Support NeoGAF

[Corndog]

Microsoft themselves submitted this to regulators.

And. What does that have to do with this game. Is this a game pass game?

 

[DaGwaphics]

I wonder if this was the same issue 343 had with splitscreen coop on Halo Infinite.

The splitscreen coop ran just fine on the base X1, I don't think XSS was the issue. In all likelihood they just didn't want to finish the QA on that mode.

 

[Topher]

The splitscreen coop ran just fine on the base X1, I don't think XSS was the issue. In all likelihood they just didn't want to finish the QA on that mode.

Good point

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

The splitscreen coop ran just fine on the base X1, I don't think XSS was the issue. In all likelihood they just didn't want to finish the QA on that mode.

The X is the issue. No, seriously. I know it sounds bonkers and I'll get labelled as a fanboy or whatever crap people use to deflect instead of engaging their brains.

There's a series X revision in the works. I have more info for anyone who wants to know.

 

[Topher]

There's a series X revision in the works. I have more info for anyone who wants to know.

Ok.....let's hear it

 

[sendit]

PC version is the way to go regardless. Mods galore.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Ok.....let's hear it

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch
• The techies and engineers knew the X wasn't ready, the software designed was behind schedule but it didn't matter.
• The Brute force power of the X was going to push it well into 2022 and give the team enough time to bring 'the tools'
• However, delays have occurred, mainly due to covid and production issues; delays, sharing wafer with the S and X chips going to servers
• Now Microsoft are facing a problem; The X is too damned expensive and the S is falling behind a little quicker than planned.
• The S, as we all know, is a fantastic little machine, but it can only do so much. It was/is to become a beacon of streaming and local power (more on that at another time)
• The Series X doesn't have the throughput to handle the requirements of games and really struggles with split screen and dual outputs.
• To combat this, Microsoft are (as we speak) designing a an Series X-X. Just like Microsoft did with the 360 elite and slim and the Xbox One S and Xbox One SAD editions. The X-X will have better throughput and be more designed around dual outputs, ready for the potential of supporting a 3rd party/PC headset.
• The delays to Halo and Starfield weren't the fault of the studios. While Phil Spencer has been a busy bee trying to sort out the new X, the studios did slack off a bit. However, the 'retirement' of Bonnie Ross was mutual and not a firing. 343I were blamed for a long, long time before MS did anything and that was to save face. The real reason for the delays were the issues with the X.

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

 

[Heisenberg007]

And. What does that have to do with this game. Is this a game pass game?

Weren't you guys talking about Xbox software sales? And you were looking for data?

I'm posting the conversation below:

Games sales on Xbox are extremely low, even more for some niche games like this. This is a fact. Gamepass is a good service, but it has created a culture of not buying games, whether you like it or not, that's the true. And I don't see Switch and other platforms owners complaining about a supposed exclusivity (which doesn't even exist).

Don’t spout bull crap as fact.

Sure it is. You don’t have to be the market leader to be able to make money. Plenty of people buy games on Xbox.

Yes they do but I was correcting you on what you said. It isn't bullcrap that software sales are lower on xbox compared to what they used to be. That's all.

When is “used to be”? Let’s see the actual data.

Microsoft literally telling you isn't enough? Do your own research man. Check the quarterly reports and software charts.

This is when I shared Microsoft's documents that game sales have been affected -- to add more context. TheGodfather07 was referring to these documents when he said "Microsoft literally telling you isn't enough?"

DaGwaphics - I understand this game is not on Game Pass. The conversation among these three, however, was on Xbox software sales and how it may have been a reason why some devs may choose to deprioritze the platform.

If it is something different or irrelevant, however, please ignore it then.

 

[Heisenberg007]

If they drop it then they would probably have to drop it on PS5 as well. Feature parity clauses.

It won't apply necessarily.

These clauses usually sneak in when there's a marketing agreement. So in this case, if Xbox had a marketing agreement, they'd demand PS5 feature parity on Series X|S. Without a marketing agreement, there won't be any such clause, and they can do it if they want to. That's just my understanding though.

 

[Portugeezer]

It won't apply necessarily.

These clauses usually sneak in when there's a marketing agreement. So in this case, if Xbox had a marketing agreement, they'd demand PS5 feature parity on Series X|S. Without a marketing agreement, there won't be any such clause, and they can do it if they want to. That's just my understanding though.

Currently they have not even committed to announcing the Xbox version, so there is no parity.

 

[Mr Moose]

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

I think it was the other way around.

