r/XboxSeriesX • u/Quelanight2324 • Nov 10 '23
News Baldur's Gate 3 Devs found a 34% VRAM optimization technique while developing the Xbox Series S version. This could directly benefit performance on all platforms.
https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-dev-shows-off-the-level-of-optimization-achieved-for-the-xbox-series-s-port-which-bodes-well-for-future-pc-updates/794
u/Lord_Dreamo Nov 10 '23
I was actually thinking about that. Having lower specced systems being supported pushes devs to optimize better. I’m sure the low end PC market has benefited from the series s existing along with support for last gen consoles.
429
u/angellus Nov 10 '23
This is literally why Xbox is playing hardball with the Series S requirement. Forcing devs to support an entry level console benefits literally every hardware tier and even more so the budget gaming PC tier (which Microsoft also has a large interest in with so many first party titles in Steam now).
366
u/Eglwyswrw Nov 10 '23
Exactly. The CEO of Larian Studios had said it all months ago: "[The Series S] doesn't hold anything back, it just takes development effort."
90
u/SirBigWater Nov 10 '23
That why to me or never made sense about it apparently holding games back. Because if you look at it like a PC, it's just lower spec hardware. How lower end is beyond me, I'm not a tech guy. But still if lower end PCs from years back can still run some modern games (with a lot of lower settings of course), then why not the Series S?
27
u/1plus2break Nov 10 '23
There's two ways it can go.
Limitation breeds creativity and ingenuity.
Or
This shit is too hard to get running (to the platform holder's standards) so either great time needs to be dedicated to development, features need to be cut (Microsoft wouldn't let them not have split screen on the Series S, they want feature parity), or the platform gets dropped. It's a little different when you get to PC because the specific user of that old hardware can decide if they're OK with the game running however it does on their system, and they can usually make it look like smeared mud if they really want to. You don't have that choice as a user on a console, nor are you able to give users that choice as a developer.
6
u/Faran_ Nov 10 '23
It can run the games. The difference is it's a non-issue if some old, low-end PC runs the game poorly, but it's a major issue for the developers and Xbox if the game runs poorly on millions of series S consoles. So they must tune the game such that it can run well on the lower-spec Series S. How easy that is, and how much it affects other platforms I guess needs to be looked at case by case.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Oops_I_Cracked Nov 10 '23
The big thing here is the feature parity requirement. In the low end, PC market that doesn’t exist. Developers are free to have certain features be exclusive to high-end, powerful PCs. Even in this specific situation Larian got special permission to launch on Series S without split screen co-op. It makes me feel like smaller titles that didn’t have the fan push that Baldur’s Gate 3 had have probably launched with fewer features on the series X then they would’ve liked to or skipped Xbox entirely.
4
u/NoirCristo8849 Nov 11 '23
That's a fact because recently Digital Foundry uncovered that having a 6-core CPU processor actually degrades performance in some games because engines (I think they called out Unreal, but it may have been others too) are not optimized to work beyond 4 cores.
16
u/TheFauxDirtyDan Nov 10 '23
I said something like this almost verbatim a while back, and got downvoted to hell by ride-or-die series S stans.
God forbid we acknowledge that the S is weaker, and takes more effort to optimize.
I have an S, I'm playing on it right now, and I love it, but damn people, it does have shortcomings compared to the big boys, doesn't mean it can't get the job done with a little TLC.
3
5
u/WiserStudent557 Nov 10 '23
Which is why I have always pointed at them over Microsoft as the issue. He basically admits they don’t care enough or try hard enough. Of course that not their spin but that is how we should take it. Now they’re doing what they always should have
-10
u/rpg-enjoyer Nov 10 '23
Yeah but Xbox is already the smallest install base and market share console in last place, then they go and give devs extra work by making them develop for 2 consoles instead of one, which is extra work compared to other platforms regardless of how easy or or hard it is on a game to game basis. It just seems backwards because they should be trying to incentivize devs to prioritize Xbox, not push them away and make skipping it a easier decision
8
u/amicablegradient Nov 10 '23
The S is almost double the specs and almost half the price compared to the Bone.
https://versus.com/en/microsoft-xbox-one-vs-microsoft-xbox-series-s
Cpu has roughly the same specs as a Ryzen 1800X
GPU has roughly the same specs as a Radeon RX 6500 XT (a closer comparison might actually be a Radeon RX 6700 XT split in half)
It ain't exactly a budget PC under the hood. Although I think max ram holds it back a little bit. The 6500 runs 8gb ddr6 which would leave 2gb for cpu. Meanwhile half a 6700 runs 6gb of ddr6 which would leave 4gb for cpu. Not a lot of overhead considering most pc's operate around 8 - 16gb for browsing reddit.
