Larian Studios Working Hard to Get Split-Screen for Baldur's Gate 3 Working on Xbox Series S - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 August 2023 / 3,021 Views
Larian Studios director of publishing Michael Dous via Twitter says the engineers at the studio are working hard to get the seamless drop-in and drop-out co-op for Baldur's Gate 3 working on the Xbox Series S.
The studio is hoping to have an update on the Xbox Series X|S version of the game by the end of the year.
"We've said many times in the past that the issue is getting split-screen working on the Series S, which is taking more time, but is in progress," said Dous. "This is a huge technical hurdle, but we are unable to release the game on the ecosystem without this feature.
"Far from being exclusive, we have no exclusivity deal that prevents us from launching on Xbox. The issue is a technical hurdle. We cannot remove the split-screen feature because we are obliged to launch with feature parity, and so continue to try and make it work.
"We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year."
We have quite a few engineers working very hard to do what no other RPG of this scale has achieved: seamless drop-in, drop-out co-op on Series S. We hope to have an update by the end of the year.
— Very AFK (@Cromwelp) July 31, 2023
Baldur's Gate 3 will launch for PC via Steam and GOG on August 3, and for the PlayStation 5 on September 6.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Xbox S owners - would you be mad if Microsoft allowed games to release (first) on Xbox series X?
Like if this came out on Xbox Series X.. and then later Xbox Series S- would you be mad?
For this one title they probably wouldn't mind, they'll likely be playing Starfield instead. But for all other titles moving forward, I don't think they would be happy at all.
I can see both sides. On one it feels bad to be left out and "missing out" But on another it feels awkward to keep the game from everyone else.
This is a pretty good question. One i think could deserve a thread of its own?.
Anyway i cant answer it since im on PC. But if i did own a Series S, id sooner they just left split screen out till a later date or not even include it at all instead of missing out on the game till a later date.
No. Its a developer issue not a console issue. If they arent good enough than delay it. Note: a Series S is a Series X just at 1080p.
No it's a console issue. Jez Gorden released an article on windows central detailing all the issues. It was great to see because I'm exhausted with people insulting every single developer who dares to open their mouth against the Series S. Watching random gamers insult game developers has got to be one of the saddest things I see on this site. Spouting off nonsense about things they have no clue what they are talking about.
Thats absolutely garbage and if you believe that nonsense than i have no idea what to say to you. We have heard these excuses all the time on what is lazy devs. Examples: Dying Light 2 Devs said the game cannot have a 60fps performance mode on Series S, afew complaints later, BAM! 60fps on Series S. Devs are still designing games on XB1/PS4/Switch and Low end PC hardware where the Series S is actually more capable than those systems, yet a game like Balders Gate cannot run a Co-Op mode? This is a dev issue, not a Console issue.
I agree this is a dev issue, what I am wondering is why drop in drop out co-op is that big of a deal that it require a delayed Series X version and waiting on this problem to be resolved on the Series S.
Right, If its that bad, just remove the feature for a later date.
Literally makes no sense to delay the entire game over a feature not many will probably use anyway.
That's a good point. Remove it for both Xbox Series systems, and add it back in if and when you optimize the game sufficiently. That is indeed better than no game release at all.
Yes all these lazy devs decided to come out and speak out against the Series S because they are so lazy. There's no truth in what they are saying it's just laziness. Baldurs gate 3 is being praised for being so ambitious and other devs even saying they don't want it to become the standard because it's to big of a project but at the same time Larian is a very lazy dev.
Microsoft is sending engineers to Larian because MS is a charitable organization that knows all these devs are just lazy and decided to take care of them like a dad helping his dead beat son.
Do you hear the things you are saying? Larian and Remedy are lazy developers. This is a crazy thing to accuse these developers of and it's extremly insulting to the people working in this industry.
Remedy has had issues with porting for decades. I say no more.
Well I've played all Remedy games and they've all played fine so whatever issues they had didn't seem like a big deal. Listen if your argument is you know better than all these game developers than fine go ahead and run with that.
The sad thing is i dont know better but i know when to point out hypocrisy and lies.
Its not a hardware issue, its a Devs issue with time and resources, blaming the hardware because they dont want to put in the work. Thats the real issue. We have seen it many times when devs blame the S, get called out for it, then address it.
Windows central is literally writing articles titled “ms has a hardware problem” about the series s. The articles discusses all the issues with the series s and several developers complaining to ms. Is windows central just spreading misinformation and you know more than they do? So you know better than the developers and the journalist who have looked into this. That’s one hell of an ego.
Who listens to Windows Central? Since when did they know best?
So the Series S is the problem
These games are better on pc to begin with, but yeah the game is absolutely massive and splitscreen takes it's toll on hardware.
Not a big deal. Just release the the game when it's ready. Starfield is right around the corner anyways.