 

[Topher]

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch
• The techies and engineers knew the X wasn't ready, the software designed was behind schedule but it didn't matter.
• The Brute force power of the X was going to push it well into 2022 and give the team enough time to bring 'the tools'
• However, delays have occurred, mainly due to covid and production issues; delays, sharing wafer with the S and X chips going to servers
• Now Microsoft are facing a problem; The X is too damned expensive and the S is falling behind a little quicker than planned.
• The S, as we all know, is a fantastic little machine, but it can only do so much. It was/is to become a beacon of streaming and local power (more on that at another time)
• The Series X doesn't have the throughput to handle the requirements of games and really struggles with split screen and dual outputs.
• To combat this, Microsoft are (as we speak) designing a an Series X-X. Just like Microsoft did with the 360 elite and slim and the Xbox One S and Xbox One SAD editions. The X-X will have better throughput and be more designed around dual outputs, ready for the potential of supporting a 3rd party/PC headset.
• The delays to Halo and Starfield weren't the fault of the studios. While Phil Spencer has been a busy bee trying to sort out the new X, the studios did slack off a bit. However, the 'retirement' of Bonnie Ross was mutual and not a firing. 343I were blamed for a long, long time before MS did anything and that was to save face. The real reason for the delays were the issues with the X.

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

I'll say.....that's quite a lot to unload. Do I believe it? No. Not even a little. Nothing against you. I just don't know you. If I knew you and this 15 year history you claim to have then maybe, but I just don't. No offense.

It is a bit weird to say you are not an insider but somehow have access to all that information which would squarely fall under "insider" info.

 

[StereoVsn]

That's a lot of conspiracy theories here. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that Larian isn't lying and having issue for split-screen co-op ok XSS? They have to have same functionality between XSX and XSS or they can't launch.

At this juncture it's probably more cost effective for them to wrap up PS5 and PC , and then they can re-evaluate the situation with Xbox (maybe with MS' help).

Ad as mentioned in the thread, it's likely that folks just don't buy as many games on Xbox infrastructure due to presence of GamePass and constant releases with it, so having a ton of games to play as it is.

 

[dotnotbot]

Sony's infinite warchest doing wonders yet again

 

[Topher]

It won't apply necessarily.

These clauses usually sneak in when there's a marketing agreement. So in this case, if Xbox had a marketing agreement, they'd demand PS5 feature parity on Series X|S. Without a marketing agreement, there won't be any such clause, and they can do it if they want to. That's just my understanding though.

That is not my understanding.

"Who signs parity clauses?
Parity clauses are traditionally signed between platform holders and publishers. So the three console makers, plus PC storefront owners like Valve and Epic Games, all have parity clauses included in contracts with publishers who want to put games on their stores. They're in basically every contract in some form, though the specifics will differ."

What Parity Clauses Really Mean For Games Like Resident Evil Village - IGN

While they are a standard part of the day-to-day for many, parity clauses are one way how platform holders try to ensure everyone playing a game has a good time regardless of platform.

www.ign.com

Currently they have not even committed to announcing the Xbox version, so there is no parity.

Yes, they have said the Xbox version is in development. When it does then it will have to include the same features as PS5.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

I think it was the other way around.

Maybe. Maybe not

I'll say.....that's quite a lot to unload. Do I believe it? No. Not even a little. Nothing against you. I just don't know you. If I knew you and this 15 year history you claim to have then maybe, but I just don't. No offense.

None taken. It's an internet board. Nothing to be offended over.

It is a bit weird to say you are not an insider but somehow have access to all that information which would squarely fall under "insider" info.

It's not insider info. Microsoft are very predictable at what they do, most of the times because they shout it from the rooftops. When they're silent on something, you have a good idea what's going on because otherwise they would be shouting the opposite from the rooftops, if that makes sense.

 

[Topher]

Maybe. Maybe not


None taken. It's an internet board. Nothing to be offended over.

It's not insider info. Microsoft are very predictable at what they do, most of the times because they shout it from the rooftops. When they're silent on something, you have a good idea what's going on because otherwise they would be shouting the opposite from the rooftops, if that makes sense.

Oh.....so it is just a theory then. Ok

 

[Three]

The splitscreen coop ran just fine on the base X1, I don't think XSS was the issue. In all likelihood they just didn't want to finish the QA on that mode.

It didn’t run fine at all. It had triangles for enemies feet away, horrendous LOD, shadow issues where indoor areas looked bright until you walked up to them and they turned dark.

