In the build-up to the Xbox release of Baldur's Gate 3, there was a fair bit of drama surrounding the Xbox Series S version of the game. In short, Larian Studios was having trouble getting the title to perform properly on the less-powerful Xbox, and it's led to questions being asked about Microsoft's two-console approach this generation.
As a result, the folks over at Tech Radar decided to speak to some other devs about the console and their approach to working with it. Cass Carpendale — CEO of indie studio Poppy Works — and Neville Attard — founder of PolyCrunch Games — made some quite interesting comments to the outlet about working with the system during development of their upcoming title Slave Zero X.
"Multi-platform development doesn't have to be difficult,
Adding multi-platform support to a game that wasn't developed with that in mind is where the trouble comes from."
Attard added:
"If the developers always keep the slowest platform they are targeting in mind, first and foremost, then the other platforms should be easier to deal with,"
The devs then suggested that parity issues with Baldur's Gate 3 on Series S may have cropped up because the game was originally designed for PC - BG3 was in development for years as an early access PC title. Even so, they believe working with Series S is worth it for the benefit that a cheap new-gen console brings to the table.
"It's understandably frustrating if you run into issues meeting that [parity] requirement, but I think this is the kind of thing that benefits the consumers immensely, and a little bit of planning can make it a non-issue. Luckily for us, Slave Zero X runs well on all the Microsoft platforms."
Of course, these two games are very different in their makeup, but there are still some interesting points to ponder here nonetheless. If you want to check out the full feature, we recommend giving it a read for additional tidbits on the whole Xbox Series S and Baldur's Gate 3 situation.
Here at PX, we're very glad the Xbox Series S exists - paired with Xbox Game Pass it makes for an incredible value proposition to gamers. Long may it live, and long may developers keep supporting it!
What do you think to this discussion? Happy with how Xbox Series S is performing so far? Chat all about it down below.
[source techradar.com]
Comments 17
@Kaloudz Technically Baldur's Gate 3 never had a multi-plat release as it released on PC first, then on PS5 a few weeks after and then on Xbox a further few weeks after that. I don't buy into the theories that the PS release was originally delayed to coincide with Starfield and assume that it just required some further optimisation, and this was likely also required on Xbox.
It's also worth bearing in mind that as yet they still have not fixed the original split screen issue and the reason it was able to finally release was due to MS allowing it to release without split screen on the series S. The good news though is that they have stated that all users will benefit from work they did to optimise for Series S.
@Kevw2006 It was early access on PC since 2020 I believe but I agree with the rest.
@Kaloudz It launched on Series S WITHOUT split screen co-op. This was always the sticking point and took Microsoft to reverse their stance on platform parity between Series S and X for Larian to release it.
Outside that I agree with the dev that if it is planned from the start this isn't a problem. It's only when you build a game targeting one set of parameters and then try and shoehorn it into lesser systems later that you can have problems.
@themightyant That's true about the early access, however the full PC release was still early August compared to early September on PS. The PS version was due to release on the same date as PC in August but was then delayed to September.
I think as long as Microsoft are flexible to a degree, for example allowing split-screen co-op to be missing from the Series S version because of the high overheads involved, then there's no reason for developers to miss the console.
BG3 is a bit different as they targeted PC first with no thought of console, but even then they would have had to target different PC builds.
Developers have to factor in high and mid level PCs, it's no different really - not everyone has a PC with an RTX 4090, 128GB RAM and a monster CPU.
I think Larian are an outlier in other ways too - a big publisher may have moved more developers over to optimising the Xbox version so the two could release at the same time (and discreetly reached out to Microsoft where needed), in order to avoid clashing with MS, but Larian seem to like being outspoken / honest and almost forcing climbdowns / assistance instead
That's awful easy for a developer that makes games that could run on pretty much anything under the sun. Of course it would be easy to optimize something, that would already run on the S without optimizations, for it.
BG3 is pretty resource intense game.
But when you're saying things like:
"If the developers always keep the slowest platform they are targeting in mind, first and foremost, then the other platforms should be easier to deal with,"
We've gone back full circle to platforms like the Series S holding games back.
@Kevw2006 Agree about the actual release dates, was just pointing out that PC was clearly the target platform for a long time before consoles were added to the mix. In fact it was out on PC in early access before XSX|S and PS5 were even released!
Which may in part explain why Series S caused such a problem. Microsoft designed and promised a console that could do everything at 1440p that the Series X could do 4K... but that isn't quite the case.
Most games can just reduce features like resolution, RT or shadow quality a little more to compensate, and some can even do what Microsoft envisaged at 1440p. But some, like BG3, can't... or not easily.
I'm sure it's possible but it would have taken a lot of extra work to optimise split screen to work on Series S, which for just one SKU of just platform (and the one in third place) this likely wasn't worth it for Larian. You have to pick your battles and they had bigger fires to fight.
Keeping the lowest platform in mind ***** over those of us who buy the more powerful one. It's not just about resolution/FPS. Take the cross platform (PS4/PS5) Earth Defense Force 6 as an example. Both versions have the same ***** draw distance to the point you can't even see enemies sometimes if you pull the camera out to aim an air strike.
I would prefer direct Series S support get dropped sooner and leave it supported via XCloud only so devs can move on to fully utilizing what the Series X and whatever is next can do.
Difference is bg3 is a massive game where as their game could run on my 10 year old mobile
@InterceptorAlpha That would be Switch you're thinking of.
This is similar to how games don't NEED $100mil+ budgets, studios choose to have massive scope.
@Goj What exactly is the Switch holding back? Most non-Nintendo AAA games don't even release on the Switch
Microsoft requires S and X games to release at the same time, with the same features. So if someone want to release in the X they have to do the S or not release at all.
"If the developers always keep the slowest platform they are targeting in mind, first and foremost, then the other platforms should be easier to deal with"
Very easy to say when you make games that could easily run on a Android phone from 2013. Also by his logic developers should still be making games for PS4/Xbone, hey if you target those systems first then the current Gen versions will then be super easy!
@Kevw2006 I remember it the other way around; September was the target for all. PC was moved up to August as it was ready. PS stayed set for September. We were warned months out that Xbox would miss September due to Series S dev issues and Xbox launch policy.
@theduckofdeath It was both, the PC version was brought forward from the original date while the PS version was delayed slightly at the same time.
Don't mind games being developed for Series S but it's a slap in the face for those of us who bought the more powerful and more expensive Series X
If you got a Series S fine, but you shouldn't expect the same parity with Series X.
It's like organising a car race with top end super cars, but their speed is artificially limited so a Reliant Robin can compete.
What really benefits consumers more?
Honestly, save up the little bit more money and just buy the Series X. Your experience is much better, less hassle, and without question a far, far, far, superior product.
Yes, it's incompetence and excuses on the developer's side. It's not the fault of the hardware - as you can see with numerous Switch ports, or what is going on with PCs for decades - but the unwillingness to do what's necessary.
BG3 runs poorly on everything. Top tier developers like R* got RDR2 running well on a base Xbox One. I hope Larian invest all the money they have made on a new game engine and the Series S will be no problem for them.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...