Remedy Communications Director 'Feels Larian's Pain' on the Xbox Series S - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 03 August 2023 / 4,935 Views
Remedy Entertainment Communications Director Thomas Puha via Twitter stated he feels the pain that Larian Studios is dealing with getting the seamless drop-in and drop-out co-op for Baldur's Gate 3 to run on the Xbox Series S.
Puha says developers need to take into account the technical limitations of the Xbox Series S from the beginning of development.
"I feel Larian's pain on Series S," said Puha. "Its not about 'just optimize at the end'...You have to take into account the technical limitations from the beginning of development. Nobody really wants to think of that when you start making your game, when everything is possible."
I feel Larian's pain on Series S. Its not about "just optimize at the end" LOL. Naaah. You have to take into account the technical limitations from the beginning of development. Nobody really wants to think of that when you start making your game, when everything is possible
— Thomas Puha (@RiotRMD) August 2, 2023
Larian Studios released Baldur's Gate 3 today on the PC, while it is set to launch on the PlayStation 5 on September 5. The Xbox Series X|S version of the game has been delayed as 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.
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
This from the studio that could barely port Alan Wake to the Switch...
They were already complaining about the Series S with Control which makes little sense since that game was on last gen. So I’ll take what they say with a grain of salt.
Bingo. At some point Remedy got a bit of a hate boner for Xbox, probably because they didn't greenlight Quantum Break 2 and wouldn't return ownership of the IP to them. Can't really trust anything negative that Remedy has to say about Xbox, they're a tad biased.
I do love Remedy's games though. Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control were all excellent games.
Didnt Remedy have issues with Control? A last gen game?
Hmm must be the hardwares fault.
Well unfortunately Thomas you are about to feel the pain from gamers. What Thomas doesn't understand is the gaming community understands game development better than he does and he's just lazy like all the other lazy devs who complain about the Series S.
Would be funny if a lot of people didn't really think like that.
His comments about having to consider the Series S as a floor are valid. But they're not unique to the Series S. If the game is also coming out out on Switch, then that's a serious limitation in what's possible with game design. If it's coming out on PC, you have to consider low-spec PCs (and especially the SteamDeck). If it's also coming to PS4 (as most games still are), then that's a significant consideration as well. So there are limitations all over the place, depending on the platforms.
To be honest, there isn't that many devs that complain about the Series S. The key point is that most developer want all the power and prefer to not have to think about lower spec systems if they can. Most developers probably do not have enough experience with the hardware to compensate for lack of brute force methods that most developers do because they just have that much overhead. The series S cannot be brute force to do more modern games where you just have the overhead like the Series X or PS5. So in those instance, developers have to tighten up their code much better to compensate. Its definitely more work and effort and it takes more experience with the hardware as well.
I agree that gamers will always throw out lazy developer every time something doesn't meet their particular standard but the majority of the time its never about them being lazy and its usually about time, resources and experience. I have done enough development to know that even when you think your code is great, another developer can come and improve on it because of their experience and knowledge. I have done that for a lot of junior developers and it has happen to me as well with a senior developer. As I am also a Senior developer that really means nothing because I have had a junior developer improve my code because that person had better knowledge of what my code was doing.
How many devs are complaining? We don't really know. Jez Gorden put up an article on windows central stating that more devs are complaining in the back ground.
The thing you have to understand is complaining publicly like this isn't really in the best interest of anyone. MS is a huge company. Could be a future employer, partner, or client. Do you really want to go out there and insult their hardware publicly when it will accomplish nothing?
Speaking to MS privately will accomplish just as much as it would going public but at least you wont have to worry about making an enemy of MS. I've seen enough reports and the Jez Gorden article was the final nail on the head for me. The Series S is an issue for devs. IMO devs are already being pushed to the limit with all the devices they need to optimize for.
I agree with you, but your last point is the key for me. It's not just the Series S. It's also the Switch, the PS4, and the SteamDeck (and other low-end PCs). Every platform has a low-spec consideration.
I agree that the Series S needed 12 GB of RAM, rather than 10 GB, to be a fully and easily scaleable experience though. The 10 GB hurts it.
I am not sure if this is a memory issue most of the time because memory mostly helps with going up in resolution. The Series S is a lower spec system that is not looking to push 4K content. I believe its a combination of CPU and GPU which together just does not give the bang for bucks most devs need in certain type of games. In reality, most times the Series S will just be a 1080P upscaled system which is probably the real power point MS was aiming for.
In addition to the Series S having less RAM, it also has slower RAM than the Series X. So it's really a combination of the two, I think.
But if it's not the RAM, then it's probably also not the CPU, which is nearly identical to the Series X CPU. That's why emulators (which tend to be CPU heavy and GPU light) run nearly as well on the Series S as they do the Series X (as reported by Modern Vintage Gamer).
I can't argue that it's GPU is weaker, it totally is. But if you're pushing way lower resolution, lower texture detail, etc., then that's probably sufficient.
I imagined that the RAM was the biggest bottleneck with split-screen co-op because it doubles the amount of geometry, etc., that has to be accounted for. Perhaps because there's not enough RAM, and perhaps because it's not fast enough. But I am admittedly just guessing. Well, not entirely, I believe some comments from developers highlighted the RAM limitations as the biggest issue.
