Baldur's Gate III announced!

[Silent_Buddha]

*Looks like MS is going to try and address the problems they created themselves with the ridiculous notion that any games on their underpowered Series S need perfect feature parity with Series X releases.

Eh? That was never a thing considering that almost all games on series S don't have feature parity with Series X. If MS said that (I can't recall them ever stating that "perfect feature parity" was a desire of theirs for Series S), they certainly aren't enforcing it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Eh? That was never a thing considering that almost all games on series S don't have feature parity with Series X. If MS said that (I can't recall them ever stating that "perfect feature parity" was a desire of theirs for Series S), they certainly aren't enforcing it.

Are there games on Series S that lack features found on the Series X version? Outside of understandable graphics compromises.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Are there games on Series S that lack features found on the Series X version? Outside of understandable graphics compromises.

Most RT enabled games don't have RT on Series S immediately comes to mind.

In FH5, while it has similar features, it does some of them differently. For example, from the DF platform comparison...

However, even at this upper tier, Series X has a number of graphical flourishes you won't see on Series S - improvements beyond resolution alone. Percentage closer shadows are a good example, with the shadows becoming more diffuse the further they are from the object casting them - a subtle improvement, but a big jump in realism up against standard shadow maps. There's also cone-step mapping, adding additional detail and depth to surfaces.

Due to the hardware limitations, they do some things on Series S completely differently from Series X which results in a different look, albeit most users likely wouldn't notice.

So, there might be parity in most features, but there isn't perfect parity.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Most RT enabled games don't have RT on Series S immediately comes to mind.

Yes, but that's wholly understandable. Series S has a third of the graphical horsepower of Series X so RT being completely absent, assets being of lower quality, lower native rendering resolutions and in some cases, half the framerate, are things you have to expect.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yes, but that's wholly understandable. Series S has a third of the graphical horsepower of Series X so RT being completely absent, assets being of lower quality, lower native rendering resolutions and in some cases, half the framerate, are things you have to expect.

Yes, but the point was that Series S has never had perfect feature parity which was the assertion by the other poster. IE - as they claimed MS was insisting on.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, but the point was that Series S has never had perfect feature parity which was the assertion by the other poster. IE - as they claimed MS was insisting on.

I don't know what the other guy meant by feature parity, perhaps I'd say expecting split-screen on Series S if it's on Series X is reasonable. It's definitely not reasonable to expect the same graphical performance because if AMD could make a 4.2Tf APU deliver what a 12Tf APU can, Nvidia would be in a lot of trouble!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't know what the other guy meant by feature parity, perhaps I'd say expecting split-screen on Series S if it's on Series X is reasonable. It's definitely not reasonable to expect the same graphical performance because if AMD could make a 4.2Tf APU deliver what a 12Tf APU can, Nvidia would be in a lot of trouble!

With the perfect qualifier, I interpreted that to mean that if shadows were done using X method on Series X then it would also use that method on Series S to preserve parity in visuals, albeit it might be at lower quality. For example, if a games has AO done a certain way on X it would have AO done the same way on S, again it might be lower quality but it'd still be there.

Without the perfect qualifier than just regular feature parity would mean that if Series X has it then Series S would have it, however, they might be implemented differently. So those examples in FH5 would represent feature parity but not perfect feature parity.

And finally if Series X has something but Series S is completely missing that feature, then there's obviously limited feature parity. IE - there's a lack of feature parity if Series X has RT but Series S does not.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

With the perfect qualifier, I interpreted that to mean that if shadows were done using X method on Series X then it would also use that method on Series S to preserve parity in visuals, albeit it might be at lower quality.

Again, that interpretation isn't reasonable in the context used. For me, game features are different to graphical fidelity but you do you! it's Friday and I'm out of this hell hole! (this thread)

 

[B-Nice]

Define struggling. All platforms require work, and all platforms have their own challenges, otherwise everything comes out perfectly on time with no glitches. We have to be cognitive of labour and time as being fundamental inputs into polish of a game.

So if the game releases day and date as PS5 and runs perfectly fine, did it struggle ?
Or are you saying it will never come yo Xbox because Series S has a memory issue that makes it impossible to run split screen.
How do we attribute any struggling to just available memory allocation? Why is it not the million other items that could be on the list.