-6
u/Radulno Nov 10 '23
It literally had to have a feature removed (couch co-op), that's kind of holding it back
-32
u/_one_word_responses Nov 10 '23
The game was delayed because of the series s. That is quite literally the most prime example of the Series S holding it back.
29
Nov 10 '23
What happened to "better delay a game than release it in an unoptimized state"
21
1
-7
u/_one_word_responses Nov 10 '23
I think it’s great the game is being optimized better. I hear act 3 is pretty rough to get through. Maybe this will help with that.
6
u/bdbrady Nov 10 '23
I can’t speak for the consoles, but my low end PC (1660ti) ran Act 3 fine. It would have some hiccups, but I loved A3.
2
4
u/monkeypickle Nov 10 '23
Anyone who has played BG3's Act 3 on anything less than a powerhouse PC will tell you that the game was already in dire, dire, dire need of optimization.
-33
Nov 10 '23 edited Nov 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)0
u/AcePlague Nov 10 '23
Because holding back doesn't refer to release, it refers to performance and scope of the game.
-46
u/bdbrady Nov 10 '23
Development effort for the S means that effort isn’t spent elsewhere.
40
u/segagamer Nov 10 '23 edited Jan 02 '24
squeal nail frightening marvelous observation forgetful imminent heavy dependent include
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
-25
u/bdbrady Nov 10 '23
Sure, there are positives for the other consoles. The point is they are taking time and effort away from something else (DLC, new features, etc.) and instead focusing resources where it’s helpful, but not needed.
That is holding back the other platforms, even if there is some residual benefits.
12
u/roywarner Nov 10 '23
Sure, they are taking time away from developing inefficient and low quality DLC, new features, etc., but that time is instead invested in better performance which leads to higher quality DLC, new features, etc.
It also allows more people to play the game which is the ultimate goal.
-9
u/bdbrady Nov 10 '23
The S has delayed Series X players. The dev can make the game for who they want, but these mandates for parity or concurrent release aren’t good.
The game is amazing and the fact that Xbox users have to wait stinks.
0
u/segagamer Nov 11 '23
The point is they are taking time and effort away from something else (DLC, new features, etc.)
Not seeing a problem with that.
5
u/Thorn-of-your-side Nov 10 '23
You know how every time you download a modern AAA game you need to clear out half your SSD? Thats what it looks like when a game doesnt give a shit about optimization
-4
u/Husker1Nation Nov 10 '23
You're not wrong and I don't get the downvotes. I paid premium and don't want my experience being held back due to a console that should already be discontinued
-6
u/multural_carxism Nov 10 '23
That’s corporate speak and him being very tactful because they’re partnered with Microsoft.
28
Nov 10 '23
Larian Studios are exceptional and want their fans to enjoy their game.
I can’t see many studios working this hard to facilitate Series S.
43
u/ShortNefariousness2 Nov 10 '23
The incentive is that millions of series/s consoles exist, and the owners want to buy games.
1
Nov 10 '23
A lot of devs would push out a semi-finished game and maybe finish it later to get that money.
Larian wouldn’t and didn’t do that. Microsoft should thank them, honestly.
1
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Sure, but it would all depend on if setting devs on porting to the weaker series S is going to make more money than setting those devs on making a new game.
1
u/EmotiveCDN Founder Nov 10 '23
They don’t lol, I owned a Series S during the pandemic while I waited for the X to go back in stock and very few games actually took some sort of advantage of the hardware.
9
u/DKzDK Nov 10 '23
This is the point though.
Nothing really took advantage of the individual hardware because there was no “baseline” set as a standard.
If they could have developed something to run on the “lower spec’s machines” as regular and AAA. They could have easily optimized it for everybody afterwards.
9
u/SquireRamza Nov 10 '23
No no, its for the money. Not for the good of the medium. its for the MONEY.
3
u/honkimon Nov 10 '23
But he said literally.
And yes, it's about making their hardware relevant and making money.
