Don’t want to sound arrogant, but most people here (including OP and the writers of the article) don’t seam to know much about video game development.
Because statements like “… Isn’t about graphics or frame rate; it’s memory” don’t make sense at all.
Because if you fast memory is to small you would either more often read from a slower memory which results in less frame rate or you would need to make the stuff that fill up your memory (most often textures) smaller (lower resolution) which “reduces graphics”
The article says something more business politics related: “Microsoft requires all games to run, feature-complete and without changes in quality or mechanics” on both Versions S and X. I’m not really believe this to be true because this would make the existence of more powerful X version completely pointless. However what I think can be the case is that Microsoft QA is forcing the studio to adapt the game for the series S before it could be published. This needs time. Since there is no low spec version for the PS5 there is no need for additional adaptations.
Microsoft is OK with the S having a lower resolution and frame rate, that’s why it exists.
They aren’t OK with the X having a feature that the S does not, and that’s what’s blocking Baldur’s Gate 3. Split screen is possible on the X, it’s not (currently) possible on the S, that’s what they’re working on.
Removing split screen from both isn’t an option because the PS5 version supports it. The Xbox version would get murdered if they do it.
The reason why split screen doesn’t work on the S is, yes, due to the available memory. At it’s best, it has 8GB that runs 1/2 the speed of the X, + another 2GB that are so slow as to be essentially useless for gaming.
What could split screen bring that it will not work with the S memory? Because one object will not take up twice the space just because split screen. The texture of it will (hopefully) only loaded once for both screens.
What can change is the total amount of objects that are loaded into memory since the players can now be simultaneously on two different places.
So as a Developer you will need to find a way to get around this. Maybe by reducing the textures of the objects even more, so that you can load more of them in the same space. Or maybe by remove non essential object from the scene at all so that by default less object needed to be loaded. Also the screen is now half the size so maybe limit the field of view more to start loading in objects a little later.
What ever they decide to do, this will require additional steps that are only needed because MS want’s the game to be optimised for the series S.
From a Developer perspective I could understand if they maybe decide to ditch the Xbox release completely because of this additional workload needed.
Plus: if removing background objects from the scene in order to save memory is something that needs to be consistent on both S and X version because of MS policy, you will get “less graphics” on the X then what would be possible, just because the S exist… What completely undermines the complete existence of the X.
And of course non of this is just because split screen. This will most likely be true for every game on Xbox. It’s just that for most games it’s enough to cut resolution down for the S and leave the rest as it is.
Each view of the world requires that the entire visible world be loaded twice, so that it can be seen from each players perspective independent of the other.
If we go into a dungeon, I go left and you go right, it has to render both pathways simultaneously. In a single player or single screen two player game, it only has one path to consider.
Loading in memory and rendering are different things. Of course it needs to be rendered twice but also you cut resolution in half so rendered both screens is not that much more of work.
Did I at some point say that I’m the most advanced expert?
I just pointed out that many of the statements in the article don’t make sense from a logical point of view. Split screen with this game on the S will be possible, I’m sure it will, but that requires additional work to do regardless of what the reasoning behind this is.
Now I just reading pointless sh*t Talk while I was trying to hold a technical conversation… But yes thank you all.
Dude, you rocked up saying both the writer and I didn’t “seam [sic] to know much about video game development,” then proceeded to be, well, loud and wrong about how split screen works. You can’t get defensive when you started out attacking.
Didn’t want to be offensive sorry if you felt that way.
I think I made my point clear. Maybe I’m wrong about some details about split screen maybe we talking all about the same stuff but misunderstanding each other IDK. But again my main point is a different.
Because all my statements about split screen are actually just coming from general knowledge about game development and working on a network multiplayer game and assuming what would not be needed in local co-op I actually did some research about this topic now to make sure I didn’t had false assumptions here.
This video here shows one Implementation of split screen youtu.be/tkBgYD0R8R4 of course this could be implemented differently by larian studios but I’m pretty sure the basic principle stays the same.
And the basic principle is not running the game two times. It’s running two Views at the same time in the same world. So obviously there is no need to have everything twice in memory. So right now I don’t see anything about what I said about split screen being proven wrong.
Of course there will be more load on the hardware for two players split screen but it’s not the game running two times.
No questions that the a slower RAM compared to X or PS5 is causing bottleneck on the series S, never denied this, but this bottlenecks will go down in FPS performance and all of this can be worked around by developers by “optimising” the game. At which point this optimisation is seen as reduction in quality is up to debate. That’s what I want to say.
