I love that this baseline will likely keep PC requirements in check for the next decade excluding Sony's ports (obviously).Games are developed first and foremost for consoles, they need to make it work on that hardware. PC version is way less important for majority of developers/publishers and many times even the highest end hardware don't run new games smoothly, they don't even bother to optimize their games at all (plus buggy as fuck). You really think they think about 1060 owners when developing new UE5 game? Immortals (of something) run 20+ fps in this GPU (the most popular GPU on the planet).
When new consoles are released PC requirements go up too, this has always been the case and PC players needs to upgrade their hardware every time this happens. This time "thanks" to series s this upgrade is not big at all because devs have to fit their games to run on this console (that is barely twice as good as PS4) THATS WHY people are complaing that this console holds back entire industry.
honestly I don’t think Xbox expected the PS5 to have a digital edition that was otherwise the exact same hardware for $400Yes.
It's a dumb piece of shit. Loads of people were saying it when it was announced. They've been saying it the entire time it's existed, and now more people are also realising the same thing as the generation continued.
It was a fucking stupid move from a company that can't afford to make stupid fucking moves, if it wants to get on equal footing with Sony and Nintendo.
"Let's put out a weakened version of our powerful next generation console." What could possibly go wrong
Yes.
It's a dumb piece of shit. Loads of people were saying it when it was announced. They've been saying it the entire time it's existed, and now more people are also realising the same thing as the generation continued.
It was a fucking stupid move from a company that can't afford to make stupid fucking moves, if it wants to get on equal footing with Sony and Nintendo.
"Let's put out a weakened version of our powerful next generation console." What could possibly go wrong
I don't think it was a risk, quite the opposite even.They were trying to do it all, to please (according to them) to everyone.They wanted to be cheaper than playstation and more powerful but it wasnt possible in one console.So the S was born to please the people whom couldn't afford a 500$ box and the X was supposed to be way more powerful than the ps5 (hence why they were willing to take such a loss for it).And by trying to please everyone you just lose identity.Going straight into 1 clear direction is way more of a risk since there's a chance to alienate a bit, some or even a lot of consumers not buying into this vision/direction.The other way to write that is, it was a ballsy risky move from a company that needs to take some risks if it wants to catch up with Sony and Nintendo. The biggest risk is to not take any.
I like the idea of the S, the question is the current implementation of that idea. It's still possible that this was the best possible implementation for the needed cost savings, but I can't know, because I'm unsure as to the reason for the rare failures we've seen.
Really, all we've seen is a handful of edge cases, and a buzz that developers in general aren't happy. Those are scraps. I'd like to understand why in some more detail.
avin
I am not sure to understand that part. I thought the developers brave enough to speak pointed out those problematic aspects pretty plainly since the beginning of the generation. You still think those reports are exaggerated/irrelevant? What's there to understand 'more in detail' to grasp the situation?Really, all we've seen is a handful of edge cases, and a buzz that developers in general aren't happy. Those are scraps. I'd like to understand why in some more detail.
I am not sure to understand that part. I thought the developers brave enough to speak pointed out those problematic aspects pretty plainly since the beginning of the generation. You still think those reports are exaggerated/irrelevant? What's there to understand 'more in detail' to grasp the situation?
To answer your question reducing resolution doesnt proportionally reduce RAM necessity to run a game and the split pool reduce the effective usage of said RAM.So dividing the resolution of a game by 2 won't divide its RAM usage by 2 which is problematic considering the discrepancy between the S and X RAM capacity .The split pool is another problem but this one may need a longer explaination but basically splitting the pool and having different Ram speed will mean that youll have to put both pools at the same speed as the lowest RAM pool speed as well as an added complexity to access said RAM.I didn't say those reports are exaggerated or irrelevant. They're lacking in the level of explanation I like when I try to understand things. Not that I have a right to understand things, but I like to.
So far, what I know all points to the amount or speed of RAM, but why is that limiting in some cases and not others? Exactly? I start to have some ideas, but they don't amount to clearly understanding things.
avin
Thread should probably be renamed to GAF hates series S, lol.