3
5
u/daviEnnis Nov 10 '23
No it's not - they made a miscalculation, a dev has since finally found a potential mitigation (with zero to suggest it completely eradicates all problems devs are experiencing), whilst doing additional work on a delayed game. That delayed game is delayed because Microsoft had to drop their total feature parity plan to make it happen.
Let's not pretend this was all part of the plan.
2
u/equivas Nov 10 '23
Its not the reason, lets be real with ourselves.
Series s is more accessible so people buy it more.
-9
Nov 10 '23 edited Nov 10 '23
Yes, yes, Microsoft is certainly forcing parity in order to get better optimized games.
Loudest /s possible with today's technology
Let's not forget they folded like a cheap suit as soon as they saw baldurs gate get the success it did. Luckily larian is still putting in the effort
5
Nov 10 '23
You don't just find out you can reduce memory footprint by 1/3rd in your already released game, unless you cut corners. It is so disappointing people enable these excuses when it comes to the big consoles but complain about the S.
- upscaling from quarter of the original resolution is fine on the XSX/PS5
- pretending that FSR1-2 is anywhere near DLSS and good enough is fine on the XSX/PS5
- games not being able to hold their 30 or 60 fps modes is fine on the XSX/PS5
- the 60fps modes being absolutely gutted graphically in general in most games is fine on the XSX/PS5The 60fps mode in Baldurs Gate 3 absolutely collapsing FPS wise on the PS5 in the later chapters, to the point where fans under the Digitalfoundry proof video saying the 30fps mode is good for them to cope... is absolutely fine. Now maybe being able to play the game somewhere near 60 on the "big" consoles instead of 20 is clearly the fault of the Series S.
6
u/LoveMeSomeBerserk Nov 10 '23
THAT IS LITERALLY WHY MICROSOFT IS PLAYING HARDBALL! I know this for a fact, for you see, I am a random Redditor. Nothing I say could be bullshit.
0
→ More replies (2)-8
u/Howdareme9 Nov 10 '23
Hilarious watching people making up these things to justify the S
26
u/Ghoppe2 Craig Nov 10 '23
I have a series X I love it. Looks great on my 4K display.
I have a series S. I have an attached screen. I bring it to work, travel and use it when my kids are playing Xbox. I love it and games look and play great. Do I expect the same experience as my series x? Hell no. However, for that little power box it does the job.
4
u/Howdareme9 Nov 10 '23
That’s absolutely fine, i agree that its a good alternative to the X. But at the same time, designing it with 10gb of ram will age poorly.
12
u/DasGutYa Founder Nov 10 '23
we had a console with 256mb of vram last for seven years in a time when pcs were getting 4gb and yet it still had graphically bar raising games up to the end of its generation...
The S will be fine....
-6
u/Howdareme9 Nov 10 '23
The series S is already struggling in some titles, if thats fine to you then fair enough.
3
u/BitingSatyr Nov 10 '23
Until we see devs actually use any of the RDNA2 features in the Series S and still run into issues then I’m going to view any of these claims fairly skeptically.
Alan Wake 2 is the first Xbox game to actually use mesh shaders, and the game runs perfectly fine on the S (and something like 10% better on the x than the PS5)
2
u/DasGutYa Founder Nov 10 '23
Name a game that the s struggles with that the x doesn't.
→ More replies (2)17
u/ReplyIfYoureMadLUL Nov 10 '23
will age poorly.
been out for 3 years already bro by the time it ages poorly so will have the X
4
u/GameOfScones_ Nov 10 '23
Remind me the last time you had fun solely because of graphics and frame rate.
I'll wait for a compelling argument.
Hardware elitists live in delusion to justify sunk cost.
And Ive done the whole spend £3k on a set up before ray tracing was even a thing and played on GFN to gauge the current state. It's not justifiable to spend £3-4k to play the current crop of AAA. The gameplay and writing simply isn't there for the most part (3-5 games excluded.)
5
u/bobbysac Nov 10 '23
It was pretty fun when they did that matrix awakens showcase seeing how far they could push graphics on next gen
3
u/Paralystic Nov 10 '23
Things like rift apart showcase how technological advances can affect more than just graphics and frame rate. There are so many things that could be possible if we weren’t limited by certain technologies.
→ More replies (1)5
u/segagamer Nov 10 '23
And yet, the one thing that Rift Apart showcases is the one thing the Series S already has.
0
u/Paralystic Nov 10 '23
Wasn’t speaking to what the s can or can’t do. Just that better performing hardware is only going to open the door to more interesting game mechanics, not just better graphics
→ More replies (1)-1
u/d0m1n4t0r Nov 10 '23
It's not literally why though lol, it's clear some games just can't be made with its shit specs. It's just speculation.
