play it like that.

They want to stick to their vision even if there is not much market for it. I can respect that.

I mean their minimum PC spec is basically Series S level, which means on their own minimum requirements the game would then also not be able to run with splitscreen, at least not in a way that they deem ok to be published on Series S

where's their vision there?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why don't the devs just drop split screen from the Xbox Series X version..? That way, they'd have feature parity, without the extra hassle.

(partly sarcasm)

Possible that Microsoft demands features parity across platforms too.

For example, if a non-console-specific feature is on PlayStation, it should also be on Xbox. It'd make sense to ensure parity.

 

[Riky]

I mean their minimum PC spec is basically Series S level, which means on their own minimum requirements the game would then also not be able to run with splitscreen, at least not in a way that they deem ok to be published on Series S

where's their vision there?

When Microsoft get it working it will show it was a lack of resources or expertise or both. There are games with far higher PC minimum specs as I've shown earlier that are running on Series S.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I mean their minimum PC spec is basically Series S level, which means on their own minimum requirements the game would then also not be able to run with splitscreen, at least not in a way that they deem ok to be published on Series S

where's their vision there?

It's big game. With PC as lead platform. Am assuming they will get it running pretty well on Series S. They do need time though.

 

[crackajack]

Kind of funny that they would not rather figure out their very own coop troubles with Halo, allegedly pretty much done already, but send tech guys to help with some third party game. A game that is probably more important for Sony to have, since more RPGs are probably on Xbox than on PS and MS could just easily shrug their shoulders. But they seem to want to avoid that bad PR and bashing of the XSS for holding stuff back, while it is probably just lack of invested time and dev ressources byting them as the originators of those problems.

 

[FireFly]

Kind of funny that they would not rather figure out their very own coop troubles with Halo, allegedly pretty much done already, but send tech guys to help with some third party game. A game that is probably more important for Sony to have, since more RPGs are probably on Xbox than on PS and MS could just easily shrug their shoulders. But they seem to want to avoid that bad PR and bashing of the XSS for holding stuff back, while it is probably just lack of invested time and dev ressources byting them as the originators of those problems.

True, though split screen on Halo Infinite has to work on the One S, not just the Series S.

 

[01011001]

True, though split screen on Halo Infinite has to work on the One S, not just the Series S.

and it worked relatively well on One S (arguably smoother than Borderlands 3's)

aaalso, who said it needed to work on One S? there's no parity clause for last gen systems and current gen.

they could have easily cancelled the splitscreen for last gen and just released it on current gen.

they cancelled it because money, that's all it is.

 

[Topher]

When Microsoft get it working it will show it was a lack of resources or expertise or both. There are games with far higher PC minimum specs as I've shown earlier that are running on Series S.

Again, it isn't a matter of getting the game running. But yes, it is simply a matter of requiring more time and resources put towards split screen for Xbox. Exactly what Larian has said.

As has been pointed out, split-screen has been the thorn in Xbox's side before.

"According to Sean Baron, Halo Infinite's local co-op had years of work put into it, but 343 Industries kept running into problems "from a technical perspective" that would cause crashes, glitches, and other issues. Baron doubled down on the fact that 343 Industries couldn't commit to getting Halo Infinite split-screen "from an 80% quality to a 100% quality" because the amount of effort required is too hard to gauge. Something that Baron points to as an issue outside the technological ones is the certification Halo Infinite would need to run local co-op for all the platforms that the game is available on which would present their own challenges as well."

Halo Infinite Dev Reveals More Info on Why Split-Screen Co-Op Was Canceled

A Halo Infinite developer reveals details about why 343 Industries canceled the split-screen co-op that some fans were anticipating.

gamerant.com

Sounds like Xbox certification might be a big factor here as well.

 

[Riky]

Again, it isn't a matter of getting the game running. But yes, it is simply a matter of requiring more time and resources put towards split screen for Xbox. Exactly what Larian has said.

