Remedy Games Dev on Series S: You have to take into account the technical limitations from the beginning of development
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
roosnam1980
Member
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Xbox Division could've made many right decisions if they had the right management and the right fanbase that hold them accountable instead of the current apologistic ones.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
You mention negatives and then crap on Spider-Man…
Regardless, it's not simply "looking at the negatives ", it's accepting that one device may be hindering a better device.
Last edited:
You forget we don't need a console anymore to play Xbox games. Even with that they already managed to sell more than half (not less - 22+ vs 40m) of PS5, which is a great success. Seems terrific numbers for me.
When we don't need a Playstation console to play Playstation games we can compare.
BTW, if more than half of PS5 consoles are so low, why bother develop for them, right? By this type of argument third parties could just skip Xbox and develop for Playstation, Switch and PC.
Last edited:
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
This is delusional.
I respect your opinion. I don't agree.
I think that a console you don't really need selling more than half of PS5 (which is a huge success) is doing great.
Last edited:
foamdino
Member
Most ambitious game of the generation is Baldur's Gate 3 - the devs are struggling to get that running on Series S. Starfield is *not* more ambitious than BG3 despite the marketing hype.Possibly the most ambitious game this generation is coming on Series S, and need I remind you PS5 only Spider-Man 2 ain't setting the world alight mate. Oh but what's holding that back?the nonsense spreads like covid on here
peish
Member
but bg3 has very unambitious minimum specs
what is a fx8350
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 150 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD required
foamdino
Member
It's exactly what Microsoft were doing. By setting the baseline so low, 3rd party devs are stuck with making unambitious titles that fit into series s memory constraints and then tweaking graphics features for x/ps5 - why do you think we have so many complaints around "cross-gen games"?
As a dev you can design for PS5 and have more complex systems etc or you can start off knowing you need to support series s and you have to limit your ambitions to fit. Microsoft have effectively hamstrung the generation. If series s didn't exist, I guarantee there would be more games that are pushing gameplay boundaries (not just graphics).
Starbuck2907
Member
John Carmack and iD software in general disagrees. He got Doom 3 to run on an OG Xbox. Look at modern Doom games on the Switch.
Last edited:
Gorgon
Member
Id Software Devs Express Their Concerns Over the Xbox Series S’ Hardware Specs; Memory “Situation” Not Easy to Compensate
Several devs at id Software have expressed their concerns over the specs of Microsoft’s Xbox Series S, more specifically, its memory.
wccftech.com
Negotiator101
Member
No.
arkhamguy123
Banned
Unironically yes
Microsoft did this before though and cheaped out during the PS360 Gen and opted for DVD instead of blu ray. Limiting multiplats to 9GB data instead of 50GB
arkhamguy123
Banned
Never understood a controversy more in my entire life and other than just I dunno virtue signaling or contrarianism I don't understand this resistance to admit the series S holds back games
You'd swear we're debating whether JFK was assassinated by the CIA or not with how in depth and maneuvering people try to be in this discourse. A weak ass console will hold back a console that's 3x as powerful. This is not a quantum mechanics level challenging concept to grasp
You'd swear we're debating whether JFK was assassinated by the CIA or not with how in depth and maneuvering people try to be in this discourse. A weak ass console will hold back a console that's 3x as powerful. This is not a quantum mechanics level challenging concept to grasp
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
It's you who seemingly has failed to grasp the evidence so far, the games! Series S has produced mostly solid versions of every Xbox game released so far, and as I said before Starfield is more ambitious than any game released so far this generation (something some here are challenging) and that's on Series S as well.
Then take a look at the PS5 only games, which are basically high resolution PS4 Pro games, what's holding them back exactly?
Then on PC you have the only next gen requirement as being an SSD, Series S has one! What a shock
most PC games run on hardware far less capable than a Series S also but let's hide that under the carpet 
The fact is game development takes longer and is more expensive than ever before. The ambitious games take time but they're coming and they'll be on Series S as well(not counting PS games). A console that shares similar tech to its bigger brother isn't holding back game design, that's just nonsense.
Zheph
Member
It's part of the Xbox Ambassador program you can't take any L
You have a few examples in this thread
lostinblue
Banned
Yes. And no dev is actually saying "Xbox Series S can't pull it" although they say it holds them down. Xbox Series S is current gen and can pull most things, the issue is the resources that they have to put on it because it sadly isn't an automatic port from the bigger consoles, in fact they introduced 2 bottlenecks that they shouldn't, basically.
If this console sold more or existed a few generations back this would be a null point, Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox were far more different when it came to development than Xbox Series S against the other systems, they were also more different in regards to what they could and couldn't do. And ports were serviceable, a lot of times done by different studios even.