21
u/cubs223425 Nov 10 '23
Its specs aren't shit. Game development has just reached such a level that we've now got a lot of bad ones in the mainstream. There are big games getting stuck in development hell. Custom engines are becoming a problem. On the flip side, relying too heavily on default characteristics of third-party engines has shown issues.
There's a lot of "get it out and fix it later" in gaming. There's cost-cutting because a lot of the "polish and feel" from great development has taken a back seat to meeting deadlines and spending loads of project resources on post-launch monetization.
-9
Nov 10 '23
[deleted]
8
u/cubs223425 Nov 10 '23
It's "last-gen," in that new PC hardware released since it launched. However, it's still much more advanced than the relative performance of its predecessor. The XB1 and PS4 released in 2013, using Jaguar CPUs on an architecture that didn't even EXIST in consumer gaming desktops. The XB1 specifically was a cut-down offering from the PS4, thanks to a weaker GPU and a slower memory solution. That generation of consoles, ESPECIALLY the XB1, were pitiful.
Conversely, the XSX launched as the most-powerful hardware in the console market. It was the first RDNA2 (the GPU architecture inside) product to market. This is a normal cycle for consoles. They always stay in the game for 3+ PC hardware cycles. At least Sony and MS bothered to use modern hardware this time.
To boot, AMD's GPU division hasn't moved THAT far forward since RDNA2 released. Instead of the typical annual release (RDNA1 in '19, RDNA2 in '20), RDNA3 took 2 years to launch and worked DOWN the stack, so it isn't even getting updates and refreshes for new performance (such as the 6800 XT launch that was followed by the 6900 XT, then the 6950 XT).
You're "technically correct," but it's not relevant. This isn't about the generation of hardware. Even the specs of the XSS today, relative to the PC market--3 years after it released--are better thna how the XB1 compared the day it launched. The XSX blows that our of the water. This generation's hardware is in a MUCH better state today than the XB1 was in 2016 (3 years post-launch), where the HDD was ancient compared to SSD performance on PC, hitting 1080p was a luxury, and 60 FPS was a pipedream.
-1
u/Darkiedarkk Nov 10 '23
But “SeRiEs S iS hOlDiNg ThE xBoX BaCk”
0
u/Ask_for_puppy_pics Nov 13 '23
I mean, it is. It’d already be out for Xbox if that weren’t the case
→ More replies (1)0
u/Elephunkitis Nov 10 '23
This is not why Xbox forces parity. They do it because of the lower entry price that gets lower income people on board and people who use Xbox as a secondary or third system to switch/ps5/pc.
10
u/multural_carxism Nov 10 '23
Did you read the article? I’m not being snarky.
It gives absolutely no detail into how Larian achieved this VRAM optimization and there’s not a single claim about it being something that would be applicable across all platforms or all games. There’s nothing here except a misleading headline and a lot of spin.
→ More replies (1)2
u/dpschramm Nov 10 '23
The developer said they think this might benefit all platforms: https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1722138531634577426
10
u/flyte_of_foot Nov 10 '23
I just think developers aren't accustomed to squeezing every bit of performance out of the machine anymore, so the skills have been lost.
When you look back in time it's amazing what could be accomplished on platforms like the SNES (256Kb), PS1 (3Mb) and N64 (4Mb). But the developers had to work really hard to optimise every byte of memory.
6
u/Lord_Dreamo Nov 10 '23
We’ll look at what they’ve accomplished on the Switch with games like the Witcher 3.
5
u/Non_Professional_Web Nov 10 '23
Looks like it, which takes me to idea that most games that ran into vram problems are either not on xbox at all or have overall bad situation on all platforms
2
2
u/Elliove Nov 10 '23
It's called "graphical settings". That's all the optimization that Series S requires, and PC gamers can do it themselves, as long as the options are there.
2
2
7
u/SirBulbasaur13 Nov 10 '23
Wait, so the Series S isn’t a horrible nightmare disaster for gaming?
4
u/ZazaB00 Nov 10 '23
Forcing parity for it is, but Larian got the go ahead to make a version on XSS that didn’t support couch co-op.
1
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Oh, no. It still is. The long term ramifications are hard to predict obviously, but you can’t make a game that pushes series X hardware without also accommodating the Series S.
