I’m not sure Microsoft did this generation of consoles any favours by launching the Series S.
For those curious Swen spoke a little about the issues with Xbox they’ve been having and why they haven’t officially announced the game for Xbox yet in this interview on SkillUp a few days ago.
Basically, the gist is that it’s just not ready yet. They are currently trying to optimize it well enough so it runs 60fps even with 4 player co-op split screen which is a tall ask for the series S. Rather than hold PC and PS5 back they are instead focusing on their release and then will continue to work on Xbox after much like they did with Switch for DOS2.
Although this is frustrating for XSX owners like myself, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I’ve played a little bit of early access on Stadia and I hope all the PC and PS5 players are having a blast.
PS5 owners are still waiting for the originally planned release date in September. Only the PC release moved to yesterday.
Ah fair enough I didn’t realise that. Still it looks like it’ll be 2024 before it comes to Xbox last I saw.
The Series S specs exceed all the listed minimum specs on the BG3 Steam page for PC. How is the Series S holding anything back when they apparently support their game on shittier PCs?
The problem is that they have couch coop play. They struggle making it work with Series S. From what I understand, they cannot just make a separate version without coop just for Series S. All game features in Series X must also be available on Series S. I guess that’s a limitation imposed by Microsoft.
With PC you don’t have that limitation. If your computer can’t do couch coop then too bad for you. Minimum specs probably doesn’t account for coop.
I’m not sure why they don’t remove couch coop completely from the Xbox versions. Probably because they think it’s removing too much of their vision of the game.
So because 5 people on the face of the planet don’t want to use the internet like modern humans the rest of us have to suffer? When was the last time anyone actually used couch coop? It was Halo 2 for me.
A lot of people would love to have more split screen co-op (or Vs) games.
Its stupid that if I have a friend round I cant play a multiplayer game with them.
It’s an “if you build it they will come” issue. People stopped with couch parties because no games supported it anymore. When I’ve done it, most games in question had the option for internet play but it just wasn’t as social.
I have an X not an S, but my wife and I will absolutely be using couch co-op when this comes out.
4 player co-op in Minecraft Dungeons, with the whole family, this year. I fucking love same device co-op games, but there are hardly any good options anymore, because apparently most people are either single or don’t like being in the same room as their partner or friends.
deleted by creator
Me, with a mate a week ago on Resident Evil 5.
I constantly use it. I play with my partner, not with randos on the internet, not with friends. We live in the same house. We already bought 2 copies on PC to support the devs, but being forced to do so would be a shitty move. Also, when we have friends over, we do not expect them to bring their own PCs and shit if we want to game. Couch coop is where it’s at.
Probably because MS wants feature parity for both consoles where every feature runs at acceptable frame rates. Like the minimum PC spec most likely runs split screen like dog shit. But MS will not accept that for the Series S. While PC gamers with weak hardware accept that the game will not always run optimal
It may be due to Microsoft demanding certain minimum configurations: at the very least minimum resolution and minimum frame rate. On PC you can always go down to 240p and/or live with 10fps in very high density scenes. Microsoft can (and will) just say “no” if they try that on the Xbox S
I understand that but surely the articles should be “developers lie about minimum specs on PC” surely. I believe the concept of a lower priced and accessible console should be encouraged. If that means developers have to try a little harder to support people who buy a cheaper console then so be it.
I guess that’s debatable, depends on how you define what “it runs” means. PC gamers with dated hardware may be fine with playing on 1080p, while on the Xbox Microsoft might veto if it doesn’t run on 1440p and 30fps. Of course weaker hardware won’t run everything faster hardware can, you can’t just sprinkle infinite magic optimization dust on a game, there are simply limits what’s possible with weaker hardware, and once you’ve reached them you can’t just shout “enhance” like in CSI Miami.
So MS enforcing a level of quality is a good thing then. The alternative is 12 fps at 720p.
Not in my opinion: if you read the article, it clearly says that Microsoft enforcing a level of quality for dated hardware leads to devs abolishing features that the hardware series S hardware won’t be able to support. They also can’t decide to not support the S unless they abandon the Xbox series X as well. It leads to lower quality games for everyone, not just series S owners.
My PC is above minimum specs and BG3 ran really poorly even on low. Maybe they got a similar issue with the s.
Yeah that’s the problem, they obviously lie about minimum specs on PC but that is OK for some reason. Xbox enforcing a quality experience for its users is somehow “holding the industry back”.
But the Series S doesn’t run the PC game. Just like PC’s don’t run the Series S version of the game. I’m confused. If it was so easy, why isn’t every game available on every platform on day one?
Mate the Xbox is a PC with better support and static specs. And yes Most games are available on every platform on day one.
If it’s so straight forward, then what are the devs complaining about?
Microsoft requires they meet a specific standard on both the S and X, which is making it harder for them to do. They don’t build to every specific PC variant. But they have to build to both the X and S.