As has been pointed out, split-screen has been the thorn in Xbox's side before.

"According to Sean Baron, Halo Infinite's local co-op had years of work put into it, but 343 Industries kept running into problems "from a technical perspective" that would cause crashes, glitches, and other issues. Baron doubled down on the fact that 343 Industries couldn't commit to getting Halo Infinite split-screen "from an 80% quality to a 100% quality" because the amount of effort required is too hard to gauge. Something that Baron points to as an issue outside the technological ones is the certification Halo Infinite would need to run local co-op for all the platforms that the game is available on which would present their own challenges as well."

Halo Infinite Dev Reveals More Info on Why Split-Screen Co-Op Was Canceled

A Halo Infinite developer reveals details about why 343 Industries canceled the split-screen co-op that some fans were anticipating.

gamerant.com

Like someone said that game has to run on Xbox One as well, that would be one hell of a challenge in an open world game that only runs at 30fps now on the console.

 

[Topher]

Like someone said that game has to run on Xbox One as well, that would be one hell of a challenge in an open world game that only runs at 30fps now on the console.

Sure, and DF showed Halo Infinite split screen running on Xbox One which John described as "Switch level" in terms of quality. Very well may be that was the gap from 80% to 100% that Baron was referring to above. So I'm guessing there is more to this than simply getting split screen working. Larian wants to get to that minimum level of quality and I expect it is quite a bit higher than "Switch level".

What I also find interesting is that even though Halo Infinite's runs on the Xbox One, its PC minimum requirements are not that different than that of BG3. Just shows again comparing console to PC doesn't really tell us very much.

Halo Infinite

BG3

 

[Riky]

Sure, and DF showed Halo Infinite split screen running on Xbox One which John described as "Switch level" in terms of quality. Very well may be that was the gap from 80% to 100% that Baron was referring to above. So I'm guessing there is more to this than simply getting split screen working. Larian wants to get to that minimum level of quality and I expect it is quite a bit higher than "Switch level".

What I also find interesting is that even though Halo Infinite's runs on the Xbox One, its PC minimum requirements are not that different than that of BG3. Just shows again comparing console to PC doesn't really tell us very much.

Halo Infinite

BG3

Agreed, an FX8350 and an RX480 is a PC I built back around 2014, so a Series S trounces that.

 

[Topher]

Agreed, an FX8350 and an RX480 is a PC I built back around 2014, so a Series S trounces that.

Except that PC still has more available memory.

 

[Riky]

Except that PC still has more available memory.

It does, but it would need to run Windows which is what 4gb?

 

[Topher]

It does, but it would need to run Windows which is what 4gb?

Windows 10 requires 2 GB for 64-bit

Windows 11 requires 4 GB

In either case, Windows obviously has to leave available memory for applications so less than that is actually used.

 

[FrankWza]

because the engine was unfinished.

with software lumen it would have looked very close in quality and would have been extremely straight forward to port.

but they did want to show of hardware lumen, and they managed to do that

That should apply to the other current gen consoles as well. Only one was singled out and required that effort though. If the engine was unfinished, it was unfinished for each console. So, whatever attempt, it was the s that required that effort

I don’t believe that the series s is stopping games from releasing unless the game is pushing memory limits. What aspect of the hardware would make a modern game unrunnable?
Cpu power? No.
Graphics? Doubtful though they would have to be paired down.

Memory amount? Maybe in some rare cases. Though the memory requirements for the s should be lower considering the lower res textures and screen buffers.

Memory bandwidth? I don’t know as much on this. I certainly wouldn’t need as much with lower res textures, etc. It could require some optimization though.

Edit: once these limitations are understood future games should benefit.
While I would have preferred a slightly stronger series s, I don’t see it stopping 99% of games from working on it.

I'm going by the article in the OP. Holding back and stopping are 2 different things and the effort is the part where it causes issues. We're not hearing sliding and scaling anymore like we were around launch whenever anyone questioned it's design and porting games. It's referred to as an albatross.