The reasons behind Halo Infinite far outweigh the challenges here from BG3. We are talking about full open world glitches and bugs, happening in RT with Xbox one and millions of PC configurations that can interpret glitches differently and the amount of testing and certification there may not have been worth it.

So, explain to me how Occam got this one soooo wrong?

I mean the manner in which any negative conversations about Series S are immediately shut down would lead one to think you are more knowledgeable than those actually working on the games themselves.

At least that’s the impression you and Brit gave me

 

[iroboto]

So, explain to me how Occam got this one soooo wrong?

I mean the manner in which any negative conversations about Series S are immediately shut down would lead one to think you are more knowledgeable than those actually working on the games themselves.

At least that’s the impression you and Brit gave me

It's been a while, but I'm not sure if we were ever debating if it's a hardware constraint issue or a marketing one.
I'm pretty sure I went with we are unsure if it's hardware problem, and I said it's likely labour.

If I'm quoting the developer here, I said it's a labour issue and that the Xbox version had the lowest priority if Sony pushed forward with a marketing deal, their platform would likely get priority. Sony continues to market BG3, they still have not even made an official announcement for Xbox.

You can go back to earlier quotes where I stated that Larian prioritizes PC first, then consoles and behold, it still held true. Most importantly, Larian here admits that they do not have the resources to work on all the platforms equally. ATG group is there to help speed this up for Xbox. I don't actually think Xbox has had as much baking time as the lead console platform. And the lead platform, PC, will be out 30 days before console.

I'd say, I'll meet you half way. I don't necessarily know what the issue is, the Larian developers did not point at any one particular hardware bottleneck. Obviously having an oversized hardware makes everything easier, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting an optimized console experience.

“We're also not a developer with an infinite amount of resources. We are constrained in the amount of time each platform version is tested. The more permutations you start adding to it on a platform, the more complicated that becomes.

As for shutting down negativity talk about Series S. We have to, because Occam's razor is actually most of the time the Series S is likely the platform with the least amount of time put towards it, and PS5 always benefits from being the lead platform, they own 80% of the console market. Series S, if it split 50/50 with Series X would be 10%. It's miniscule and worse yet it's got less performance. I think that's a very different argument than just saying the only reason its delayed is because it sucks. It's delayed because, it's likely had 0 considerations when the game was built for it, and now they have a mammoth job trying optimize for it.

tldr; if Series S was the lead platform for example had 80% of the marketshare, and PS5 and Series X only shared 10% each. Would Series S version be delayed? I think not likely. That was the argument I was trying to make, and PS5 having a marketing deal, we know how important it is to optimize the title for the company that markets your product.

 

[Seanspeed]

Eh? That was never a thing considering that almost all games on series S don't have feature parity with Series X. If MS said that (I can't recall them ever stating that "perfect feature parity" was a desire of theirs for Series S), they certainly aren't enforcing it.

Regards,
SB

That is literally what this whole thing is about. The developers have confirmed that Microsoft are demanding feature parity with Series X, which is why they cant announce an Xbox version yet.

I'm sure you understand perfectly well this isn't about graphical features so let's not get bogged down into a time-wasting semantics discussion.

 

[B-Nice]

It's been a while, but I'm not sure if we were ever debating if it's a hardware constraint issue or a marketing one.
I'm pretty sure I went with we are unsure if it's hardware problem, and I said it's likely labour.

If I'm quoting the developer here, I said it's a labour issue and that the Xbox version had the lowest priority if Sony pushed forward with a marketing deal, their platform would likely get priority. Sony continues to market BG3, they still have not even made an official announcement for Xbox.

You can go back to earlier quotes where I stated that Larian prioritizes PC first, then consoles and behold, it still held true. Most importantly, Larian here admits that they do not have the resources to work on all the platforms equally. ATG group is there to help speed this up for Xbox. I don't actually think Xbox has had as much baking time as the lead console platform. And the lead platform, PC, will be out 30 days before console.

I'd say, I'll meet you half way. I don't necessarily know what the issue is, the Larian developers did not point at any one particular hardware bottleneck. Obviously having an oversized hardware makes everything easier, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're getting an optimized console experience.



