Larian is having trouble fitting Baldur’s Gate III on the Xbox Series S, the lower-priced and lower-powered console in Microsoft’s ninth-generation lineup.

I was looking up more information on why there’s such an issue getting BG3 on Xbox, and found this article with a lot more detail on the topic.

EDIT: The issue isn’t graphics or frame rate; it’s memory. The article goes into detail.

  • astrionic@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What I don’t understand is why they don’t just release both Xbox versions without split screen and then try to patch it in later. That way they’d satisfy the feature parity requirement (as I understand it) and people could at least play the game. I love that they’re still doing split screen despite it seemingly having fallen out of favour these days, but it’s hardly an essential feature.

    • Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article says they’re not allowed, legally, to do that, and the ball is on Microsoft’s yard.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        they are not allowed to have one good version and a crippled version. they absolutely are legally allowed to just cripple both. “but the ps5 will have split screen!” well then, sucks to be you if you bought an xbox. think microsoft for that, sony consoles have nothing to do with it. or microsoft could just admit to themselves that expecting a next-gen game to run equally well on literally-worse-than-last-gen hardware is just a pipe dream.

      • astrionic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As far as I can tell the article only talks about a feature parity requirement between the Xbox Series S and Series X versions. And that could be met by just dropping the feature from both versions.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          They may or may not have the requirement anymore, but they definitely used to have this parity clause as well. Then if it came to other platforms first and Xbox later, the Xbox version had to have bonus content beyond the original release.

          • astrionic@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I also thought they might have such a requirement but I was unable to find a source that confirms (or even mentions) it. Definitely still possible though.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I remember it coming up on podcasts back during the 360 era, so that was long enough ago that things may have changed.

    • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Releasing it without a feature that the PS5 does would be bad for the brand. “Sega does what Nintendon’t” and all that…

      • astrionic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but I feel like not releasing the game at all is even worse. The consensus seems to be that PS5 already has better exclusives and now you can’t even play one of this year’s best third party games on Xbox.

        • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least this way they can blame it on the S instead of just being the ganked version.

          I remember when Mortal Kombat came out censored on the SNES and uncensored on the Genesis, not a technical limitation, but a policy limitation. Not a good look.

          • astrionic@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can’t they blame it on the S either way?

            And “just being the ganked version” in this case would mean not having a single feature that the vast majority of players likely wouldn’t even have used in the first place. Yes, it’s not good, but the choice here is between either locking your players out of that one non-essential feature or locking them out of the entire game. And the second option is, to me, very obviously much worse.

            And it’s also not like it would be the “bad” version forever. They can just patch it in when they get it to work. And let players decide for themselves whether they want to get the game now without split screen or wait.

            • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They COULD blame it on the S, but, again, Microsoft won’t allow it.

              What I’m hoping they do, on the next hardware refresh, is a discless Series X and just ditch the S completely.

              There is precedent when they axed the Xbox One and replaced it with the S and X.

              • astrionic@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They COULD blame it on the S, but, again, Microsoft won’t allow it.

                I don’t get how blaming the S for a delayed feature would be different than blaming the S for a delayed game, which is what they’re doing right now.

                But I definitely agree that this is bad for Microsoft and they should do something about it. Not sure whether dropping the S would be the right call but they definitely need to reconsider the feature parity requirement policy.

                • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The S was just a bad idea from the get go. The Xbox One X introduced 4K gaming, 4K televisions are dirt cheap and the defacto standard now, why bother doing an under-powered 1440p machine? Even if you wanted a cheaper option, it doesn’t make sense coming out with a machine that belongs in the last generation, not the current one.

                  They should have gone the Sony route… Series X, Digital Series X. $499/$399.

                  If they wanted a $299 box, keep the One X alive for 1-2 more years then kill it. Still a better choice than the Series S.

                  • astrionic@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The S was just a bad idea from the get go.

                    Yeah for sure. I agree that pushing the One X as the cheaper/entry level version would have been much better. Even for much longer than 1-2 years. People wouldn’t get as mad if they gradually started to phase it out and stopped releasing the high profile games on it after a few years while still supporting it somewhat. Even the feature parity thing wouldn’t have been that much of an issue if they’d just clearly communicated an expiry date beforehand.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s hard to communicate it to the consumer. Far from everybody follows this discourse surrounding the game. Maybe someone buys BG3 just for the split screen capability, just to disappointingly find out that the Xbox version doesn’t support it. Especially when they already have paid full price for the game.

      • astrionic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a good point, but I feel like there are reasonable solutions for that like a disclaimer when buying the game digitally. For the physical version they could either put a sticker on it or just delay the physical version only. I also think that people who are informed enough to know about specific features like that are more likely to hear about this discourse.