Good luck. I'll be interested in what compromises will be done.
Resolution and framerate probably :) As they need to have feature parity. And this is really for the split screen only.
I don't understand the need to have feature parity. There are other ways they don't have feature parity (such as perhaps just a balanced mode on Series S, when they may have performance and quality modes as well on Series X). So if a split-screen mode is only available on the higher-spec system, I don't object to that at all. Definitely better than not having the game at all.
But I guess Microsoft is worried about opening up Pandora's Box, where developers who are less talented at optimizing, cut key features from the Series S version.
Good to see a good RPG on the Playstation this year that isn't dumbed down for the masses. I'm really excited for this one.
How hard is it to get split screen working on the S for this type of game? Its embarrassing really. Guess this game also doesnt work on low teir PCs too...
This type of game? Baldur's Gate 3 has a complex highly interactive world. I think 'this type of game' might really one of the most complex one. As it is not about some fancy effects (which you can scale down) in a static predefined world, but all the interaction have side-effects and these reflect also in the other part of the split-screen.
You understand the S is a X that runs the same games at a lower Fidelty, mostly lower resolution, right? I am not buying their excuses.
But the power needed for BG III isn't for graphical bullshit, it is for keeping track of all the changes in the world.
Thats like saying a 3060 cannot run the same game as a 3080 . That's what the S is to the X. Identical systems with one using a lower tiered GPU and less Ram.
BG3 works on the SteamDeck..
The Series S has a slightly slower CPU but more importantly it has less RAM. I don't think the differences in GPU are all that relevant for Baldur's Gate here. Now, if your game wastes all the power on graphics, you just can scale down effects and stuff. For instance you need less RAM, if you your textures have lower resolution (to support only 1080p instead of 4K) and the reduction in resolution results in massive reduced need for processing power (which mostly covers the differences in GPU). But gameplay stays untouched. Baldur's Gate III has a complex and more importantly highly interactive world. So it needs a lot (and I mean a lot) of RAM to keep track of all the changes. You spilled oil on a surface? How big is the spill and where? Did you burn it? Then it is burning for a while and then turning to ash. Tracking all this needs massive amounts of RAM. See, games like GTA for instance just generate some elements like traffic when you look at it, so they don't need to keep track of every car, when you don't look. They keep a bit around you, but if you go away the game forgets it and generates new traffic if you enter the area. But BGIII keeps these changes to the world. And there are a lot. Now I doubt they have everything all the time in RAM, only the surroundings, but you can always see how split screen is influencing this, as you now have two sets of surroundings. So yeah, the reduced RAM is hurting you. More data needs to be streamed to/from the SSD or harddrive. That isn't that simple as just a reduced texture. As they cannot really scale how much RAM they need for the world changes, because making the resolution of for instance keeping track of oil spills would mean that the gameplay is different. You can't change the amount of data to keep track of world changes as you can with textures, because that changes the game. So instead they need much more shuffling between mass space and RAM.
I have to add: Microsoft was really clever in designing the Series S/X. I bet some engineer did some calculation on how much fat could be shaved off on Series S with the planned reduction in resolution target, so that games could be the same with simple tweaks based on the resolution change but customers don't have to pay for extraneous hardware. But that all assumes the games put everything in graphics. Which is a good assumption, as nearly all games do. So Microsoft was clever in this.
But sometimes a game uses power in different areas than graphics. It is rare, so we are not accustomed to it. To get away from BG III for a moment, look at dwarf fortress. It uses text output as 'graphics'. It has the most reduced graphical interface possible, to focus on other parts. Yes, the new Steam release has tile graphics, but the original DF looks like this: http://bestindiegame.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Dwarf_Fortress211.jpg
But people playing Dwarf Fortress report lags and stuttering for bigger fortresses. A number thrown around seems more than 200 dwarfes, but that strongly depends on your hardware power. And the game cannot scale down on graphics, because it already is the simplest it can be from the start. The stuttering comes from the fact, that DF simulates every dwarf, cat, dog, monster, item, every apple and mushroom, water flow, the changes in the world your dwarfes make - everything. And once too much is going on, it will bring down even the most powerful computer.
We are so used that scaling for power is possible, as with complete lack of imagination the only border pushed in gaming for the last decades was graphics, which can be scaled with resolution, frame rate, detail level, visibility range and many other factors. But you can do other things, and these might not scale as well as graphics.
Okay this is interesting. The Series S exists for GamePass. Its doesn't seem to exist to empower devs at all.
No question developers would prefer a single spec to target. But that's just not realistic. Developers of PC games still have to worry about low-spec PCs, made worse with the release of the SteamDeck. PS developers have to worry about the PS4, which was enormously popular (and which Sony has made worse by still selling the silly thing).
