xHunter
Member
How long until Gavin Stevens chimes in?
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
How long until Gavin Stevens chimes in?
Gorgon
Member
It's not just Series X, it's that all multiplat games have to be designed with Series S as the baseline.
Negotiator101
Member
Of course it doesn't, stroll on
Sakura
Member
I thought the issue Larian was having in regards to the Series S, was that they were having a hard time getting splitscreen co-op to work (with acceptable performance).
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Marketing guy or programmer?
Negotiator101
Member
And PS5 games? PC games? Nonsense once again. You guys live in your own little world, literally about 1 percent of developers have voiced concerns about the Series S, while others churn out great versions on the Series S.
Look at the games 3rd party as well, it has the same CPU and has an SSD. Starfield for instance requires 16gb RAM on PC yet it runs on Series S, optimization on a closed box is far easier than on PC that's why.
Wake up and realise games are not held back because of one Hardware configuration when PC has hundreds, these are the facts and the games are undeniable.
Embearded
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
Wait, this discussion is for HL?
Two years after the console's release they still talk about the variable frequency?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yep, Halo Infinite not having split-screen co-op is likely a very good example of this.
Embearded
Member
I wouldn't compare the PC RAM reqs with console's. Lets wait for starfield to release, boot it up and check how much of that RAM it is really using.
PC RAM reqs doesn't mean it will consume all that RAM. They just take into account the crap your computer might also run on the background including the OS.
cireza
Member
Series S was definitely the limiting factor, not Xbox One.
Gorgon
Member
Negotiator101
Member
Yeah but just making a point. Obviously 8gb seemingly isn't enough though.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
There is no feature parity limitation between Xbox One and Xbox Series X. So they could easily drop the co-op from Xbox One and have it on Xbox Series X.
But they can't drop it on S and have it on X because of feature parity clauses.
cireza
Member
And yet split screen is working even on Xbox One.
If MS could pull this off on the original Xbox One with an open-world action game, I am sure that third parties will manage to put splitscreen in a top down RPG.
Last edited:
Bo_Hazem
Banned
It's like trying to hide a dodgy, old photo of you from your wife but it's still up elsewhere.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Not the same thing. In BG3, each person has complete independence from the other. As pointed out in that video, Halo Infinite forces the player to remain in proximity to each other.
And if it was working so well, why wasn't split screen coop actually released for the game?
Last edited:
SkylineRKR
Member
Yep this would've been the best solution. Like PS5 DE at 399 bucks in 2020. A DD only Xbox alternative would make sense anyway, considering they are leaning heavy on Gamepass.
I remember when I got my PS5 DE, it was 3 weeks after my Series S. I couldn't believe it cost only 100 more. Much more powerful, bigger SSD etc. And Sony doesn't have the same issue Xbox faces with 2 different hardware.
cireza
Member
I don't really get the point of this from a gameplay perspective. This is like running two separate instances one next to the other. I suppose there are some innovative ways to use this. But this is not the right topic anyway.
Last edited:
Gorgon
Member
Not to mention that being top down or first person has nothing to do with this. BG3 is fully 3D and with far more environmetal detail than Halo Infinite. The character perspective is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Gorgon
Member
It is exactely that. In BG3 the hardware has to basically run two instances of the game. In table-top RPGs this is refered to as "splitting the party".
Last edited:
cireza
Member
I question the necessity of having overly detailed assets when your point of view is a far away and top down. Most of it will be lost anyway, unless you zoom on the action. There is definitely a lot of headroom to reduce details by a wide margin and free RAM space.
Obviously. I have myself been game master quite a lot of time for tabletop RPGs. However I am having a hard time seeing the point here VS playing on two separate consoles and simply discussing at the same time.
Topher
Identifies as young
Unless Larian has already reduced the detail as far as they are comfortable with and still are left needing additional memory.
Bojji
Member
Alan Wake R is Xbox 360/PC game from 2010 with better textures and some other graphical tweaks but it's not close to modern games in terms of gfx fidelity.