 

[scarlet0pimp]

I don’t believe that the series s is stopping games from releasing unless the game is pushing memory limits. What aspect of the hardware would make a modern game unrunnable?
Cpu power? No.
Graphics? Doubtful though they would have to be paired down.

Memory amount? Maybe in some rare cases. Though the memory requirements for the s should be lower considering the lower res textures and screen buffers.

Memory bandwidth? I don’t know as much on this. I certainly wouldn’t need as much with lower res textures, etc. It could require some optimization though.

Edit: once these limitations are understood future games should benefit.
While I would have preferred a slightly stronger series s, I don’t see it stopping 99% of games from working on it.

Good sensible post, the only area the S could struggle in would be the RAM should have just included 12 Gb but they didn't, instead there are software techniques which are perhaps not as easy to leverage as just including more RAM.
Nothing else about the S will hold back software for this generation, not with the upscaling technology available, a game can run at 720p 30Fps and upscale to 1080 and look fine.

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

Edit: wrong thread

 

[01011001]

That should apply to the other current gen consoles as well. Only one was singled out and required that effort though. If the engine was unfinished, it was unfinished for each console. So, whatever attempt, it was the s that required that effort

nah it just needed The Coalition, which seems to be the only studio on the planet that knows how the fucking engine works.
it seems not even Epic themselves know how to properly use it lol, at least going by Fortnite's state on PC these days

 

[Heisenberg007]

nah it just needed The Coalition, which seems to be the only studio on the planet that knows how the fucking engine works.
it seems not even Epic themselves know how to properly use it lol, at least going by Fortnite's state on PC these days

Epic knows it alright. They made The Matrix demo run perfectly fine on the PS5. Additional dev time was needed to make it run as good on the Xbox, which is why The Coalition came in.

Even after The Coalition's efforts, however, the demo still didn't run as well on Xbox as it did on the PS5.

 

[01011001]

Epic knows it alright. They made The Matrix demo run perfectly fine on the PS5. Additional dev time was needed to make it run as good on the Xbox, which is why The Coalition came in.

Even after The Coalition's efforts, however, the demo still didn't run as well on Xbox as it did on the PS5.

the demo didn't run well on anything and also looked like pure garbage.
also the difference between sx and ps5 was like 1 fps at times

 

[Sentenza]

The fact the all previous discussions about the actual game never lasted more than one or two pages on a good day while this one about trolling the XBOX Series S is 6 pages and counting should tell you all that there is to know about the current state of this section.

 

[Heisenberg007]

the demo didn't run well on anything and also looked like pure garbage.
also the difference between sx and ps5 was like 1 fps at times

The difference was bigger than 1FPS, but that's not the point.

I'm only pointing out that Epic knows their UE engine pretty well and managed to use the same engine on a PS5 all on their own. Your post implied that they had to bring in The Coalition to make it run, but that's not true. They ran it on PS5 better than what Coalition could help them manage on an Xbox. So the lack of familiarity or understanding with the engine was not the issue for Epic.

 

[FrankWza]

nah it just needed The Coalition, which seems to be the only studio on the planet that knows how the fucking engine works.
it seems not even Epic themselves know how to properly use it lol, at least going by Fortnite's state on PC these days

And that was the gargantuan effort. That same effort wasn't needed for the x and ps5, just the series s. That wasn't an isolated incident and it forecasted future issues. Those issues are now being mentioned here in the OP article and there have been other issues in between. Give enough time and resources, I'm sure they can get any game running on it.
Gargantuan effort and albatross are being used to describe development on series s.

 

[01011001]

The difference was bigger than 1FPS, but that's not the point.

