We've had some varying reports on the Xbox Series S from different developers. Some have focused on it being a pretty easy system to develop for, while others have cited concerns over it being a less powerful console compared to the Xbox Series X. A developer on Control Ultimate Edition has also now shared some thoughts, with a recent interview shedding some light into the development process for the console.
Speaking to IGN, developer Thomas Puha from Remedy was asked about the difficulties building the next-gen version of Control Ultimate Edition for multiple systems. According to him, the Xbox Series S understandably has some downsides to development, as it naturally "dictates" how all three versions should run.
"The Series S, well, it's no different from the previous generations where the system with the lowest specs does end up dictating a few of the things that you're gonna do, because you're going to have to run on that system, right? And it's very easy to say that 'why don't you just lower your resolution and texture quality and off you go?' It's just nowhere near that simple, it sounds good when you say it and every engine is built in a different way."
"It depends on are you making like an engine that's much more about [being] GPU bound or CPU bound? Which [of the two] are you taxing a whole lot more? Well, we kind of tax kind of both, because we have a lot of physics and we have a lot of the raytracing effects, but then that makes a huge, huge difference especially on Series S. So it's a lot more difficult to engineer an old game to make sure it works on everything."
Puha did go on to explain that, now that Remedy is more aware of the requirements and knows what they're building for the future, development should go a lot smoother, but he still recognises how there's a "lower barrier of entry" for next-gen and how some "compromises" will have to be made.
"Now that we're building the future games, and hey, we know these are the systems it has to run, we take that into account from day one and we can ensure that all platforms have as good of an experience as possible. That's what needs to happen. We appreciate there's a lower barrier of entry for the next-gen experience, but like, you know, the more hardware you have, the more you have to ultimately compromise a little bit when you are a smaller studio."
Ultimately, it sounds like Puha isn't overly keen on the idea of the Xbox Series S due to it making next-gen development more difficult and time consuming, but ultimately the team is aware of how to manage those demands moving forward.
What do you think about Puah's comments on the Xbox Series S? Let us know in the comments below.
[source youtube.com]
Comments 23
With all due respect, if they think two current gen Xbox consoles are too much of a challenge then I wonder how they are able to launch any game on PC. Does Control still cause problems? I read somewhere that a recent patch caused more problems than it solved.
But isn't the series S still better than a bunch of PC's out there...so it's not the lowest denominator? Yes it's one more sku to develop for and it will create more work but how would this hold a game back but a lower spec PC with a HHD or the X-box One S not?
See they say that argument, but then they release the game on PCs that run a lot lower specs than the S and that throws that argument right in the garbage. Series S uses the same infrastructure as Series X. So, I don't buy it. I think it's more that of course it takes more work factoring in the S and they are just griping. But, it should be less than the PC range is, that they don't seem to ever complain about... I think this is just posturing for less devices to develop for.
Keep in mind the comment he made at the end "the more you have to ultimately compromise a little bit when you are a smaller studio". Keywords being "smaller studio". I doubt that this is an issue for larger companies and competent development teams, but as we've seen in the past since Remedy is a smaller studio they will naturally run into issues when getting their games up and running on all systems, as seen with Control when it was first released back in 2019: https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/30/20840657/control-fps-performance-issues-ps4-xbox-one
Back then the game didn't run well on any systems. So it just seems to me that their studio is an outlier in the case of AAA development due to their smaller size compared to other studios.
@LtSarge well 280+ employees is not really a "small studio" and especially as their game is listed as an AAA title with a AAA titles price.
When someone says smaller studio then indies come to mind which remedy definitely aren't, to me they are just being lazy and probably cost them a bit more than they hoped getting it onto both so he fancied a moan
@UltimateOtaku91 True. But that doesn't necessarily have to mean that all 280+ employees were working on Control at the same time. CrossfireX is being worked on for the Xbox consoles so they have most likely a good chunk of those people working on that game at the same time as Control was being worked on. Also consider the fact that the Control team was working on DLC for Control during all the time that CrossfireX was being developed, so there are most likely two separate development teams at Remedy, sort of like at Naughty Dog.
Calling themselves a "smaller studio" is strange though. I mean, everything is relatively speaking so maybe he sees themselves as a smaller studio while they aren't in actuality. But the question is then why they have so much difficulty with developing for multiple systems and the only answer I can come up besides them having two development teams (thus fewer people working on each game) is that they don't have as competent employees as other studios in the market. So my point still stands that they are an outlier or at the very least in the minority compared to the rest of the industry that develops AAA titles as they need more competent staff to work on their games. Because it doesn't matter how many employees you have if they can't do well at their jobs.
i just don't trust these Devs...