BG3’s PC minimum specs list 4gb vram and 8gb normal ram. Assuming windows uses 3 gb, that’s 9gbs of total memory that the game needs. They could just use lower res textures when in splitscreen and be done with it, but I guess they want to compromise as little as possible
Edit: apparently Microsoft wants games to use less than 6 just in case someone tries to activate all background functions at once. That is indeed quite stupid.
I didn’t see any mentions of how much overhead the system has in the article? I had assumed it would be 2 gb as why else would they make 2gb of the memory slower than the rest. Someone else in the thread basically confirms that, but apparently Microsoft wants games to run within 6gbs just in case background downloads / chat etc takes 2gb more.
Because statements like “… Isn’t about graphics or frame rate; it’s memory” don’t make sense at all.
I get what you’re saying but it does make sense actually. The Series S has incredibly under-powered memory which has hobbled a lot of developers thus far. It’s the core reason why they can’t get split-screen working right yet. Framerate/graphics are more associated with GPU performance, which is not as big of an issue for the S. Everything bottlenecks on the very small, very weak memory they provided.
Nah, the specific issue they’re having is definitely a memory issue. Split-screen doesn’t really require that much more processing power, but it does need more memory, and preferably faster memory, to buffer everything.
In nearly 17 years at Valve, Wood helped build and ship the company’s most notable titles, including Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Portal 2, CS:GO and both episodes of Half-Life 2. He was a founding member of the CS:GO project and worked on that series for six years; he was pivotal in crafting Portal 2’s co-op mode, and he created choreography and combat scenes in Half-Life and Left 4 Dead. Level design was one of his specialties.
You have my attention.
“It really is more about cozy exploration,” Wood told Engadget. “The game has aspects of platforming, but it’s very light platforming. It’s more about exploring vertically, and exploring nooks and crannies. I’ve done a lot of things throughout my career, but one of the things I spent a lot of time doing was level design in video games, so I have a lot of personal interest in creating spaces that feel fun to explore, to sort of poke around in.”
“To be blunt, the frame rate is atrocious, likely due to the fact that bacteria were never intended to display 3D video games. It takes 70 minutes for the bacteria to illuminate one frame of the game and another eight hours to return to its starting state. This translates to nearly nine hours per frame, which means it would take around 600 years to play display the game from start to finish.”
Wait, there’s a split screen on Baldur’s Gate III? Normally I’d expect split screen games are for games with shorter gameplay loop, e.g. FPS, racing.
It’s kinda interesting that there’s a split screen couch co-op for a long sprawling RPG. Also doesn’t that make all the UIs and texts even more busy / cramped?
I just read that some people are trying out split screen. on steam deck, that’s wild.
Yeah, from what I understand Microsoft demanded 2 player co op splitscreen on one Xbox, which the ps5 can’t do either. The whole splitting the party up would be impossible and I bet they’d have to enforce close close proximity between pc characters to only render one environment at a time if they somehow pull it off going forward, and even then multi-zone on on xbox? which I think is unlikely as my 3 year old top end gaming rig barely gets 60 fps 2k ultrawide.
Anyone have any idea why Microsoft was so adamant about this?
Or is all that just bs and the Xbox can’t push it? All the peeps talking about the steam deck pushing it. Yes, but few are mentioning the settings @1280x720@30 fps all settings on minimum.
The problem with Xbox is that Larian couldn’t manage to make it work on Series S due to memory constraints. It takes a huge toll on memory if you allow two characters be on two parts of the map at the same time.
Microsoft wants Series S to be a cheaper 1080p option of Series X. Any game Series X can play should Series S also play with lower visual fidelity. This turns out to be a flawed dream by the looks of it.
I don’t think Microsoft will abandon this cheap 1080p console vision just because of one game, but they might need to if more games start to drop Xbox support due to this.
MS probably wants to make sure that Series S doesn’t end up missing out on games or getting subpar experiences, given they promised their customers that it’s the same as an X just at a lower resolution. You can see how they want to avoid outcomes like Series S being confined to lower player counts, smaller maps, or other game-restricting features.
But they’ve painted themselves into a corner in this case. Split screen requires rendering the whole game twice, which the S isn’t powerful enough to do. It’s also probably a feature few players will actually use.