To answer your question reducing resolution doesnt proportionally reduce RAM necessity to run a game and the split pool reduce the effective usage of said RAM.So dividing the resolution of a game by 2 won't divide its RAM usage by 2 which is problematic considering the discrepancy between the S and X RAM capacity .The split pool is another problem but this one may need a longer explaination but basically splitting the pool and having different Ram speed will mean that youll have to put both pools at the same speed as the lowest RAM pool speed as well as an added complexity to access said RAM.
It is the parity clause between X and S that is the problem and hence why it will change (ofc it will) - BG3 is just the first step.The same Devs getting verified for Steam Deck and who will be releasing games for Switch 2.
Did you the Xbox Series and PlayStation spec thread thread back in 2020?
People were convinced the PlayStation 5 was a poorly designed console because they thought Sony overclocked things at the last second. All they needed back then was Chris Grannell, Kirby Louise, Dealer, Colteastwood, and Dee Batch.
After all that crap back in 2020, it's fair to point out problems with the Xbox Series S when devs are voicing their frustration with the console.
People just don't want to admit that Microsoft screwed up a bit when they designed the Xbox Series S.
If you advocate targeting series s hw as the target, then you're essentially saying that next-gen is a device with the same amount of ram as last gen...Or imagine compressing your data instead of letting it flood RAM, not relying on upscaling algorithms to make the game look passable, reducing overuse of particle effects where they do not add anything or emulate an effect that can be accomplished with clever transparent 2D effects, and maybe starting off production with the lowest end target hardware in mind. Window dressing can always be implemented later.
You might want to talk to more tech knowledgeable people than me to get a more thorough answer (being in english doesn't help me either) but the bolded part feels like a good scenario of what may have happenned.And probably why split screen is more problematic on the S following your explanation the game then need more "constant pool" than normally and the barely anything left for the rest.Thank you, but I think I can already say something in my non-technical way, that'll help me understand and better yet - predict - when things will scale on the S and when they won't. Because the thing is, sometimes things are fine. Often, even. That's an important point. I've been told things are fine on last-gen engines, which I think is true, but it doesn't really tell me why they're not fine now.
I think for a non-technical type like me, RAM usage can be assigned to 2 pools. A constant pool, that holds game logic, and as we saw, BVH structures for raytracing, other details like maps; and a graphics pool, that varies with the resolution of the image. MS made key assumptions about the ratio between these two pools that are not always holding up.
The point is, resolutions and the needed textures are square functions. This is the diminishing returns people talk about. So when games are running at 4K on the X, and 1080p on the S, the difference in size of RAM needed for things like textures is relatively large, and the assumptions MS made hold up. But you can see that as resolutions drop on the X, and other techniques are used for image reconstruction, the savings in RAM with even lower resolutions becomes much smaller on the S.
More generally, I think this is consistent with the idea that game programming has changed so that games are using more and more RAM for the constant pool. So the prediction is, games running at relatively high internal resolution on the X and PS5 will scale down just fine to the S. Games that use other techniques and are at lower internal resolution for the X and PS5, won't. This is because these games cutting internal resolution do so to increase the size of the constant pool that they use for other things, and these are the ones in danger of not scaling.
Forgive me for writing all of that out. It may have been clear to some of you already, but I needed something like that to make it clearer to me.
avin
I think it's fine to say the series s isn't perfect, you're correct it's not an absolutely terrible machine to code for (step forward PS3) - however the way it has been linked to current gen has led to games being limited from day 1 to run on effectively a last-gen powered machine. To me the worst thing about this is that there are probably some cool ideas that were cut from games to get them to fit - ideas we'll have to wait until the next gen for now.Agreed it's not perfect. Just think people go a bit overboard with the "it shouldn't exist" and it's "impossible to program for". No console is perfect, they had to find some balance between price and performance.
I do suspect if they had to do it over again, they put just a little bit more ram, but that's about it. One particular mod likes to say I'm "crying" when I point out the obvious over vilification of the series S here, missing the reason reason I posted that. It's not about me.......it's just more about balance. But you can't fix the world so I probably should have kept the comment to myself.
I think it's fine to say the series s isn't perfect, you're correct it's not an absolutely terrible machine to code for (step forward PS3) - however the way it has been linked to current gen has led to games being limited from day 1 to run on effectively a last-gen powered machine. To me the worst thing about this is that there are probably some cool ideas that were cut from games to get them to fit - ideas we'll have to wait until the next gen for now.
