this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
160 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30238 readers
51 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Larian is having trouble fitting Baldur’s Gate III on the Xbox Series S, the lower-priced and lower-powered console in Microsoft’s ninth-generation lineup.

I was looking up more information on why there’s such an issue getting BG3 on Xbox, and found this article with a lot more detail on the topic.

EDIT: The issue isn’t graphics or frame rate; it’s memory. The article goes into detail.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah, I don't see how that 2GB at 32gb/s is useful for much of anything. :( It's a severe handicap.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not the way split screen works.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Tell me you don't know anything about game development without telling me you don't know anything about game development.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I thought their first comment made it pretty clear...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

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 https://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.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.