Seems like this case should be an exception to the parity requirements.
Larian already did excellent split screen in D:OS2 (Maybe also in other games, no idea). The controller UI is very different from the M+K one and split screen is only available with controller input.
Video game companies are going all-in on seeing just how greedy they can be and get away with it. I’m curious to see just how much consumers will put up with.
I like how 8Bitdo makes both conventional controllers with pro player features (think 8Bitdo Ultimate) and experimental ones like this. Their 8bitdo Lite was less cumbersome than Micro, but had dual D-pads in place of analog sticks as an experiment.
right! i don’t really understand who is buying this, but i appreciate that they experiment with these products that have at most a niche audience. Some toddler out there is stoked about this controller.
Some people like to keep a tiny controller like this in a purse, small backpack, or pocket to game on the go. I don’t think many people use this at home.
I know it’s not the most experimental thing they do, but I’m still grateful for the simple SNES-shaped controllers with just the added analog sticks and triggers. This form factor is still one of my favorites. Button placement is perfect, plus they’re light and compact.
Okay so after seeing the bot TLDR and the other comments, I actually went and read the article. It’s a bit wishy washy as to why and mentions RAM could be the issue for S consoles.
When I read the headline I thought it meant it was also not viable for PCs either, which doesn’t seem to be the case at all. Most PCs have at least 16GB ram these days.
Why are people upset at all? I don’t get it. I actually think this is good, it will either force Microsoft to change their policy with consoles and/or release a line that can compete with PS. Or else. Meanwhile PC is still an option.
It’s been a while since I did Xbox memory mapping (One X) but IIRC there is approx 2GB of ram withheld by the system, and then an additional one or two can be recalled by the system for the purposes of running things like background downloads, party chat, video chat. That means that when your game goes to cert it’s checked to be performant under max OS load; so 6GB. This causes lots of issues (and is a pain as even MS’s analytics indicated this was a use case that appeared almost never. From what I have heard since, these TCRs/XRs/FTCs having changed much.
When I read the headline I thought it meant it was also not viable for PCs either, which doesn’t seem to be the case at all. Most PCs have at least 16GB ram these days.
Also keep in mind that PC doesn’t have unified memory. So there’s usually at least 8GB of VRAM in addition to whatever amount of main memory you have.
I don’t think anyone is upset? Xbox players are of course disappointed because they want the game but Larian have been totally fair and upfront about everything.
Microsoft should really re-evaluate their policies here though I agree. I feel like split screen could be an exception to the rule specifically.
Mind if I ask for information on what emulator u use? Been considering getting into a handheld PC one of these days, got a switch little over a year ago for mobile gaming and honestly I love it for what it is but it was a bit dated when new to put it nicely… And price of a switch 2 I might as well spring for a legion go or something if that nature
Who cares? I’d rather they take their time instead of rushing the first crap they think about. And knowing valve I bet they waited for newer technologies to offer more in their games (case is in point: Alyx with VR)
They literally didnt finish episode 3 because they felt they had nothing new to show, they said all this in the documentary. They didn't want to just make more of the same. If they are making Half Life 3 (highly doubt it, as Tyler McVicker just chats shit to try and stay relevant), it's because they finally have some new tech or ideas they want to play around with, like as you said with Alyx.
Better will happen. Cheaper than Meta selling the Quest 2/3s at a loss for $300 because they bank on the walled garden of the Oculus app store for profit? Rather unlikely.
Especially now that every VR headset seems to be a standalone and the simple “HDMI cable to a PC” doesn’t really seem to exist any more, so you have to pay for the mandatory integrated gaming tablet as well.
I’m not sure I believe that Valve ran out of ideas for HL3. That’s clearly the image they want to project, and maybe even what they tell themselves, but judging from the ideas they did have for Episode 3 they showcased in that documentary, there was more than enough to justify releasing a game. Certainly there was as much or more new stuff than there was for either EP1 or 2. I think it’s much more likely they simply decided their other projects at the time–CS:GO, DOTA 2, even TF2–had way more moneymaking potential. And I mean, they were right! They made a ton of money off of lootboxes and cosmetics for their multiplayer titles. I don’t think Steam had totally taken over the market yet, so they were hedging their bets on multiplayer microtransactions.