Doom 3 was cut down like motherfucker on Xbox (entire areas missing), it looks and runs poor on this console (I have played it) compared to PC version. Id didn't to the port of this game.
Exactly, entire generation will be held back by this "thing". Devs have have to make games for the lowest common denominator hardware.
Topher
Identifies as young
No, this isn't about getting the game "to run". It is about split screen coop.
Last edited:
Gorgon
Member
1) Sure, you have more leeway in a top-down game to free up ram by having e.g. less detailed textures. But how much you can get away with is difficult to say since I can't compare side-by-side what the difference would be for this game in particular. How much ram could you free up until the visual difference is substantial? My bet is that not much can and that using higher quality textures and more complex 3D models will be quite noticeable even in a top-down game like this. Another point is that the game has a lot of cinematics and "zoom-in" moments. You can also put the camera behind the character and move the character that way, according to some videos. Also, some of those "zoom-in" moments at least don't seem to be tied to specific locations, like when the PCs and NPCs get critical hits. If the models or the environment don't look good than in those instances they will look like shit. Point is, we just don't know how it would affect this game in particular, so it's a mute point.
2) Personally, I don't care for the split screen since I won't use. I also suspect that most people won't. But some people do like it and use it, and Larian is big into it for some reason. At the end of the day it's their game, not mine.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Split screen takes more memory, which is the problem.
The further we get into the gen the more devs are going to want to push what these machines are capable of which inevitably is going to lead to more stress on memory and memory bandwidth, so things are going to get worse as time passes.
Cross-gen has shielded the S in many ways because the hard top-end limits of PS4/Xbone ensured that from the outset a sub <8gb allocation had to be observed for them to function. Something targeting PS5/XSX natively is a whole other deal because S simply has less, and with MS mandating that both S and X need to be supported in parallel its inveitably that the lower spec needs prioritizing.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
This is what I'm thinking will happen.
Gorgon
Member
Just for clarification, I was being sarcastic in that post.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Honestly you embarrass yourself. Again and again you won't engage with the conversation at hand or use any facts, and instead just try and turn it into some weird narrative, In this case the tried and tested Xbox persecution complex. The series S is holding back a game on your series X and you and the clowns can't hold dear Phil to account. It's always someone else's fault.
Look at this inane dribble you've replied with like you're having a stroke.
If it is the Devs fault and not your precious series s that you don't even own. Given some real reasons rather than reeeeee
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
All good dude, just used your post to focus on why memory and memory bandwidth is such a big deal.
Got to add also that split pools are just a bad idea because they give a false impression that tolerances (for usage) are less extreme. Everyone should have learned from the example of PS3 that just because the total amount of available ram is the same as the competition, its unimportant that certain regions are less performant.
PendekarRajawali
Member
Meanwhile…Nintendo with the weakest spec sells tons of consoles.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
Scale in GPU is fairly easy, on memory not so much, you can of course lower assets and textures, but the game logic is not that easy, and more, most people expect the same game at lower resolution which means that they can't cut severely on asset quality otherwise people will complain. If that is not that big of a deal, how do you explain Baldur's Gate 3 problems.
Do you really think they want to lose sales and delay the launch of the game on one of the major platforms just because? Resolution and some effects scale on GPU and that's way easier than the memory footprint of the console. There is one important thing you are forgetting:
- The Series X has 16Gb / 10Gbs at 560GB's and 6Gb at 336GB's;
- The Series S has 10Gb / 8Gb at 224GB's and 2Gb at 56GB's.
Realistically, only 8Gb are available for the game, these 2Gb is probably used by the OS.
Imagine this scenario for a moment. 8Gb of RAM for a current gen game. Look at minimum requirements for games on PC, 8Gb is not enough for most of them and PC had the advantage of having a second memory pool just for the GPU. Most games need at least 6Gb of VRAM to run the game at 1080p, IDK what to say. 10Gb of RAM was a stupid decision in the long run.
supernova8
Banned
If the whole Halo Infinite split screen thing was scrapped because of Series S then that would be pretty damning, but I doubt we'll ever hear that from the horse's mouth either way so whatever.