 

[DaGwaphics]

It didn’t run fine at all. It had triangles for enemies feet away, horrendous LOD, shadow issues where indoor areas looked bright until you walked up to them and they turned dark.

It was running, I should say.

 

[Skifi28]

Series X-X

In day one when they release the next revision, the Series XXX. There should just be a disclaimer on the box about not googling the name.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

PC is a way to go anyway

 

[diffusionx]

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch
• The techies and engineers knew the X wasn't ready, the software designed was behind schedule but it didn't matter.
• The Brute force power of the X was going to push it well into 2022 and give the team enough time to bring 'the tools'
• However, delays have occurred, mainly due to covid and production issues; delays, sharing wafer with the S and X chips going to servers
• Now Microsoft are facing a problem; The X is too damned expensive and the S is falling behind a little quicker than planned.
• The S, as we all know, is a fantastic little machine, but it can only do so much. It was/is to become a beacon of streaming and local power (more on that at another time)
• The Series X doesn't have the throughput to handle the requirements of games and really struggles with split screen and dual outputs.
• To combat this, Microsoft are (as we speak) designing a an Series X-X. Just like Microsoft did with the 360 elite and slim and the Xbox One S and Xbox One SAD editions. The X-X will have better throughput and be more designed around dual outputs, ready for the potential of supporting a 3rd party/PC headset.
• The delays to Halo and Starfield weren't the fault of the studios. While Phil Spencer has been a busy bee trying to sort out the new X, the studios did slack off a bit. However, the 'retirement' of Bonnie Ross was mutual and not a firing. 343I were blamed for a long, long time before MS did anything and that was to save face. The real reason for the delays were the issues with the X.

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

you're gonna have to provide some evidence on these claims dude.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

you're gonna have to provide some evidence on these claims dude.

With all due respect, I don't. It's a post on a forum. Take it for what it is.

 

[KungFucius]

That's the price you pay when people don't buy games. Thanks for the gamepass, Phil.

Wow that is a seriously insane take.

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch
• The techies and engineers knew the X wasn't ready, the software designed was behind schedule but it didn't matter.
• The Brute force power of the X was going to push it well into 2022 and give the team enough time to bring 'the tools'
• However, delays have occurred, mainly due to covid and production issues; delays, sharing wafer with the S and X chips going to servers
• Now Microsoft are facing a problem; The X is too damned expensive and the S is falling behind a little quicker than planned.
• The S, as we all know, is a fantastic little machine, but it can only do so much. It was/is to become a beacon of streaming and local power (more on that at another time)
• The Series X doesn't have the throughput to handle the requirements of games and really struggles with split screen and dual outputs.
• To combat this, Microsoft are (as we speak) designing a an Series X-X. Just like Microsoft did with the 360 elite and slim and the Xbox One S and Xbox One SAD editions. The X-X will have better throughput and be more designed around dual outputs, ready for the potential of supporting a 3rd party/PC headset.
• The delays to Halo and Starfield weren't the fault of the studios. While Phil Spencer has been a busy bee trying to sort out the new X, the studios did slack off a bit. However, the 'retirement' of Bonnie Ross was mutual and not a firing. 343I were blamed for a long, long time before MS did anything and that was to save face. The real reason for the delays were the issues with the X.

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

This is asinine. The XSS can't even do 4k. No way in Fuck MS was planning that system as their lead. Their hope was always to have the stronger launch system. So fucking stupid I am angry that such BS exists and that I read the first couple of lines of it.

 

[01011001]

First a disclaimer. I am not an insider and don't want to be an insider. I have made posts over the past 15 years that have been rightfully mocked and laughed at, only for them to turn out to be true. So take what I am about to say with the obvious pinch of salt and feel free to mock, as it makes it more rewarding for me watching the reaction when the truth comes out.

Anyway.