In reality it's what this guy said, you have to take into account it's architecture from the ground up, which feels like a massive limitation when they don't want to deal with limitations, thinking you'll solve things at the end may lead to retooling (for all verions), a quite extensive branch of code or cyberpunk 2077 cenarios. If you do a game not taking it into account and you have a particular bad case of structure you'll just downsize it at the end and end up with a less than optimal port (ie. downgraded everything more than they should). The thing is, these games are usually games with bad frameworks and it shows, they're the games running at low resolutions and skipping frames on the big consoles.
The other way around is games that are taxing for the PS5/XSX consoles, such as the ones Remedy likes to make. In reality I think making games for consoles is hell for them. Alan Wake ran like shit on Xbox 360 way back when, Control didn't run fantastically on last gen either. My point being, This time around, perhaps PS5/XSX is a more confortable target, but Xbox Series S is basically like XO/PS4, or like X360 before it. And they didn't want to do "low spec adaptations with caveats" anymore.
I suspect some other games are choosing to be exclusive for PS5 also due to that, Final Fantasy XVI also seems like the game that would need a small team and a few months to adapt to Xbox Series S successfully or run like shit. And perhaps that was a factor in not coming out on Xbox. But, it's not like it can't be done, it's basically the hassle and the fact it costs money.
If you optimize for Xbox Series S first you're more likely to pull 60 fps (or stable 30 fps) on it's bigger brethren, not because you scaled back your game, but because you made cleverer decisions and optimized a little extra at some bits. In fact, optimizations made for series S benefit series X naturally, as it also has the 2 memory pool architecture going on, it's just less of an issue, memory will be fragmented in the same way, but there's more memory and more bandwidth so performance doesn't tank as much if you ignore the setup. But setup is the same.
Last edited:
alphachino
Member
"Xbox wants to grow by handicapping next generation from the very beginning"
-Jim Ryan (Allegedly)
-Jim Ryan (Allegedly)
Negotiator101
Member
Turns and roundabouts here, optimization is a part of game development, now its clear most developers don't make the time irrespective of platform to optimise these days. The poster I replied to and many others here are wrong in saying Series S is fundamentally holding back game design.
PC is more likely to hold back game design than a closed box, if you design only for the enthusiasts you risk selling very little and the optimization required to take into account the hundreds of different hardware configurations is simply impossible, hence the awful PC ports. So the games are designed with massive scaling in mind from the off, even PC exclusives.
supernova8
Banned
I think you're intentionally muddying the waters.
For instance, you said:
This may be partially true now (perhaps their engines and/or way of doing things are outdated), but there will likely come a point where this changes and the games are designed to suck every last drop out of the PS5. We're talking the difference between Uncharted 3 and Uncharted 4. Clearly a major upgrade gen on gen.
Even if Xbox-only developers get to the same point as those PS5-only developers (let's use Naughty Dog as a reference point), they cannot possibly squeeze every last drop out of the Series X because they are required (contractually/policy-wise) to make a like-for-like Series S version. By your very own logic/statement, they only thing Series X games could ever be is high resolution Series S games.
The big difference here (that I think you intentionally ignored) is that those developing for PC are:
1) free to list any recommended system requirements they want
2) not realistically expected to guarantee stellar performance on older hardware
I don't understand why people keep trying to deny reality. The correct answer is "yes probably but nevermind", which is what I thought before buying my Series S. It's like smoking cigarettes and then being in denial that it's bad for you.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
Your superior intelligence is an enlightnent for us all HIP. With you on the developers side, we can be certain that their interest will be well protected and that they won't have to try too hard, while gamers that don't enjoy the same wealth you obviously bath in, will be allowed to kindly fuck off and stop playing video games entirely because they obviously don't deserve it.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I see that Remedy hasn't found the graphics slider yet that they can use to easily downscale games.
Starbuck2907
Member
Right, but you proved my point. Despite these concerns, they got Doom Eternal running at 120fps on series S.Id Software Devs Express Their Concerns Over the Xbox Series S’ Hardware Specs; Memory “Situation” Not Easy to Compensate
Several devs at id Software have expressed their concerns over the specs of Microsoft’s Xbox Series S, more specifically, its memory.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
How are absolute sales numbers a success when they lose up to $200 on each console they sell?
Slicker than your average
Banned
How many times does it need to be said it's the memory that's the issue. Series S has 8 with a chunk of it reserved for OS and what's left is split with the graphics.but bg3 has very unambitious minimum specs
what is a fx8350
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 150 GB available space
Additional Notes: SSD required
That spec you gave is 8gb plus 4gb vram.
I wish the series S stans would actually offer credible points other than calling the Devs shit.