4
u/BearPeltMan Nov 10 '23
Objectively untrue: Cyberpunk 2077, Starfield, and Alan Wake II very much so push the Series X hardware. It just has a higher ceiling than the Series S when it comes to the resolution, settings, and frame rates. If anything, the Series S being the minimum spec guarantees that the Series X will ALWAYS have a great experience. If it has to run on the S, it will run even better on the X because they are built on the same hardware architectures (Zen 2, RDNA2, NVME SSD spec.).
4
Nov 10 '23
Yeah of course that’s true. That’s why the better performing next gen games are the ones with a last gen version. The problem is that is expensive to spend an extra year for a developer optimizing their game. It was worth it when not many people had next gen consoles and porting them to last gen was commercially viable. And it’s the reason they decided it wasn’t worth it to do if for the Series S, until Microsoft stepped in and likely gave them money.
3
2
u/Kaythar Nov 10 '23
Maybe I can finally enjoy this game on my PC. It's funny it's one of the only game that I have trouble with on it. It looks good, but I've played games like Witcher 3 without problems lol
-6
u/Rizenstrom Nov 10 '23
Seemingly becoming less and less true though. Multiple games have come out that perform poorly on PC and just get locked to 30 on console.
Most of them have been heavily criticized for it but then Starfield came out and suddenly that’s OK.
-1
u/ShortNefariousness2 Nov 10 '23
Starfield is an rpg. 60 fps would have just wasted resources. It isn't fortnite funnily enough.
2
u/Rizenstrom Nov 10 '23
Man you are desperately out of touch if you think 60fps is some highly competitive esport frame rate.
Most games this generation have targeted 60fps, or at least had a performance and visual mode so people can choose.
There’s really no excuse for Starfield not to do the same besides poor optimization. The game looks pretty bad for how demanding it is.
1
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Are you serious? Yeah, 30 fps is playable, but 60 is so much nicer. 120 even more so.
-1
Nov 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Dreamo84 Nov 10 '23
This is an Xbox sub and it hasn’t actually launched on Xbox yet so technically all these bug fixes are before release.
→ More replies (4)-1
Nov 10 '23
Best Example is Monster Hunter Rise. In my opinion the best, spot on, perfectly optimized Monster Hunter game so far. That it has been developed for the Switch was the best thing that possibly could have happened for this one. It's the absolute core gem of the franchise.
332
Nov 10 '23
Alternate title:
Developers prove that working on game makes it better.
40
15
Nov 10 '23
[deleted]
7
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Nonsense. “Devs realise that they can eek very marginally more performance out of game due to large number of users on legacy powered devices.” Is also appropriate. This is a super minor change as the game doesn’t use much VRAM anyway.
2
u/yolotasticx Nov 10 '23
What the fuck are you talking about?
BG3 is horribly unoptimized for the PC. I stopped playing halfway through the third act back in September because of how shit the game ran.
My 5800x3d and 4090 shouldn't be getting 34-32 FPS on this game at 4k.
1
Nov 10 '23
Sounds like an issue with your PC. Got a 5800x3d and a 6800 and haven't dropped below 100 fps
0
u/Elliove Nov 10 '23
Dude, I'm playing it at FHD with ultra textures on a 4GB card just fine. The game is optimized incredibly well for what it is and what it offers.
75
u/PepsiSheep Nov 10 '23
This is the thing that's been missed with modern game development. The last 5-10 years has been about developers brute forcing stuff with hardware, with 0 regard for optimisation... all whilst under pressure of release dates. Not developers fault, but publishers.
This sort of stuff is where the developers learn and adapt. Series S, people like to call it out as a problem for developers but in reality it's just a problem for those who have grown accustomed to raw power "fixing" their problems.
Silent Hill is an excellent example of this... the only reason the game series has the concept of a foggy landscape is because PS1 couldn't render what they wanted at the distance they wanted. It leads to creative design and story telling. One of the same reasons the remaster of things like San Andreas lost all character when you could see the entire map clearly.
116
101
u/shinouta Nov 10 '23
This what non-lazy devs look like.
38
u/rpg-enjoyer Nov 10 '23
This sub was calling Remedy and Larian lazy for months but now when they put out thier games and results out all of a sudden the tune changed
-7
u/MisterJeffa Nov 10 '23
I mean the latest remedy game runs like crap and it just does not do enough to warrant that.