• Series S was meant to be the only console launched. The Series X was meant to be, well, the Series X - the pro version of the S.
• For whatever reason - there are lots of theories, Microsoft changed plans last minute and wanted the X pushing out on launch
• The techies and engineers knew the X wasn't ready, the software designed was behind schedule but it didn't matter.
• The Brute force power of the X was going to push it well into 2022 and give the team enough time to bring 'the tools'
• However, delays have occurred, mainly due to covid and production issues; delays, sharing wafer with the S and X chips going to servers
• Now Microsoft are facing a problem; The X is too damned expensive and the S is falling behind a little quicker than planned.
• The S, as we all know, is a fantastic little machine, but it can only do so much. It was/is to become a beacon of streaming and local power (more on that at another time)
• The Series X doesn't have the throughput to handle the requirements of games and really struggles with split screen and dual outputs.
• To combat this, Microsoft are (as we speak) designing a an Series X-X. Just like Microsoft did with the 360 elite and slim and the Xbox One S and Xbox One SAD editions. The X-X will have better throughput and be more designed around dual outputs, ready for the potential of supporting a 3rd party/PC headset.
• The delays to Halo and Starfield weren't the fault of the studios. While Phil Spencer has been a busy bee trying to sort out the new X, the studios did slack off a bit. However, the 'retirement' of Bonnie Ross was mutual and not a firing. 343I were blamed for a long, long time before MS did anything and that was to save face. The real reason for the delays were the issues with the X.

I'll get laughed at for this post. Told seven ways from Sunday how it's fanboy drivel, nonsense and impossible. Maybe it is. Maybe I'm pulling your leg and this is an elite level troll. Maybe you see some truth in what I say. Maybe you wonder "How can a monster of a machine like the X not run Halo to its' full potential?" "How can so many games be delayed due to supposed 'mis-management' yet no-one is fired and no-one taken to task?"

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

that's some S-Tier nonsense right there.
it's very clear that the Series S and X were always designed to be a duo, the S being solely there to combat rising hardware costs

 

[01011001]

It didn’t run fine at all. It had triangles for enemies feet away, horrendous LOD, shadow issues where indoor areas looked bright until you walked up to them and they turned dark.

it's unfinished... and running on an Xbox One.

also I have seen way worse splitscreen modes in recent history.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It's up to you what to believe. I'm just putting it out there.

Series X is from the future, trust me bro.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I don't know what is there to argue about here. Ever since the early days of Nintendo, platform holders reserve the right to not permit a game to be released on their platform, unless they conform to certain standards.

The standards themselves are different for every platform, but it has to exist to avoid complete unplayable garbage that exists in the PC gaming landscape. This case be loading speed, that it boots, the number of bugs that exists, etc.

In this case, no one is saying Microsoft is demanding feature parity with PS5; they are demanding feature parity between Series X and Series S.

And it makes sense because Microsoft promised people like Neogaf posters that "Series S runs games just as well as X except at a lower resolution". And now that is part of the standards required to release games on Xbox. And it is the job of the game studio to MAKE IT HAPPEN. Or they don't get to release their game. MS is just keeping their promise by making sure only games that stick to their marketing, gets released. You should be happy about it!

 

[feynoob]

 

[Heisenberg007]

I don't know what is there to argue about here. Ever since the early days of Nintendo, platform holders reserve the right to not permit a game to be released on their platform, unless they conform to certain standards.

The standards themselves are different for every platform, but it has to exist to avoid complete unplayable garbage that exists in the PC gaming landscape. This case be loading speed, that it boots, the number of bugs that exists, etc.

In this case, no one is saying Microsoft is demanding feature parity with PS5; they are demanding feature parity between Series X and Series S.

And it makes sense because Microsoft promised people like Neogaf posters that "Series S runs games just as well as X except at a lower resolution". And now that is part of the standards required to release games on Xbox. And it is the job of the game studio to MAKE IT HAPPEN. Or they don't get to release their game. MS is just keeping their promise by making sure only games that stick to their marketing, gets released. You should be happy about it!

I agree.

However, it's a also double-edged sword, as in the developers can also choose not to port to Xbox at all if they can't ensure that feature parity. But that'll be extremely rare, and I'm sure Larian will solve these technical issues.

The more important point of discussion from your comment is about the feature parity and Microsoft's promise. I think there is a little bit of leeway there and use of loose definitions already. For instance, despite Microsoft's promise, "Series S runs games just as well as X except at a lower resolution," there are games that do not offer ray-tracing or 60/120 FPS modes on Series S, while they do on Series X.

So there is already a precedence (at least to an extent) that games can be different on Series X and Series, beyond just the resolution differences.

 

[Three]

It won't apply necessarily.

These clauses usually sneak in when there's a marketing agreement. So in this case, if Xbox had a marketing agreement, they'd demand PS5 feature parity on Series X|S. Without a marketing agreement, there won't be any such clause, and they can do it if they want to. That's just my understanding though.