As for shutting down negativity talk about Series S. We have to, because Occam's razor is actually most of the time the Series S is likely the platform with the least amount of time put towards it, and PS5 always benefits from being the lead platform, they own 80% of the console market. Series S, if it split 50/50 with Series X would be 10%. It's miniscule and worse yet it's got less performance. I think that's a very different argument than just saying the only reason its delayed is because it sucks. It's delayed because, it's likely had 0 considerations when the game was built for it, and now they have a mammoth job trying optimize for it.

tldr; if Series S was the lead platform for example had 80% of the marketshare, and PS5 and Series X only shared 10% each. Would Series S version be delayed? I think not likely. That was the argument I was trying to make, and PS5 having a marketing deal, we know how important it is to optimize the title for the company that markets your product.

So you think shutting down conversations, especially those based on explicit statements from the actual developers, is having a debate?

I understood the argument you were trying’ to make, however, your argument not only dismissed me(I can live with that, I’m married) but the actual devs.

You create scenarios that don’t exist to dismiss reality. It’s a common theme when defending the S/X.

 

[iroboto]

So you think shutting down conversations, especially those based on explicit statements from the actual developers, is having a debate?

I understood the argument you were trying’ to make, however, your argument not only dismissed me(I can live with that, I’m married) but the actual devs.

You create scenarios that don’t exist to dismiss reality. It’s a common theme when defending the S/X.

We don’t dismiss devs.
On the contrary we echo what most devs do say; not enough time to do the job.

It’s stated here as being the issue. If the game is released with coop on series S; then what was the issue other than not enough resources to do the work in the time frame allotted ?

 

[eastmen]

Up dated PC specs

Minimum:​

• Processor: Intel i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350 -> Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X -> Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Recommended:​

• Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X -> Intel i7 8700K / AMD r5 3600
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580 -> Nvidia 2060 Super / RX 5700 XT (8GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Regardless of your hardware, you'll also need Windows 10 64-bit and DirectX 11 to play.

Larian said Baldur's Gate 3 "may be playable" on PCs below the new minimum requirement (but, I would guess, not below the old minimum), "but we believe this may hinder the player experience." I suspect it might, too.

The series S zen 2 8/16 core cpu @ 3.4/3.6ghz will far out perform the zen 1 4/8core @ 3.5ghz

So there shouldn't be an issue of CPU power esp as its the same as the ps5 and series x

The series S gpu will be a bit worse than the 5700xt in pure rasterization most likely but leaps and bounds better than an rx 480

Serie S gpu is rdna 2 20 CU @ 1.5ghz
R5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @1.755ghz
Rx480 gpu is gcn 4 36CU @ 1.266ghz

I don't see anything here that would prevent split screen unless the 5700xt can't handle it either. But then again the 5700xt would compare favorably to the ps5 and series x

5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @ 1.755ghz
Ps5 RDNA ? 36CU @ up to 2.23ghz
XSX RDNA 2 52CU @ 1.825ghz

The game is also designed to be played on 4GB of vram and 8 gig of system ram. But on a pc you need to account for all the windows over head.

I don't see where the major issue would come in at. They already did low quality texture work for the pc

 

[Globalisateur]

Up dated PC specs

Minimum:​

• Processor: Intel i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350 -> Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X -> Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Recommended:​

• Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X -> Intel i7 8700K / AMD r5 3600
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580 -> Nvidia 2060 Super / RX 5700 XT (8GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Regardless of your hardware, you'll also need Windows 10 64-bit and DirectX 11 to play.

Larian said Baldur's Gate 3 "may be playable" on PCs below the new minimum requirement (but, I would guess, not below the old minimum), "but we believe this may hinder the player experience." I suspect it might, too.

The series S zen 2 8/16 core cpu @ 3.4/3.6ghz will far out perform the zen 1 4/8core @ 3.5ghz

So there shouldn't be an issue of CPU power esp as its the same as the ps5 and series x

The series S gpu will be a bit worse than the 5700xt in pure rasterization most likely but leaps and bounds better than an rx 480

Serie S gpu is rdna 2 20 CU @ 1.5ghz
R5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @1.755ghz
Rx480 gpu is gcn 4 36CU @ 1.266ghz

I don't see anything here that would prevent split screen unless the 5700xt can't handle it either. But then again the 5700xt would compare favorably to the ps5 and series x

5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @ 1.755ghz
Ps5 RDNA ? 36CU @ up to 2.23ghz
XSX RDNA 2 52CU @ 1.825ghz

The game is also designed to be played on 4GB of vram and 8 gig of system ram. But on a pc you need to account for all the windows over head.