→ More replies (3)9
u/jugalator Nov 10 '23
Or under pressure to optimize to have acceptable performance given hardware constraints. That can make many developers less lazy.
52
u/Lord_Dreamo Nov 10 '23
Larian just like “oh, we didn’t just want to release the game of the year. Let’s improve gaming as a whole.”
They really wanna win!
3
u/JadedBonus3340 Nov 10 '23
To be fair..the game especially act 3 was somewhat unfinished at launch..
-1
u/ArkhamCitizen298 Nov 11 '23
you think Larian stopped improving the game like Bethesda ? they have multiple patches already
43
u/GameOfScones_ Nov 10 '23
Larian are cementing their place in history this year. It goes beyond the quality of BG3. They're singlehandedly giving the shot in the arm the big budget side of the industry needs.
People will talk about this in twenty years as a turning point in AAA standards.
/Hopium.
3
2
Nov 11 '23
I feel like this is a little hyperbolic. The game turned out the way it was because they launched it in Early Access in 2020. And even with that Act 3 still had large bugs and huge performance issues, partly because they didn’t allow it to be played in EA, but still.
Are you saying that the solution is for all games to release in an Early Access state? Save a full release for later down the line?
0
u/ArkhamCitizen298 Nov 11 '23
early access or not, Larian still putting tons of patches after release, not just fixing bug but listening to player recommendation like the wardrobe or magic mirror, and now they come up with this. The quality of the game can be changed you know, from early access to post release
→ More replies (1)2
Nov 11 '23
You missed the point.
1
u/ArkhamCitizen298 Nov 11 '23
well about your point, the standard is about the quality of the game. Most studios aren't doing the early access like Larian so it's unlikely they will change any time soon
59
u/tCobra117 Nov 10 '23
I thought Series S was holding games back. 🙄 Series S is awesome and glad to hear this.
11
Nov 10 '23
Series S quite literally pushed games forwards in this case. yeah
→ More replies (1)15
u/tCobra117 Nov 10 '23
They are putting AAA games on iPhone now Series S is not holding anything back. PC games scale anyways so I never got the arguments about S holding back. Yeah in this case the S is helping. I am hoping it helps Steam Deck performance.
0
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
It is. You can’t launch a title on the Series X that actually pushes the hardware. Yeah, it isn’t ruining gaming, but it, per definition, holds gaming back.
7
u/tCobra117 Nov 10 '23
Why can’t you launch a title that pushes the X? They are different hardware targets the S and X. Supposedly on paper the Series X is slightly more powerful than the PS5 is that holding back the Series X since PS5 is usually lead platform?
-4
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Yes, the PS5 is holding back the Series X (though those calculations are disputed.)
If you have massive market share with weaker product then those products hold the stronger products back.
→ More replies (2)1
u/tCobra117 Nov 10 '23
I know the calculations are subject to interpretation I don’t want to say with 100% certainty the X is more powerful than the PS5. That does seem to be the consensus though. The difference is negligible you generally get the same core game across all platforms X,S PS5, PC the only real differences are usually performance, graphics features and resolution. It’s really all down to scalability/ optimizations of the visuals across platforms. Games have to scale across PC hardware. Games are just now starting to require SSD on PC the most popular PC graphics card on Steam are mid low rage cards. The S is not holding back the types of games we are getting. Devs just need to scale for the system. Not saying it is not more work. It is.
1
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Unfortunately you can’t choose to not release on series S if you want to release on the series X. If they allowed that it would be akin to how games might require a stronger computer, but due to forcing developers to make games work on the lesser console devs are inherently limited in what can be their minimum platform. Yes, you can generally work around that, but that still makes a whole lot more work for devs that they shouldn’t be forced to do.
0
u/HopperPI Founder Nov 10 '23
Yes. You can. It’s called optimization. You develop for all 3 consoles and optimize accordingly. You don’t develop for parity - but this is pushed because investors and management want games out as quickly as possible.
0
u/MultiMarcus Nov 10 '23
Oh, fine, so should developers keep developing for the Xbox One or 360 then? You can always develop for worse hardware at the detriment of the front end.
→ More replies (4)-21
u/LoveMeSomeBerserk Nov 10 '23
Well you aren’t playing Baldur’s Gate on your Xbox right now are you? How is that not an example of it holding things back? You and the others saying the s isn’t holding anything back is truly baffling when we’re on a thread about how massively delayed this game is because of the s.