It's in all agreements for releasing on xbox


9.Software Title parity. Each Software Title is subject to the following requirements:
9.1 Features and content parity.
9.1.1.Each Base Game and Game Feature will have at least the same features and content as any corresponding version of a Competitive Platform product, including all localization, Publisher subscriptions, support for record and share, gameplay streaming, remote access, and cloud streaming features (see Sections 11.4 – 11.7), multi-platform saves, and pack-in content from Publisher, subject to platform limitations. The parties will work together in good faith to address any platform limitations that may impact feature and content parity for the Xbox Console version.

 

[Estocolmo]

Great gif

 

[nightmare-slain]

Hopefully it's a permanent ban.

edit: sadly not. just a month

 

[Topher]

Hopefully it's a permanent ban.

edit: sadly not. just a month

Nah, he's a good guy. Just got carried away.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I agree.

However, it's a also double-edged sword, as in the developers can also choose not to port to Xbox at all if they can't ensure that feature parity. But that'll be extremely rare, and I'm sure Larian will solve these technical issues.

The more important point of discussion from your comment is about the feature parity and Microsoft's promise. I think there is a little bit of leeway there and use of loose definitions already. For instance, despite Microsoft's promise, "Series S runs games just as well as X except at a lower resolution," there are games that do not offer ray-tracing or 60/120 FPS modes on Series S, while they do on Series X.

So there is already a precedence (at least to an extent) that games can be different on Series X and Series, beyond just the resolution differences.

Keep in mind that the longer the generation goes on, the harder to keep the promise.

However, this might just be playing to expectations; Xbox's major difference with Playstation, is how quickly they abandon their console at the end of its life. I am starting to suspect this is due to MS being a software company. With software, you always want your users to update everything to the latest version ASAP. And that you try to drag your users kicking and screaming to update even if they don't want to. And this is reflected in how the previous generation of Xbox console being kicked to the curb as soon as the next gen is out.

However that is actually not how most game console operate in history; usually, some of the greatest games of a console are released near the end of its life. This is because the machine is pushed to its very limits and the studio know what they can do after so many years of experience. My personal example is Chrono Trigger and Tales of Phantasia. Both are technological marvels for the SNES when its replacements are already out. I haven't owned a PS console for a long time now, but I am pretty sure most people know of a few major releases near the end of PS2, PS3 and PS4 that pushed what the machine can do.

There was never any need for Sony or Nintendo to release a Series S. They have always simply supported the older console for a while and used that as the cheaper entry point. But Microsoft doesn't want to sell Xbox One anymore, so they made the Series S. A strange decision that made sense if you see it as a software company's culture of abandoning legacy devices.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Why would the Series S be to blame for what looks like a rather simplistic looking game ?

lol....BG3 is pretty demanding spec wise 100%

I think you're thinking of the more low res isometric RPGs.

 

[nightmare-slain]

I was about to buy this on Steam but it's only got Act 1 and your save is wiped every patch? Fuck that lol. I'll wait until release. I need a good RPG to get into once I finish Hogwarts. I've never played a Baldur's Gate game before. Well that's not true....I did buy the first one on iPad lol but I never played more than 10 minutes. Apparently it has a lot of lovecraftian inspiration?? I saw BG3 has a mind flayer dude and seems like there is a lot of cosmic horror shit going on.

 

[StueyDuck]

I call shenanigans

 

[Lucifers Beard]

It should be a requirement to list how long an exclusive arrangement is.

I’m assuming you must be blind because the game isn’t tied into exclusivity. The announcement trailer was tied to the State of Play.

Games having issues on Xbox (likely due to the Seriee S). It’ll come out, just when they know they can get it working properly.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I was about to buy this on Steam but it's only got Act 1 and your save is wiped every patch? Fuck that lol. I'll wait until release. I need a good RPG to get into once I finish Hogwarts. I've never played a Baldur's Gate game before. Well that's not true....I did buy the first one on iPad lol but I never played more than 10 minutes. Apparently it has a lot of lovecraftian inspiration?? I saw BG3 has a mind flayer dude and seems like there is a lot of cosmic horror shit going on.

Last patch has been delivered. Next time it gets a major update is when it launches. You’ll be safe to play in Early Access and finish the first act. Obviously once the full game drops you’ll lose your progress.

The beauty of D&D is trying out all different classes and race combos. The game is massively replayable but they’ve said all along that if you’re not happy with progress being wiped, you should wait until 1.0 in August.

 

[DarkMage619]

Keep in mind that the longer the generation goes on, the harder to keep the promise.

However, this might just be playing to expectations; Xbox's major difference with Playstation, is how quickly they abandon their console at the end of its life. I am starting to suspect this is due to MS being a software company. With software, you always want your users to update everything to the latest version ASAP. And that you try to drag your users kicking and screaming to update even if they don't want to. And this is reflected in how the previous generation of Xbox console being kicked to the curb as soon as the next gen is out.