Last edited:
peish
Member
hah devs is just shit.
minimum specs runs ddr3 and gddr5, ancient and slow. windows also memory hog
larian should work harder to make use of the higher memory bandwidth in S
supernova8
Banned
minimum PC specs as in if you have those specs the game might run but it will run like absolute shit.hah devs is just shit.
minimum specs runs ddr3 and gddr5, ancient and slow. windows also memory hog
larian should work harder to make use of the higher memory bandwidth in S
"Hitting" minimum PC specs and hitting whatever performance metrics Microsoft wants the developer to achieve on Series S (relative to what they are offering on Series X) are not the same thing.
Last edited:
yamaci17
Member
and you assume some random min spec gamer will actually try to run this game in local coop split? does larian say min specs will hold up respectable performance (720p locked 30 at low settings, I would guess) with local coop split mode WHILE having an acceptable image quality also? I'm pretty sure nothah devs is just shit.
minimum specs runs ddr3 and gddr5, ancient and slow. windows also memory hog
larian should work harder to make use of the higher memory bandwidth in S
. So I have no idea why you people keep bringing up the min specs. let alone min specs, most recommended specs nowadays are bullshits (either too low or too high). hogwrts legacy recommends 16 gb for 1080p high. guess what, game actually HARD requires 32 GB ram for a "smooth" and "stable" operation EVEN at 720p/low. this is not a joke. the game requires, and commits upwards of 22 GB of RAM even at 720p low. as a result, min spec and recommended specs just become a huge lie for that game.
no different for other games, and baldur's gate 3. just go try llocal coop split mode on that rig and if you get a playable experience somehow, I can understand. even then, the textures would look like from ps2 era WHICH is not okay to do on Series S due to it being a nextgen console.
min specs are min specs.
this is what rdr2 looks like on a 770 2 GB, min spec GPU for RDR2. the game is near unrecognizable. this is 2x worse than xbox one experience, that console can actually LOAD high quality textures because it has enough memory for the game's design.
Red Dead Redemption 2 PC system requirements - Rockstar Games Customer Support
Minimum system requirementsOS: Windows 10 64 BitProcessor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500K / AMD FX-6300Memory: 8GBVideo Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 2GB / AMD Radeon R9 280 3GBSound Card: DirectX compatibleHDD: 150GBRecommended system requirementsOS: Windows 10 64 BitProcessor: Intel® Core™ i7-4770K /...
support.rockstargames.com
now tell me, do you think it would be acceptable to have this image quality on an actual nextgen console? just be honest. that would add another can of worms and give leeway to other developers treating the console same way (and I'm pretty sure at a certain threshold, Microsoft wouldn't allow such a game to be released with such visuals as well)
it is not about bg3 local split mode not being able to made run on Series S. it is about being made to run in a DECENT manner without COMPROMISING the art design and visual intentions of devs.
Last edited:
foamdino
Member
Folks in this thread claiming that devs don't optimise don't know what the hell they're talking about. Show a software engineer some unoptimised code and they will dive into it for the challenge. This is what we live for, we golf code for *fun*. So no - I don't accept the premise that the devs are shit - the devs are probably trying to squeeze 7G of data into a 6G ram allocation.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
It's not a great success.
Xbox sales are slowing down this early in the generation while PlayStation sales are going up.
Microsoft wanted to win this generation. They made the Xbox Series SX to undercut Sony. They made the Xbox Series X to have a more powerful console.
It turns out that the Xbox Series S is performing lower than they expected and the Xbox Series X's performance is not blowing PlayStation out of the water.
They failed in their approach and I wouldn't see these numbers as good, even when you consider that the sales are performing lower than the Xbox One console
Gorgon
Member
And imagine what it could have been if there was no series S to begin with. Look, this thread has good and bad opinions all over it, but this all really boils down to two major points:
1) Games usually start more ambitious in their initial vision than what they end up being by the time they are published. Features are usually cut from the drawing board to the full dev pahsewhen developers realise, among other things, that they won't be able to make it run well on the target platforms. Which means that what we don't usually know is how much was cut off from the original vision. We can all praise and gush over, say, Starfield and how it runs fine (hopefully) on the series S, but how much was dropped so that it could run well on the series S? How much more (if anything at all) could Starfield have delivered if the XSX was the only available sku and there was no XSS? We don't know; maybe a lot, maybe a little, maybe nothing. What matters to me is the "maybe a lot, maybe a little" part.