If you want the Series S version you have to pay for it, So I'm sure they worked it out.
@Trmn8r are you a software developer? Or are you pulling things out of… because we literally just had a software developer say, yes. This is a problem. Being a denialist to the actual developers and an apologist for Microsoft isn’t going to help anybody.
@UltimateOtaku91 I doubt professionals who get on news outlets like IGN claiming it is a problem (um. Who would be better to ask, then literally the people making games?) are being lazy. We should be listening to them. I think people who bought a series S are going to regret it sooner rather than later.
@Xiovanni genuinely curious, why are you on a PS boycott?
@AgentGuapo Lol nice profile pic. Tells you enough right there. I'm using logic. Sure it'll take more dev time like I already said. But PCs they develop for have lower specs. Regardless, the guy was referring to porting over last gen games being more problematic. He said it shouldn't be much of a problem with next gen games understanding the requirements in advance. But keep on insulting people to score Playstation points for the console war...
@AgentGuapo I am. And what they're stating is BS. I can whip up and deploy some on for X/S, that scales to both, infinitely easier than making sure the games even work on the most recent AMD and Nvidioff GPUs. And don't even get me started having to compensate so that all 10 people still using crossfire/sli otherwise the software won't render st all.
I went series s first ( from a one x) and my wife got me a ps5 this week (from a ps4 pro) and I still think theres a lot to like about the s but, and I'm sure I'll get abuse for this, i bought the s as a game pass machine and quick resume is sweet. Overall i guess the ps5 will get more use as I'm a big fan of the sony exclusives but the s is a great 2nd machine. Also i dont get rid of my old consoles and still use the one x for things like read dead...
Just ***** developers
I played through Control in its entirety on the Series S, and I think the game crashed twice (due to some kind of memory error). It didn't really bother me, and I didn't otherwise notice any issues. Overall I really enjoyed the experience.
@gollumb82
Exactly. I think, what Remedy is saying there is misleading. This kind of "problem" exists for decades now, and it always has been solved by different presets or different levels of various graphics variables. It also was the same with Xbox One -> Xbox One X and PS4 -> PS4 Pro. Not to speak of what Switch ports have shown us to be possible. So, why not port from the X to the S later on?
Anyways, ... if Remedy is using engines, that are rigidly locked to either tax the CPU or tax the GPU more, they're doing something wrong. Inside a good engine it should be possible to shove certain graphics effects to either one of the components, whenever need be. Same as you can easily tell your PC to calculate PhysX on the CPU or GPU, since ... forever.
In the end, if they think this is somehow to expensive - which I'm having a hard time to believe - they could always choose to not release their games on the Series S. Let's see how expensive this turns out to be in comparison.
Sorry, Remedy, I like your games, but these are just excuses.
Everyone trying to stand up for the Series S. As an owner of a Series X, I wish the S didn’t exist. It will hold back the potential of games and developers will have to make it run on the S and optimize for the X.
@lokozar
Couldn't have said it better myself! I'm still going to play their games, but they are just making excuses. Also, I wish they hadn't sold Max Payne to Take Two.
@Bdbrady
Isn't it the other way around? Make the game for the more powerful console and then downgrade for the weaker one?
I think once developers don't have to support last gen, it will be a lot easier for devs like Remedy.
At the moment, you have 7 SKU's to work with not counting PC or Switch. Scrap last gen and you only have 3.
As for the issue with the Series S, well whatever they select as min specs for PC is the lowest dictating factor. Obviously if that's higher than Series S, then the tables turn.
I have both Series X and Series S (one for me, one for the fam) and Control is a crash-prone mess of mediocre game design on both of them. Parity achieved!
I agree low-end PCs are obviously the lowest dictating factor, not Series S.
Going forward though, it seems like it'll be easier though to build FOR Series S, rather than trying to adapt for it after the fact like we've been seeing with the Series "optimized" versions of XB1 games.
Also, Control is an excellent game, and has never crashed on me even one time (played XB1 version on Series X), although I did have audio issues, which I believe were related to Quick Resume.
Usually takes a couple of years for company's to take advantage of new consoles and I believe series s is a good little console that has alot to offer.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...