There was never any need for Sony or Nintendo to release a Series S. They have always simply supported the older console for a while and used that as the cheaper entry point. But Microsoft doesn't want to sell Xbox One anymore, so they made the Series S. A strange decision that made sense if you see it as a software company's culture of abandoning legacy devices.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? The original Xbox was the only platform MS made that had it'd life cut short and that was due to manufacturing costs dealing with Intel and Nvidia. The 360 and X1 lasted an entire normal generation and the X1 STILL has games in development for it and MS was ridiculed for not 'believing in generations' like Sony.

It is also pretty funny to talk about how Sony and Nintendo support older consoles when MS is the only company with a console that supports backward compatibility with all their previous systems. They are the least likely to require customers to repurchase games and the X series supports last generations controllers too. We won't even talk about how you can stream new games on old hardware keeping some people from even needing to buy new hardware at all. Weird way to 'kick the previous generation to the curb' . No other platforms are doing any of these things.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? The original Xbox was the only platform MS made that had it'd life cut short and that was due to manufacturing costs dealing with Intel and Nvidia. The 360 and X1 lasted an entire normal generation and the X1 STILL has games in development for it and MS was ridiculed for not 'believing in generations' like Sony.

It is also pretty funny to talk about how Sony and Nintendo support older consoles when MS is the only company with a console that supports backward compatibility with all their previous systems. They are the least likely to require customers to repurchase games and the X series supports last generations controllers too. We won't even talk about how you can stream new games on old hardware keeping some people from even needing to buy new hardware at all. Weird way to 'kick the previous generation to the curb' . No other platforms are doing any of these things.

Both Nintendo and Sony have great histories of backward compatability. I find it hilarious that you are trying to change history, some of us were around long enough to see the original Xbox launch and much further back besides. Trying to give Xbox the credit for inventing something that they didn't invent, is not going to win yourself any arguments.

 

[01011001]

Both Nintendo and Sony have great histories of backward compatability. I find it hilarious that you are trying to change history, some of us were around long enough to see the original Xbox launch and much further back besides. Trying to give Xbox the credit for inventing something that they didn't invent, is not going to win yourself any arguments.

Sony has a working PS2 emulator that can play 700+ games near perfectly but refuses to let you use your own discs to play them on their system. instead they sell you these games on the store and only a handful of them as well.

PS1 emulation and backwards compatibility would be so easy to do that it was already crazy for the PS4 to not be compatible with all PS1 games given that all PS3 variants were compatible.

it's all great what they did in the past, but in the here and now Sony is more anti consumer than ever, they even literally scammed their players by selling the same product at a higher price on the PS5 store compared to the PS4 store, and I'm shocked they didn't get fined for that yet.

 

[adamsapple]

Both Nintendo and Sony have great histories of backward compatability. I find it hilarious that you are trying to change history, some of us were around long enough to see the original Xbox launch and much further back besides. Trying to give Xbox the credit for inventing something that they didn't invent, is not going to win yourself any arguments.

Sony may have had a great history but they've almost completely neglected it for 2 generations now.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Sony may have had a great history but they've almost completely neglected it for 2 generations now.

Any proof of that or is this just fud?

 

[adamsapple]

Any proof of that or is this just fud?

Proof of what ? that they've neglected backwards compatibility with older gens in the PS4 and 5 consoles with only minimal effort put in ?

You really need proof for that ?

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Proof of what ? that they've neglected backwards compatibility with older gens in the PS4 and 5 consoles with only minimal effort put in ?

You really need proof for that ?

Proof they've only put minimal effort in.

 

[adamsapple]

Proof they've only put minimal effort in.

Er.. you just need to look at the amount of PS1,2 games available to play on PS4 and PS5 despite them having a very good PS2 emulator built into the PS3.

Or are you saying I'm being generous by calling it minimal ?

 

[Hendrick's]

Er.. you just need to look at the amount of PS1,2 games available to play on PS4 and PS5 despite them having a very good PS2 emulator built into the PS3.

Or are you saying I'm being generous by calling it minimal ?

Sony's BC team consultant.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Er.. you just need to look at the amount of PS1,2 games available to play on PS4 and PS5 despite them having a very good PS2 emulator built into the PS3.

Or are you saying I'm being generous by calling it minimal ?

Proof that sony's bc has anything to do with the xbox struggling to run BG3