2) By the time the PS6 and Xbox Next come around, there will be a plethora of cross-gen titles being developed that will have to run on last- and next-gen hardware, as usual. Not only will MS first party studios have to design games that run on the XSX and XNext, they will have to be designed such that they run on XSS too. That's a console with 10 GB RAM and overall gimped performance serving as the basis for next-gen development for several years of the next gen. Not only that, but third parties will have to do the same, meaning that both PC and Sony machines, not just XNext, will have to be gimped because of series S. It affects the whole industry. Worse case scenario, given that Xbox is selling like shit and the gap will only continue to widen as time goes by, MS may very well end up in a situation in which third parties won't even bother releasing cross-gen AAA titles on the XSX and XSS at all when they start releasing cross-gen for PC, PS5, and PS6.
Gorgon
Member
hah devs is just shit.
minimum specs runs ddr3 and gddr5, ancient and slow. windows also memory hog
larian should work harder to make use of the higher memory bandwidth in S
Maybe you should tell that too to the MS engineers that are trying to help Larian with the series S problems. Maybe you could give them a call?
ZiggyPop1991
Member
Honest question. People are against cross gen, I honestly don't care. But in the same sentence want to offer an option for people who can't afford the "premium" console. Why? There's nothing wrong with that. The more people who can play the, merrier.
However, with Microsofts strategy of pushing game pass so aggressively. Why didn't they just brand the Series X as a streaming only machine? That can play a limited amount of next gen games via cloud? The parity clause is what's killing the series X. If you can afford a next gen console. The whole library of the Xbox One doesn't disappear. Subscribe to game pass and though not native, it's still a cheaper entry into next gen.
Those concerns showed up in Doom Eternal exactly as they said it would, when they cut raytracing from the XSS version only. Luckily that's something MS lets slide even though that itself creates issues and extra asset work for devs. Not having enough RAM to implement other features or modes isn't something they can get away with though. MS wouldn't allow it. So contrary to all the bull at the beginning of the gen saying games are designed for X then scaled down you have to have the limitations of the S in mind and not implement some things if it's not possible on S, then scale up. They are holding not just their own higher spec system back but others too. There is nothing wrong with releasing a cheaper low spec machine but MS wanted their cake and to eat it too. They wanted a low spec machine but force the devs to not let it fall behind the more powerful machines on the market by holding those back.
yamaci17
Member
that's actually rather funny. it will cause some unexpected results for Microsoft. they shouldn't have caved in and sent actual help to a 3rd party studio. now other studios will demand similar assistances to cut their own costs. I believe this move will have some unforeseen consequences for Microsoft in the future
after all, Larian is not priveleged. it is their own duty and job to make the game run on Series S if they want to release it on the Series platforms. By sending engineers, you practically admit your console needs special effort and extra optimization. And by also sending help, you agree that the console is not selling well enough to warrant doing that job quick enough to make it to deadline. But even with the help, deadline is missed, which is further funny
Fabieter
Member
Its fine for devs it will just give you less complex games and longer dev cycles because it has to run on weaker hardware. In the end consumers gonna lose like always.
What? It's not about some resolution this guy talks about. It's about how games are build, the logic behind it, how complex game systems are. It's not necessarily means graphics and its pretty obvious that devs are hindered in its vision when you see at the lack of jump from last gen.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
We had other aaa game developers saying that the series s will be a problem.
I mean it surely depends on the scaling of the games but if that guys don't make high end games I wouldn't take his word as "cased closed'
It is seemingly an indie game dev, which makes his tweet kinda silly.
Last edited:
Zheph
Member
That person is not a programmer anyway just a troll talking sh*t online
You can find countless of dumb tweets on his profile
Fabieter
Member
Iam not shocked if people don't have a clue when they talk to people like that when they do gaming stuff for an actual living.
Gorgon
Member
The programmer "Kirby0Louise" at a meeting of Xbox shills, including Colt Eastwood, dumping on PS5 and how Hogwarts would run like shit on it
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
Thats 12gb of ram and you don't even know if or how good coop runs on that minimum specs. Pcs don't have a feature parity like xbox is. Blaming this on the devs when even the ms engineers couldn't make a difference is something.
arkhamguy123
Banned
Literally zero part of this bloated failed rebuttal contradicts what I said in anywayIt's you who seemingly has failed to grasp the evidence so far, the games! Series S has produced mostly solid versions of every Xbox game released so far, and as I said before Starfield is more ambitious than any game released so far this generation (something some here are challenging) and that's on Series S as well.
Then take a look at the PS5 only games, which are basically high resolution PS4 Pro games, what's holding them back exactly?
Then on PC you have the only next gen requirement as being an SSD, Series S has one! What a shock
The fact is game development takes longer and is more expensive than ever before. The ambitious games take time but they're coming and they'll be on Series S as well(not counting PS games). A console that shares similar tech to its bigger brother isn't holding back game design, that's just nonsense.
I'll remind you the series S versions of some multi plats perform under the one X too
Yes because Series X games are being held back so that they can work on Series S. That's the entire point.