I dunno. The whole “it needs to be new” philosophy they constantly espouse to hasn’t really been true at least as far back as Portal 2. Even Alyx wasn’t particularly revolutionary as far as VR titles go. Maybe doing that type of design was new to Valve, but the only standout features that distinguishes Alyx from other games are the graphics and the (genuinely very good) grabbity glove object pickup system. Pretty much everything else is several steps behind other VR shooter games in the name of Accessibility™, from movement to weapon selection to the painfully dumb AI.
They didn’t run out of ideas. The movement FPS genre is alive and well for a reason, even today: there’s lots to be done. They just lost interest in it themselves, and I believe the reason for that is primarily monetary.
There's plenty of "it doesnt need to be new" in the industry, I think it's refreshing Valve take a different approach. If none of them felt like they could continue the series without sacrificing quality or they just lost interest then there is nothing wrong with them stopping it. Yeah it sucks for fans who wanted more, but a good franchise being halted is better than one being milked.
I dont think they care about money at all, there's probably loads of projects started and stopped internally at Valve, it's how the company runs. They could print money by releasing a new Half Life game, they know that, it's just not something they want to work on right now.
They do often talk about “it needs to be new,” but for the most part the things they release don’t actually follow that philosophy. Artifact was trying to follow the likes of Hearthstone. CS2 is a glowup of CS:GO. DOTA2, League. Deadlock is the closest they’ve come to something genuinely innovative in at least a decade, but even that is still following on the heels of MOBA/FPS hybrids like OW and Paladins, just taking more elements from MOBAs.
And the “not caring about money” thing wasn’t true in 2008. They were probably getting to that point around 2012, as Steam began to turn into a money printer and their microtransaction games took off, but that wouldn’t have been until after HL3 had been cancelled at least once. At some point Valve talked about the difficulties in selling Portal 2 (I think it might have been in the dev commentary? Idk it’s been years) and one of the points they bring up was how even a huge success like that game wasn’t living up to their other titles. They tried to implement microtransactions with the co-op mode, but they learned lessons about how that model only worked in bigger multiplayer games. One of the big stories they tell in both the HL1 and HL2 documentaries were the troubles they ran into with funding, and I guarantee they were not looking to repeat those experiences by continuing work on a game that had far less potential for return on investment. Again, that might have changed by 2012, but by then the momentum was already gone.
Well, looks like I’ve got some upvotes and i got a reply from you so I’m guessing some people care. Tbh you just sound like a wet rag here and if you only want to hear about things you agree with then you can go talk to a mirror.
I’m fully aware some people are excited for HL3 whenever it comes out and some people are content to wait. I’m merely stating that the ship has sailed for me. Heaven forbid someone doesn’t consider gabe a golden god.
What? You’re the one complaining because I didn’t agree with you.
I’m not complaining because you didn’t agree with me. I’m pointing out that you cared enough to reply (despite asking who cares) and I’m also pointing out that saying who cares is a rude as fuck thing to open a conversation with.
You can disagree with me all you want, that’s your right. If you want to be rude then don’t be surprised when someone calls you out for it.
I’ve heard people say they won’t make HL3 until the next big leap in gaming is here.
1 was with us into “true 3D” era
2 was with us into physics engines
Alyx was with us into VR gaming.
3 will be with us …?*
I’m excited to find where we’re going. Gaming has been pretty stale for a long time. Sure we’ve had plenty of games that have got very clever with what we have, but we haven’t had a major leap in a long time, they’ve just been getting a bit more polish and shine each year. Short of deep-dive VR I honestly don’t know what could be next.
*Possibly actual AI? A world filled with characters that are actually intelligently responsive rather than just following a set of predefined behaviour patterns? Vortigaunt teammate that learns from you? Thinking about where we’re at technologically I have been wondering how long until AI is ready for implementation in games. Maybe this is it?
As Gaben put it in the recent valve doc, moving the story forward wasn’t a good enough reason to put out a new Half Life. The series has always been about pushing technological innovations, and they just felt stumped on how HL3 was going to do that.
People like to claim valve doesn’t do anything anymore, but I legitimately feel like PC gaming is the best deal for gaming right now, handily beating out console and mobile, and that is in large part due to valve.
Their flat internal structure hasn’t been perfect, but on the bright side it didn’t result in them pumping out what the gaming industry would have viewed in retrospect as yet another obligatory entry in an FPS series. Valve’s intention was to let smart people solve hard problems in the gaming space, and IMO they have always done that, it just so far hasn’t resulted in a HL3.
engadget.com
Ważne