They’re complaining that their job is hard. People do that all day, every day, whether it’s a legitimate complaint or not.
They came up with those minimum specs somehow didn’t they? Either that built to those minimum specs, or……? And those specs are less powerful than the Series S. So here we are again!
“Because Xbox mandates that any games launched on its current-gen systems run smoothly on both Series X and Series S” - from the article
So no, they don’t get to just pick the minimum specs they support like on the PC version. They have to build a game that runs similarly on S and X, or not launch on either. Hence, the S is always going to limit what devs will be able/willing to do on the current gen consoles. More so than if they could just focus on the X and PS5.
I have a feeling all of these complaints about supporting the Series S will disappear once the Switch successor releases and devs have a new console with weaker specs to complain about
Removed by mod
Yes but most devs leave it out since publishers originally let them. Activision recently said ignoring the switch was a mistake so I doubt publishers will be making the same mistake again when we have a new switch
With how little power the switch 2 likely will still have, developers will still ignore it.
Yeah, I imagine it won’t be much stronger than the Steam Deck, and I’m dubious that that will serve 4-player splitscreen 60fps.
There’s a kind of upper limit we’re hitting with tech in regards to what can be delivered conveniently in a handheld format with a reasonable battery life. It might even explain why the Xbox S|X and PS5 are quite a bit bigger than predecessors.
For those interested, a certain analytics company claimed on vague terms that certain markets sell more Series S than X consoles.
So that suggests, if Microsoft had never released that lower-power console, they’d be selling fewer of the pair this generation.
Ultimately, this issue seems specific to the devs’ wish for a 60fps 4-player split screen mode, something that certainly does seem computationally expensive even if resolution is lowered.
That article is from 2021 and doesn’t provide links or details to any data. The claim in the article says it’s 50/50. But again, no data is provided.
“No data provided” is going to be relatively common for sales of consoles/games, especially when going specific to certain markets. That data is literally valuable, and might be purchased by publishers looking to make development or release decisions.
As such, when we do get it for free articles, it’s from relative comparables, like “More oranges than apples”. Anyone in comments that happens to work for a publisher is likely under NDA agreement not to just give it out.
I agree that I’d like to see more recent data, and made an effort to find what I could - but it’s also hard to say if any specific change in circumstance might reverse sale rates between the two models.
The game looks boring as hell anyway.
They had to optimise for a shitload of PC configurations, yet two Xbox ones are somehow difficult?
Not the same thing. Games aren’t built for every specific PC configuration. You’ve always adjusted graphics settings on PC depending on what your machine can run.
Ok eli5 how that’s not the same. If you had said “the Series Shit™ is weak sauce” I would have understood. But if that’s not the case, what stops the devs from turning the graphics dial all the way down to “washed out pixel mess” to accommodate the very much PC-like hardware. For which you don’t have to worry about players messing with the config because you simply don’t let them.
I literally posted an article where developers are yet again complaining about having to develop for the Series S and that it isn’t as easy as just “optimisation”. So maybe you can ELI5 how developing for consoles is exactly the same as developing for PC?
The article doesn’t explicitly state it but heavily implies “the Xbox series S is too weak for modern titles”. The optimization is necessary because it’s weak as fuck. It’s very much the same as optimizing for a PC, with the additional constraint that they need to artificially dial down the experience on other consoles, too, due to contract stipulations that prevents them from “giving an edge” to a competing product. The problem is not that it’s different from optimizing for PC, the problem is that it’s “optimizing for a PC that is in principle too weak to handle the load”.
How does any of that mean that “it’s very much the same as optimising for PC”? Are you saying that developers optimise for every PC configuration possible?
Someone else posted that you can run the game on a PC with weaker specs than a Series S. So clearly it isn’t the same.
I’m not trying to attack you, merely trying to understand why it wouldn’t be the same. You saying “are you saying the devs are stupid” isn’t a very good explanation.
See my answer to the comment you mention.
The article I shared was developers complaining about having to optimise for the Series S. But you’re saying that it should just be the same as PC optimising for PC. I completely agree with your answer in that Microsoft stipulates rules for the S. That’s the point. It isn’t the same as PC. Developers have to specifically work on getting games to run on the Series S. I’m so confused as to the point you’re trying to make to me, when in another comment you acknowledge that developers have different standards they’re required to meet for the S. We seem to actually agree.
They are the same. For some reason it is acceptable for developers to lie about PC minimum specs but Xbox trying to enforce a quality experience is just unacceptable.
And the same can happen for the Xboxen; best thing is there are only two configs.
Of course. Why didn’t those stupid developers think of that.
Think of what?
Because low spec PC owners usually accept bad frame rate or graphics when playing high demand games. They can’t afford to do that for console players, because MS/Sony will demands a minimum acceptable performance