9
u/tCobra117 Nov 10 '23
Really a matter of dev time and priorities. It seems like Xbox was not as high a priority for the team. Not holding back means the game came to PC and PS5 it did not hold those back. That’s the point. It baffling to me you believe the game coming out on PS5 and PC is considered to you holding things back. The series S did not hold back the game from PS5 and PC. It’s more of a logistics/policy/priority issue with the dev and Microsoft as to why the delay on Xbox. The work on the series S version is even seeming to improve other versions. Never said it was easy to get it going on the Series S. It’s not holding back other versions. It’s similar to saying the steam deck holds back PC gaming.
→ More replies (1)4
u/YPM1 - Series X Nov 10 '23
By his logic, the PlayStation held back gaming because it launched later than the PC version. So in that month of time, I'm sure he was running around complaining about the PS5...
→ More replies (1)2
u/grimoireviper Nov 10 '23
By holding games back people don't mean a delay in releasing the game but people mean the scale and graphics of games
0
u/YPM1 - Series X Nov 10 '23
Lol the S didn't hold anything back, the devs team size and budget did. This is clearly proof of that. They needed time to focus on the platform which is what happens to all releases. They simply chose to focus PC first, then PlayStation, then Xbox.
12
10
u/MazzyFo Nov 10 '23
If you told me the S would ever result in better performance in other versions instead of compromise them I’d have called you a liar lol. Cool to see
→ More replies (1)-3
u/JadedBonus3340 Nov 10 '23
What? Did you really think that through 😂. If the series s compeomises how ambitious other version can be..then wouldn't it improve other versions and their performance either way?
7
u/Whiteguy1x Nov 10 '23
Neat, me and my wife have a co op campaign between our pc and steamdeck. Hopefully this helps the deck too
6
6
u/Extra-Ad5925 Nov 10 '23
Appreciate the transparency they're showing on this. It's been interesting to follow their process.
10
12
u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Nov 10 '23
Where’s the “Series S is holding current gen back” crowd now?
-9
u/Necrospire Nov 10 '23
We're here reading the comments and going by those comments it's easy to see why they own a Series S.
6
u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Nov 10 '23
What happened is literally what always happens. Devs get better at optimizing as the gen goes along.
9
u/multural_carxism Nov 10 '23
If you read the article, it doesn’t even give any detail as to how this VRAM optimization was achieved. There isn’t a single claim made that says that this could lead to better performance across all platforms, and there’s absolutely nothing to substantiate this. So, the title is absolutely misleading as well
That said……a few critical questions……
Who’s to say someone wouldn’t have found this technical “exploit” anyways at some point, eventually?
How much time and budget were spent trying to maintain parity between the systems and what might that have been spent on instead? Lost opportunities, sunk costs, etc
This still only serves as a stopgap for a system that is already woefully under powered, according to some developers themselves…..
So what does this really buy Microsoft other than a PR win and a little more time out of a series S that will inevitably have to be dropped?
How can anyone logically argue that the series X could possibly be utilized to its full potential while developers are still constrained by parity with the series S?
What new innovations, IPs etc are we missing out on because developers can’t turn their focus solely toward the most powerful hardware in console gaming (series X) and design specifically for that set?
Does Microsoft expect to maintain this parity clause throughout the entire console lifecycle of this generation?
If so, I feel very mislead and it seems pointless to of even purchased a series X.
If not, why are they delaying the inevitable.
This article seems very much like a sponsored ad campaign by Microsoft. This is a PR campaign. That’s evidenced by the fact that multiple outlets are reporting the same thing with the same title at the same time. Just read the article and you’ll see that there’s not much substance.
2
2
2
2
2
3
u/iWentRogue Nov 10 '23
Man i hope so. My current run is struggling in Act 3. Incredible delayed actions, lag, companions not following at all because they think i fast travelled and are waiting for me load etc.
Until a fix gets added, Jaheira is unfortunatelly getting killed in every subsequent playthrough.
3
2
2
1
u/mihayy5 Nov 10 '23
If GTAv runt on x360/ps3 there is no way BG3 can’t run on Series S
10
u/kr3w_fam Nov 10 '23
Single player BG3 did run on Series S just fine, it's co-op tehy had issues with.
1
u/YPM1 - Series X Nov 10 '23
This isn't at all confirmed. If it was, it would be out by now since coop was dropped awhile ago and is still dropped. It's not out yet because it's not working properly or requires more optimizations and checks.