I doubt its the memory speed since the game runs on Steam Deck and the steam deck memory is slower than the Series S. If its memory they can just drop the resolution to compensate. Either way, it would be good to here about the particular issues they encountered and what it will take to get around it.
Can you run drop-in/drop-out split-screen multiplayer on the SteamDeck at acceptable performance? if not, then it doesn't necessarily disprove the memory size/speed theory.
And yet, the best rated games this year were designed from the ground up for a hardware a lot weaker than the Series S... I guess some developers are simply better than others.
I believe he is saying that given enough time, developers can produce great results with less capable hardware. This is true for any developer but the key is time, resources and experience. While Larian makes good games, that does not mean they make good Console games or have the experience with said hardware to produce the results they are looking for. Hopfully MS sent a bunch of engineers to help them squeeze out the performance on the Series S to get that drop in/out Co-op since that is the stick point.
Even that point would miss the point of the article. Nintendo developed game starts with the Switch as the base platform, the whole point of this article is that Series S isn't always something that you can just reduce the resolution to get a game running on compared to the PS5/Series X.
It really does not matter if the Series S was the base system or not because I am sure the only base system was the PC. Even still, the main issue is when did Larian come across this problem and when did they reach out for assistance.
Most developers are not good at asking for help and usually wait until the last moment which look like the case here. It appears that Larian did not even ask MS for assistance on their issue but instead just decided to drop the Xbox version which in hindsight they probably would have reached out to MS much sooner to help them get over the hump.
What a daft comment. What they're saying is that did not want to build the game with Series S as the base consideration and wanted to have freedom. And believe me, if the developers of Tears of the Kingdom had the same option they would be over the moon and saved them much headache. Even now you can't use one of core functions (the ultra hand ability) without the framerate dropping down to 20
Great games were made on Atari and every other system, this have nothing to do with this dev comment. Unless of course you believe that any game can be made on any system without any issue or limitation.
I think this problem will only get worse for the S as we leave last gen fully behind. It’s probably why MS is saying they have no plans for a pro and that the X is their Pro. A MS Pro release would just further the power gap and let’s face it they are not abandoning the S when it has the majority of their sales.
Agreed it will get worse as console games stop also coming out on PS4. But that is still going to take a while, for many games. And even after that, most games will also come out on PC, and in most cases will therefore be scaleable down to SteamDeck, ROG Ally, and other low-spec PCs.
So I agree with you that the problem will gradually get worse, but I predict it'll happen extremely gradually.
I also agree with you that they won't release a "pro" version of the current architecture, either.
I predict Microsoft will address this by launching a next-gen architecture earlier than Sony. Perhaps 2026.
I wonder if later on in the generation we may see games that skip the Series S and are just made available for the Series X.
They've barely seen the potential of the series s. Most if not all games released so far have been based on last gen design approach.
At the very earliest that would be after the next generation of consoles is launched. I don’t think it will ever be allowed though.
Not only there is parity clause and demand to launch on both Series, something like 50-70% of Series userbase is on the S, if any dev decides to skip the S they will skip Xbox wholesome.
Apparently the Series X recently slightly surpassed the Series S in total units sold (defying Microsoft's predictions of stronger Series X sales up front, and better Series S sales in the tail end).
Where do you draw the line? Should devs be able to make BG3 run on the PS3 because it's just about hard work and shit? Or could it be that the Series S was a misplay on Microsoft's part and now they are handcuffed to it with various implications?
I agree with you that we shouldn't be slagging developers as we haven't walked a mile in their shoes.
However, I do not think the Series S was a misplay on Microsoft's part. It meant an immediate cessation of Xbox One production, which was a win (as opposed to Sony that's still selling the PS4). If there was a mistake with the Series S, it was it coming with 10 GB rather than 12 GB, as the extra 2 GB probably would have been enough to resolve issues such as BG3's developers are talking about.
But ultimately, PC game developers have to consider low-spec PCs. Many PlayStation developers still have to consider the PS4. The Switch is very low-spec too, and will likely remain something developers have to contend with even after Nintendo releases a successor. So the issue of having to consider low-spec systems is far from unique to Xbox.
Baldur Gate 3 is designed to run on PC's and not on consoles. It's also not designed to run on low spec PC's as the recommended specs clearly indicate. The game is simply too ambitious to run on Series S, whilst it's an amazing game.
The games runs on M2, pretty sure the S is better than that.
Devs just dont want to put in the effort. The S is a great piece of hardware. If you can make games for the Switch, Low end PCs and last gen consoles than put the effort in. Lower the settings. S owners arent expectating the high end shiz.
True, they don't want to put in the effort, but don't you think how many resources a company chooses to allocate to a game should be up to the third party? I personally think it would be stupid for a third party to alienate what ever percentage owns the S by not making games compatible, but it still should be their choice.
As long as the devs are upfront and honest on what cuts they had to make to the game to make it work I am sure gamers will be fine. I do agree that no developer should be force to do anything they do not want to do. If Larian do not want to support the Series S then they should not do so. Supporting the Series S does take a bit of resources, time and effort because it is a much lower spec system. Those are not small issues for a developer and everything has a price. The time and effort to get the Series S up to speed takes away time and effort for their main systems. All the resources, time and effort are not free and come at a cost. Some developers do not have the resources, talent or experience to take on that cost.