I think the more important question is at what point in the generation (especially if PS5 continues to outsell Xbox SX at a 2-to-1 ratio) some third party developers and/or publishers decide to either skip Xbox altogether or cozy up with Sony for some sort of timed exclusivity deal (read: free money - for say, 6 to 12 months) if they think it will take another 6-12 months to get a solid Series S version out the door anyway.
The alternative is they have the same amount of time as before but they need to either split resources between more target specs or add more developers (which, of course, costs more money).
Obviously this would never happen for your big heavy hitters like FIFA (which will probably release on electric toasters well into the 2030s knowing EA), Madden, Battlefield, Assassins Creed, (Call of Duty goes without saying, especially assuming the ActiBliz deal goes through) etc etc etc, but it might happen for some titles.
Last edited:
Tommi84
Member
let the others know when they were defending MS and saying it's Larian's fault, that the game is not launching on Xbox consoles the same time as on PS.
And WHOSE fault is this? Wasn't it the MANUFACTURER that claimed that Series S games are mostly the same, just with lower resolution?
Last edited:
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
It is an engine problem, sure, but that's because the engine serves the game, not every engine will have the same footprint on RAM, plus, Have you seen Ratchet and Clank on Low? Can you honestly think people will accept that level of compromise on the Series S?
Put the blame on devs, that's not conducive to great support, it is Microsoft job to facilitate the life of developers and give them what they need, not every dev will have the means or the will to spend extra time optimizing for the Series S, it's easier to limit the game from the get go and people have a problem with that too.
On the one hand, you'd think developers have the leverage here. "Drop the Series S parity requirement or we just won't won't ship games on Xbox, which already only represents a small fraction of the sales". It's not negligible obviously, but at the risk of oversimplifying: Game Devs don't need Xbox as much as Xbox needs them.
On the other hand, Series S is more essential to Xbox now than ever cause (last I read) almost 2/3 Xbox's sold are Series S. So MS has sort of doubled down on it. That's a messy fucking situation for Microsoft cause how can they tell Devs "Okay sure, deprioritize Series S, drop feature support for it" when it represents like ~two thirds of their user base.
I own both and use both frequently. But the S was always (for me) a way to get 20 mins of Destiny or Diablo or something in while still being around the family. Or I'd bring it with me if I was travelling etc.
On the other hand, Series S is more essential to Xbox now than ever cause (last I read) almost 2/3 Xbox's sold are Series S. So MS has sort of doubled down on it. That's a messy fucking situation for Microsoft cause how can they tell Devs "Okay sure, deprioritize Series S, drop feature support for it" when it represents like ~two thirds of their user base.
I own both and use both frequently. But the S was always (for me) a way to get 20 mins of Destiny or Diablo or something in while still being around the family. Or I'd bring it with me if I was travelling etc.
Topher
Identifies as young
We know 343 had technical issues getting it to work. I don't think it is too much of an assumption to say XSS was the culprit, but yes, it is an assumption even if a logical one.
Former Halo dev, Sean Barron, did hint at this though....
"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
RaySoft
Member
You are talking about released games. Devs talk about future games, wich are years from release. That's probably why you feel there is a descrepency there...
supernova8
Banned
To be fair though, local co-op in an open world game is just asking for trouble. Unless you implement some sort of tethering system so that the two players can only ever be a short distance from each other, you'd essentially have to run the entire game twice on one system. It's not like local multi-player where you're just loading in what is essentially a small, boxed off arena and that's that.
But hey... maybe... just maybe... they shouldn't have made Halo Infinite open world in the fucking first place.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
You obviously struggle at accepting that other people might see things differently than you. I don't care about whatever "premium" image Series X could or should have. I have always been convinced that Series S was a fantastic idea from day one and don't care either if developers can't manage to put a game on it, you are the one losing sleep over this... If they fail, others will succeed. But I am not worried in this case, Microsoft will find a way.