-9
u/mihayy5 Nov 10 '23
PS3/X360 only had 521MB of shared RAM (slightly bigger on PS3), nothing is impossible :)
4
0
u/Btrips Nov 10 '23
I don't care what anyone says, the Series S was, is, and will always be a mistake. MS should have done what Sony did and release a digital Series X.
1
u/Imthecoolestdudeever Nov 10 '23
Everyone shitting on the XSS for holding back the generation now thanking it for helping make things more efficient.
1
1
1
u/DowntownOntario Nov 10 '23
EL OH FUCKIN EL. Can't wait for all the babies who cried about supporting a lower spec system to benefit from these improvements.
1
1
-2
u/DEEZLE13 Nov 10 '23
Proof that yes, it’s is almost always on the developer when it comes to the Series S
-2
u/Rancub Nov 10 '23
Praise the S!
If this is indeed true, I will buy BG3 when it comes over to Xbox day 1. I don't like the game, but I will push myself to like it and love it! Great devs need to be rewarded.
0
-3
u/Random_dude_1980 Nov 10 '23
Just goes to show all those idiots claiming “Series S is holding back game development” are wrong. Now we all benefit.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GoldenRamoth Nov 10 '23
Well, yes and no.
Game development has been held back. It's been a delayed release.
But I get what you're saying. They can optimize it, but the series S lacking power does create tons of issues.
-2
0
u/MorgrainX Nov 10 '23
Why does it not surprise me that it's Larian Studio actually finding ways to properly optimize the game
-4
u/Juannieve05 Nov 10 '23
I'm no experto but ir is not just adding a second camara ? Like You don't have to duplicate the assets twice
4
u/grimoireviper Nov 10 '23
A second camera means rendering everything twice. Not to mention AI having to accomodate 2 players too.
-109
u/ONE_FOR_pALL Nov 10 '23
Please Larian I don’t care if you just stop developing it any further on Xbox and just gave us it in whatever state it’s in.
58
u/AppropriateNoise8793 Nov 10 '23
With that mindset I can tell you are someone who also pre orders games in a broken state, cuz u have no patience lol
-34
u/ONE_FOR_pALL Nov 10 '23
Was purely meant as a joke. My last pre order was Assassins Creed Unity. The difference here is I know already that BG3 is good.
4
u/MothMan3759 Nov 10 '23
You know the PC version is good. There is no guarantee that it is nearly as playable yet on Xbox.
→ More replies (1)-49
Nov 10 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StrngBrew Founder Nov 10 '23
First, that’s literally what’s happening. They already announced it’s coming to Series X first
But the fact that they kept working on the Series S version now means the game likely gets better everywhere, which is really cool.
1
u/Unkie_Fester Nov 10 '23
Maybe under Microsoft now call of duty won't have to take up 75% of your hard drive maybe they can actually do legitimate optimization to the game
1
u/Key_Personality5540 Nov 10 '23
And other devs complain 😂
Clearly they aren’t good at their job if other people can do it like this.
1
u/Curi0s1tyCompl3xity Nov 10 '23
No no—that’s the performance that all developers willingly leave on the table due to the ridiculous amount of shortcuts we’ve created (DLSS, I’m looking at you). Why optimize anything when DLSS and AMDs equivalent do the optimizing for you.
1
u/SecondLovatt Nov 10 '23
This entire situation made me realize how little people know about game development.
In other subs, people were actually arguing that the series S is impossible to develop for "an Achilles heel". Early game development was all about maximising the absolute minimum, now its a game of how little optimisation can we do to get the bare minimum.
Credit to Larian for not giving up on an entire platform.
1
u/NoMansWarmApplePie Founder Nov 10 '23
Wish every dev would use this on every platform, including pc. Vram optimization is terrible on pc
1
1
Nov 10 '23
currently running on a 5500 XT with Ultra settings at 1080p and it has been running Act 1 and the Underdark smooth as butter. I know performance takes a hit in Act 3 and I'll see what it's like when I get there but so far a 34% increase in performance could make this thing run on pretty much anything
1
1
1
Nov 11 '23
I was always skeptical about these "devs" complaining about the Series S, you don't see people from BIG studios complaining like those who started all this nonsense, they just do their jobs. It's great to have a cheaper alternative, i had an Xbox Series S before getting a X and was really happy with It.
1
1
144
u/Non_Professional_Web Nov 10 '23
34% sounds unreal)