I don't see where the major issue would come in at. They already did low quality texture work for the pc

The most logical explanation about devs having problems on XSS is about a lack of memory (if they want the same graphical features than XSX, because sure they could still release the game with an image fidelity similar to The Witcher 3 on Switch but I don't think they want to do that as players will be pissed).

The possible lack of memory on XSS is a problem that several developers already talked about even before the release of the console. It's not rocket science to say it's the most probable cause here.

 

[snc]

Bg2 is one of my fav game of all time but Im not so excited with bg3 made by Larian studio, I just didnt like their turn base system in divinity.

 

[eastmen]

The most logical explanation about devs having problems on XSS is about a lack of memory (if they want the same graphical features than XSX, because sure they could still release the game with an image fidelity similar to The Witcher 3 on Switch but I don't think they want to do that as players will be pissed).

The possible lack of memory on XSS is a problem that several developers already talked about even before the release of the console. It's not rocket science to say it's the most probable cause here.

Perhaps a lack of memory but again its running on 4gig cards with 8 gigs of system ram + windows os on top of that. I could understand if the minimum specs were 16gigs of ram and a 8gig vram card

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As always, it's the original source answers some of the questions being discussed. In this case it was Larian providing clarification to IGN, following the company's initial statement. Selective quoting because of copyright/brevity:

The truth has to do with Larian’s ongoing struggle to get Baldur’s Gate 3’s two-player split-screen co-op running well enough on the Xbox Series S, and a Microsoft policy that enforces gameplay feature parity across Xbox Series X and S.

This means Larian cannot release Baldur’s Gate 3 on any Xbox Series console until it’s optimised split-screen co-op on the S to the point it hits the quality bar it needs to satisfy players. This is not about a framerate difference, a resolution difference, or whether or not the S version has the same advanced graphics effects as the X version. This is about a key gameplay feature difference, and that’s where Microsoft draws the line.

The article goes on to reference @Dictactor speculating memory on Series S was likely the cause for the official removal of split-screen from Halo Infinite, which may be similar here. The above quote also clarifies that is it gameplay feature parity, rather than graphical, that Microsoft expect.

 

[cheapchips]

Don't see why they can't splitscreen run rubbish. 20fps/480p is fine for a BG style game. Job done and the internet get to have 24hrs of chatter about it.

 

[Seanspeed]

Up dated PC specs

Minimum:​

• Processor: Intel i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350 -> Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X -> Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Recommended:​

• Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X -> Intel i7 8700K / AMD r5 3600
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580 -> Nvidia 2060 Super / RX 5700 XT (8GB+ of VRAM)
• Storage: 70 GB available space -> 150 GB available space

Regardless of your hardware, you'll also need Windows 10 64-bit and DirectX 11 to play.

Larian said Baldur's Gate 3 "may be playable" on PCs below the new minimum requirement (but, I would guess, not below the old minimum), "but we believe this may hinder the player experience." I suspect it might, too.

The series S zen 2 8/16 core cpu @ 3.4/3.6ghz will far out perform the zen 1 4/8core @ 3.5ghz

So there shouldn't be an issue of CPU power esp as its the same as the ps5 and series x

The series S gpu will be a bit worse than the 5700xt in pure rasterization most likely but leaps and bounds better than an rx 480

Serie S gpu is rdna 2 20 CU @ 1.5ghz
R5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @1.755ghz
Rx480 gpu is gcn 4 36CU @ 1.266ghz

I don't see anything here that would prevent split screen unless the 5700xt can't handle it either. But then again the 5700xt would compare favorably to the ps5 and series x

5700xt gpu is rdna 1 40CU @ 1.755ghz
Ps5 RDNA ? 36CU @ up to 2.23ghz
XSX RDNA 2 52CU @ 1.825ghz

The game is also designed to be played on 4GB of vram and 8 gig of system ram. But on a pc you need to account for all the windows over head.

I don't see where the major issue would come in at. They already did low quality texture work for the pc

These 'requirements' are not anything these devs actually rigorously test. They are basically always just rough guesses, and never accurate.