This type of discussion doesn't come as a surprise anyway as a lot of people here are loaded with money and don't give a shit about the fact that when they are arguing for having the best game possible, they are at the same time shitting on people that have a tight budget and finally got the opportunity to play premium games on a console less than 300$. Elitist gamers were certainly having a stroke back then when games such as Golden Axe made it to the Master System and weren't the exact replica of the MegaDrive game, but as far as I am concerned, I discovered "premium" video-games because a budget proposal existed back then with the Master System and couldn't be happier with all the incredible conversions to the 8 bits console. It was such a huge step up from the NES and felt close enough to the MegaDrive quite often.
So as far as I am concerned, supporting Series S sounds essential to me, it obviously is for Microsoft otherwise they wouldn't be announcing another model for september. We know the console accounts for around half the sales of the Series overall, and I am not the one losing sleep over a game that potentially won't make it to the console because developers can't make the effort to adapt to the hardware by changing their design.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Funky anime characters in the avatar checks out. No wonder a lot of games run like shit in current year. These tools spend more time on Twittard than optimizing.
Last edited:
Horseganador
Member
MS has had to send help to Larian studios to be able to port Baldurs gate 3, these and other studios like Remedy complain but according to the neogaf engineers this is solved by putting 10 minutes in the .exe of the game and that's it xDDDDD always the same.
Topher
Identifies as young
To be fair though, local co-op in an open world game is just asking for trouble. Unless you implement some sort of tethering system so that the two players can only ever be a short distance from each other, you'd essentially have to run the entire game twice on one system. It's not like local multi-player where you're just loading in what is essentially a small, boxed off arena and that's that.
But hey... maybe... just maybe... they shouldn't have made Halo Infinite open world in the fucking first place.
Tethering is exactly what they tried to do with Halo Infinite.
Timestamped.....
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
I agree with you that the Series S is a good idea, I think the problem is that, this idea wasn't well executed. Cutting back on RAM creates all sort of issues for the developers. It would be better to ask for another 50 dollars and give the system 16gb ram, just a slower one from the X, or better yet, Microsoft subsidized for a while.
It blows my mind that I could buy a PS5 for 399, and Microsoft can't put 16gb of ram on a 4TF 299 machine.
100 dollars awards you with 16Gb of GDDR6 memory, a bigger SoC with 10TF, 825GB faster SSD, a dualsense (you may prefer the xbox controller, not a problem, but I think it's safe to assume that building a dual sense is way more expensive with speaker, mic, touchpad, rgb lights, internal battery and superior haptics.).
100 dollars is not pocket money for a new console, but I think most gamers would rather save a bit and get a PS5 than buy the Series S, if Microsoft made the console a bit more interesting I think they would have a real shot at taking market share with a cheaper option. The only marketshare XSS is taking is the XSX market.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's the AAA devs that are wrong, not the 4TF, 8GB 224GB/s Brand Box in 2023 and beyond strapped in with even more handicapped parity clauses.
Del_X
Member
Thomas is a fucking communication director. He's not even a dev at Remedy. I'd like to hear what one of the people actually working on the Northlight engine has to say.
Not saying the Series S isn't gimped by RAM, and not saying MSFT shouldn't drop the parity clause (seriously, it's not a big deal if Series S owners get fewer cars rendered on screen or lack split-screen).
Not saying the Series S isn't gimped by RAM, and not saying MSFT shouldn't drop the parity clause (seriously, it's not a big deal if Series S owners get fewer cars rendered on screen or lack split-screen).
hyperbertha
Member
We don't know how in depth starfield's systems are. They could be as shallow as fallout 4. In terms of scale and scope, size stopped being impressive in 7th gen. Zelda and bg3 do faar more impressive things.
Bogroll
Likes moldy games
Only time will tell, 50 series cards are apparently will be a big jump, well I don't think they have much choice after the bad press and sales of the 40 series.
Also ( I haven't looked into this as I only know a little about PC's) What's the difference in power between a Xbox One and a mid range GPU and the top GPU after 3 years of that being on the market v Series S v mid range GPU and a top GPU of today ?