This problem isn't unique to the Xbox ecosystem, and the existence of the Series S helped developers sunset support for the Xbox One earlier (as the Series S replaced it). We're starting to see more and more games that do support PS4, but don't support the Xbox One, and Sony's decision to not only continue to support it but to keep selling it makes that worse.
The only problem with the Series S, IMO, is that it came with 10 GB of RAM where 12 GB would have solved its biggest bottlenecks.
There's a lot wrong with your whole statement here. First this problem is unique to the Xbox ecosystem. This game is releasing on Playstation and PC just fine. Meanwhile there is officially no release date for xbox and we could be looking at next year just for an official release.
PS developers do not HAVE to worry about the PS4. Returnal didn't worry about the PS4, Ratch and Clank didn't worry about it, Demon Souls remake didn't worry about it. I could go on but I think you get the point.
Once again that's the key difference here is that developers have a choice. Now it's in a developers best interest to reach as many people as possible but it's also in their best interest to not delay a game by 5+ months while continuing to commit resources to getting it working on just one system. Not to mention a system that is at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to reach in the gaming community.
The main problem with the Series S is obvious. It's the RAM, the requirement for feature parity, and developers not being able to skip it.
Jez Gordon wrote an article detailing all of this on windows central. I suggest you go read it because it provides a lot of details on the issues with the Series S. He even speculates that this was most likely the reason local split coop was removed from Halo Infinite. Think about that for a second? Series X owners were very happy to be owning the most powerful console only for their own brand to handicap their games for the cheaper system. I really can't understand how MS thought this was a good idea. It's like they did this and didn't bother to consult with 3rd party devs on the issues they would have.
It is certainly not unique to just Xbox. You can say it's unique for a console to release with 2 tiers at launch, but not across the board for game development. Cross-gen has been a thing up until this year and bigger than it ever has been before. Scaling for PC is still something developers need to account for even if it's not the same as consoles. If it was so easy to make the PC version and scale it for all specs, we wouldn't see so many broken PC games at launch.
Some PS developers did have to worry about the PS4 version and some didn't. There is a reason why most of Sony's most popular IP's (GoW, Miles Morales, GT, Horizon) were all cross-gen. Same with Xbox as well.
You both agree RAM is the main issue, but you state it like you came up with this on your own lol.
Jez is fine, but also has some bad takes at times. The biggest thing hold Halo Infinite back technically was being cross-gen, not the Series S. Halo Infinite still has split screen for multiplayer, custom games, forge, etc.
The Series S for the price and specs is a great console. Devs need to work a bit more, and I get this can be annoying, but this isn't the first time a dev has had to scale for multiple system. How do you know they didn't consult 3rd party devs? I'm sure they did.
Yeah, in addition to cross-gen being a thing for a long time, we've also seen two power targets on the market at the same time at least as far back as the NEC PC Engine when they released the NEC SuperGrafx, which was very much like a modern "pro" console where it was a suped-up PC Engine. And while there were some SuperGrafx-only games, there were also games that worked on both (but unlocked better graphics if run on a SuperGrafx).
The Series S replacing the Xbox One helped shorten the cross-gen period (as opposed to how Sony has kept the PS4 around for coming up on 3 years here, which has contributed to extending the cross-gen period).
And if the new Nintendo system is backwards compatible with the Switch, it's popularity may contribute to a lengthy cross-gen period there.
You're right that developers don't have to support the PS4, but its huge popularity (and Sony's decision to keep manufacturing it) contributes to more developers choosing to support it than otherwise would. We're already seeing some games support the PS4 but not the Xbox One, and I predict we'll see more.
So when Microsoft green-lit the Series S, they probably calculated that the PS4 would stick around for a while, and that low-end PCs will always be a thing, so that games would be being scaled to some pretty low performance targets. So while developers don't HAVE to support the PS4, the ROG Ally, etc., it does nonetheless factor into any calculation re: whether the Series S was a good idea or not.
What was Microsoft's alternative? Keep making the Xbox One S for those who couldn't afford a Series X, as Sony has done by continuing to sell the PS4? I think the Series S is a vastly better idea than that.
I will read that article, thanks for pointing me to it! :)
Split-screen co-op can be enabled on the Series S through a hack, and from what I understand it runs well. Where it doesn't run well is on the Xbox One systems, so that's the likelier explanation IMO. Another contributing factor was that the split-screen co-op code was written by a contractor, and they hadn't completed it by the time the contract ran out, and that was a terrible decision on 343's part to do it that way.
Ultimately there is very little evidence that any significant number of games have been similarly handicapped to what's being reported about Baldur's Gate 3. I don't deny there may be a few outlier cases, but they're few enough that the Series S was still a good idea IMO.
The only mistake I think Microsoft made with the Series S was giving it 10 GB of RAM. Had they gone with 12 GB we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.