You might want to talk to more tech knowledgeable people than me to get a more thorough answer (being in english doesn't help me either) but the bolded part feels like a good scenario of what may have happenned.And probably why split screen is more problematic on the S following your explanation the game then need more "constant pool" than normally and the barely anything left for the rest.
What they really hate is extra work on the platform that sells the least software.
If Series S was putting up Wii or Switch numbers the devs wouldn't complain.
Hot take, but I think Microsoft should just scrap the Series S, refund people and just keep the Series X.
But they talk about "being inclusive" guess what? If you're poor and have a Series S, then you can go F yourself bunch of hypocrite.
Are you being serious or not?
Are you being serious or not?
I'm sure this isn't what I meant, I own series s, i'm not "rich" and I can't afford a beefy machine like a Series X, but these devs are telling me to go fuck myself because I don't have shit tons of money to buy a 499€ console.As serious as you are telling everyone whose poor and may have a series S to go fuck themselves.
I'm sure this isn't what I meant, I own series s, i'm not "rich" and I can't afford a beefy machine like a Series X, but these devs are telling me to go fuck myself because I don't have shit tons of money to buy a 499€ console.
Of course it is, they claim to be "socialist", "anti capitalism" and then they pull this? what kind of bullshit is this? do they know they preach one thing and do another thing?It's a bit of a passive aggressive attitude. It's (Series S) an entry level console, you are getting all the games with expected cuts. The day they stop making ports for Series S, I will grab a pitchfork with you.
As serious as you are telling everyone whose poor and may have a series S to go fuck themselves.
Shut the fuck up. You sound retarded.This is a bunch of bull anyway. Series S isn’t for poor people, it’s for cheap people. It’s not an entry level console, it’s a side bitch you call when nobody else is picking up and your nutz heavy. It’s who you bring home for thanksgiving when you know they sitting you at the kids table.
You know who buys Series S? Xbox fans who couldn’t find an X, and Xbox fans who buy them for their kids.
This sounds a lil bit childish.This is a bunch of bull anyway. Series S isn’t for poor people, it’s for cheap people. It’s not an entry level console, it’s a side bitch you call when nobody else is picking up and your nutz heavy. It’s who you bring home for thanksgiving when you know they sitting you at the kids table.
You know who buys Series S? Xbox fans who couldn’t find an X, and Xbox fans who buy them for their kids.
It’s a dumb console and that’s why they called it Xbox Series Stupid.
As someone who has had a PS5 since day one, I wish developers would “just create a PS5 version”. Instead, they always seem to create a PS4 version and simply enable higher resolution when running on a PS5.Imagine you are a developer, and MS comes to you, and they want you to develop an Xbox game. Imagine they also demand you to downport to Series S.
Or imagine you go to Sony and just create a PS5 version and wrap it up.
I'm one of those people. I already had a perfectly decent gaming PC and only bought the S for an old plasma TV that I didn't want to throw out. I've been quite happy with it so far.Some really weird takes, when applied to the real world. Some people just aren't as invested in this gen as some others are. For them, they get a console that will play new gen titles without the bells and whistles that more core gamers want. If they're happy, then who cares?
I know adults who own it and they don't care about 4k and 60fps even if they own 4k tvs. The thing they do notice however, is the increased loading speed.
Some really weird takes, when applied to the real world. Some people just aren't as invested in this gen as some others are. For them, they get a console that will play new gen titles without the bells and whistles that more core gamers want. If they're happy, then who cares?
I know adults who own it and they don't care about 4k and 60fps even if they own 4k tvs. The thing they do notice however, is the increased loading speed.
This was a brilliant moment in the show. Totally showed how Microsoft screws things up.
The SSD increases loading speed while decreasing wait times.yeah the next gen defning feature and I think you mean "decreased" ?
We don't have to imagine. PS5 already has exclusives and we've seen how low some games drop. Would FF16 be dropping into the 720p range if they were forced to optimize for Series S? Probably not.I recall a LOT of people at the start of this gen saying Series S would hamstring the entire generation, and they were called crazy fanboys.
Imagine the games we could have if devs weren’t forced to include that underpowered machine. Could actually use some of that hyped current gen tech in third party games.