I'm only pointing out that Epic knows their UE engine pretty well and managed to use the same engine on a PS5 all on their own. Your post implied that they had to bring in The Coalition to make it run, but that's not true. They ran it on PS5 better than what Coalition could help them manage on an Xbox. So the lack of familiarity or understanding with the engine was not the issue for Epic.

the frame drops were due to CPU limitations, the Series X has objectively the better CPU... so what does that say about Epic?

also no, the differences weren't bigger

 

[Heisenberg007]

the frame drops were due to CPU limitations, the Series X has objectively the better CPU... so what does that say about Epic?

also no, the differences weren't bigger

Well, I don't want to turn this into a PS5 vs. XSX tech thread, but ...

you're only looking at the 3.8 vs 3.5 GHz, but that doesn't tell you the full story. PS5 has more powerful HW decompression units that take up the CPU load and free it up for other processing tasks.

This is the reason why the PS5 often ends up with higher frame rates in games than XSX, e.g., DMC 5, Call of Duty, Elden Ring, etc.

 

[01011001]

Well, I don't want to turn this into a PS5 vs. XSX tech thread, but ...

you're only looking at the 3.8 vs 3.5 GHz, but that doesn't tell you the full story. PS5 has more powerful HW decompression units that take up the CPU load and free it up for other processing tasks.

This is the reason why the PS5 often ends up with higher frame rates in games than XSX, e.g., DMC 5, Call of Duty, Elden Ring, etc.

you can't be serious with that statement that's beyond ridiculous, sorry but it's just true also, we are talking about the Matrix demo here, which barely streamed any data, only a few megabites even during fast traversal.
I can confirm this first hand as I literal ran the demo on my PC on a 2.5" HDD that I took out of a PS4 Pro, and there was basically zero perfomance difference and drive usage was pretty tame.

only the initial load took like 5min, after that load, basically minute differences between that drive and an SSD.

data streaming is not a factor in the performance of that demo.

 

[Heisenberg007]

you can't be serious with that statement that's beyond ridiculous, sorry but it's just true also, we are talking about the Matrix demo here, which barely streamed any data, only a few megabites even during fast traversal.
I can confirm this first hand as I literal ran the demo on my PC on a 2.5" HDD that I took out of a PS4 Pro, and there was basically zero perfomance difference and drive usage was pretty tame.

only the initial load took like 5min, after that load, basically minute differences between that drive and an SSD.

data streaming is not a factor in the performance of that demo.

HW decompression units =/= SSD

They take the load off of the CPU so the CPU is freer to process other things, e.g., frame rates.

 

[Kataploom]

HW decompression units =/= SSD

They take the load off of the CPU so the CPU is freer to process other things, e.g., frame rates.

He didn't say SSD specifically, he said the I/O requirements were not strong, therefore that PS5 strength couldn't play any role in performance, since the hardware decompressor unit shouldn't be used in any meaningful way

 

[lostinblue]

you can't be serious with that statement that's beyond ridiculous, sorry but it's just true also, we are talking about the Matrix demo here, which barely streamed any data, only a few megabites even during fast traversal.
I can confirm this first hand as I literal ran the demo on my PC on a 2.5" HDD that I took out of a PS4 Pro, and there was basically zero perfomance difference and drive usage was pretty tame.

only the initial load took like 5min, after that load, basically minute differences between that drive and an SSD.

data streaming is not a factor in the performance of that demo.

That's an interesting "test", but at the same time I'm wondering, why would anyone do that?

using a HDD to run a game and OS in this day and age screams sadomasochism to me. (I guess I'm asking if you had the intent to test the I/O requirements, or were actually stuck with a HDD at that point).

 

[TheRedRiders]

Xbox Series S when they try running split screen on it :

 

[01011001]

That's an interesting "test", but at the same time I'm wondering, why would anyone do that?

using a HDD to run a game and OS in this day and age screams sadomasochism to me. (I guess I'm asking if you had the intent to test the I/O requirements, or were actually stuck with a HDD at that point).

it not about why you'd do that. I just wanted to show at the time that the whole data streaming thing was nonsense.