Support NeoGAF

[Mr Moose]

From the OP:

He goes on to say that devs should find it easier once they've moved onto their second game for the platform, since they can "plan better, knowing where some of the sharp corners are."

Is this the quote? If so, what a fucking dishonest thread title.

Yes, but: The teams will continue to develop for the Xbox Series S despite some rumblings from developers outside of Microsoft that its policy of requiring games for the $499 X to also run on the weaker $299 S can hold a project back.

• “Is it more work? Sure,” Booty says. But his teams have been able to squeeze more performance out of the Series S, especially those on their second game for this generation. “They can plan better, knowing where some of the sharp corners are.”

 

[gothmog]

I just find it funny that Microsoft can fuck up a discount console based on their own long standing support of Windows on everything from a potato to a rocket ship. Their tools just have to suck if they need to talk about sharp corners and the like. This should be a smooth port.

 

[VAVA Mk2]

So their advice is "Git gud!"?

 

[lh032]

that doesnt sound very convincing for Series S future.

 

[feynoob]

I just find it funny that Microsoft can fuck up a discount console based on their own long standing support of Windows on everything from a potato to a rocket ship. Their tools just have to suck if they need to talk about sharp corners and the like. This should be a smooth port.

"Windows store"
MS has tons of fks ups. That store is still garbage.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

Imagine taking the time to write all this on some out of context quote instead of just reading his statement.

Since the MS showcase got a lot of praise there's been an insane amount of hot takes from the the crowd that supports the other plastic box.

Like the comment Booty said is reasonable and nothing is wrong with it, it's just taken out of context by the usual suspects.

 

[feynoob]

Since the MS showcase got a lot of praise there's been an insane amount of hot takes from the the crowd that supports the other plastic box.

Like the comment Booty said is reasonable and nothing is wrong with it, it's just taken out of context by the usual suspects.

That guy needs to be quiet. 2022 is still not that far away. The most disgraced year for Xbox's history. How can you not plan for something like that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I just find it funny that Microsoft can fuck up a discount console based on their own long standing support of Windows on everything from a potato to a rocket ship. Their tools just have to suck if they need to talk about sharp corners and the like. This should be a smooth port.

Microsoft is actually a pretty terrible software developer. Windows isn't good and never has been, it's a miracle that MS has been able to somehow keep Windows working on potatoes to rocket ships all these years.

And yeah, anyone who has ever used the Windows Store on PC knows that MS is a terrible software developer. There's a reason why PC gamers want MS to fuck off and let them use Steam in peace.

 

[In Cold Blood]

And the same Id devs were concerned about Series S, especially about lack of RAM and bandwidth

And then if I remember someone brought up SFS snd he agreed that it would help.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Arrogant Sony MS is back never left.

 

[Clear]

It really isn't nearly as controversial a statement as the article title made it out to be. Typical clickbait from "thegamer"

True, but it comes across as extraordinarily tone-deaf when their main opposition are making it a point about them wanting make development less of hassle for devs. Its been central to Cerny's pitch since day 1 to avoid the mistakes of PS3, and yet... well, we get quotes like this!

 

[MarkMe2525]

Edit: as expected, This headline is taking the "plan better" quote out of context. Matt Booty stated that "Devs should have an easier time developing for the series S their second time around as they will be able to "plan better" and will know where the sharp corners are.

What purpose, other than to start console warring b*******, is there in misrepresenting people's words and starting threads about that misrepresentation.

True, but it comes across as extraordinarily tone-deaf when their main opposition are making it a point about them wanting make development less of hassle for devs. Its been central to Cerny's pitch since day 1 to avoid the mistakes of PS3, and yet... well, we get quotes like this!

It's only tone deaf when taken out of context and misrepresented. His statment holds true for any developer on any platform. Devs will be better prepared and can anticipate any potential roadblocks after they have experience with a given machine.

I hate Xbox as a brand and MS in gaming space because of things like that. Those fuckers don't give a shit about gaming as a work of art.

That's not even what he said. It's a clickbait article

 

[feynoob]

Arrogant MS

Fixed it.

 

[gothmog]

Microsoft is actually a pretty terrible software developer. Windows isn't good and never has been, it's a miracle that MS has been able to somehow keep Windows working on potatoes to rocket ships all these years.

And yeah, anyone who has ever used the Windows Store on PC knows that MS is a terrible software developer. There's a reason why PC gamers want MS to fuck off and let them use Steam in peace.

It's more lazy and uninspired.

 

[genesisblock]

First party studios is one thing, but if games starting getting a bit too ambitious, I wonder if they'll change their tune if they decide to keep it a Sony/PC exclusive since they can already see the limitations of the Series S and "plan ahead" to drop it entirely.

 

[RoboFu]

So what is this really about? Starfield being 30fps? I see no proof of any MS game being BAD on series S.

 

[Clear]

It's only tone deaf when taken out of context and misrepresented. His statment holds true for any developer on any platform. Devs will be better prepared and can anticipate any potential roadblocks after they have experience with a given machine.

Its an unforced PR error either way.

From a technical standpoint the Series S simply is what it is; you cannot talk around its deficits compared to Series X/PS5 in memory/bandwidth. They are real and need to be managed appropriately.

The bottom line is that you absolutely cannot assume every project is going to be equally affected. Some projects will be more scalable than others, so its not as if its a fixable problem. Its a matter of case-by-case opportunity cost.

 

[Knightime_X]

Devs: I hate how weak Series S is.
Also devs: WE MADE AN IMPOSSIBLE PORT ON SWITCH!

 

[Rusty Shackelford]

 

[adamsapple]

So what is this really about? Starfield being 30fps? I see no proof of any MS game being BAD on series S.

Oh nothing, just another article with an out of context headline to generate FUD. Just like the Phil Spencer Halo quote from a few days ago. Gotta milk the outrage clicks.

He's talking about developers who are on their second or more project on the Series S, who know how to plan better and squeeze more out, as they're more familiar with the console specs/target.

What a terrible statement. So Matt Booty is basically blaming the devs? The talking point we've seen toxic Xbox content creators and fans like Colteastwood, Crapdealer etc. push, now the head of XGS is more or less pushing the same thing?

See this is why it's dangerous for these gaming execs to get so close with the filth of their community. It rubs off on them, as well. The truth is the Series S, in hindsight, was just a bad idea. MS didn't think production costs would scale down enough this gen, and they wanted the mainstream and casuals onboard from Day 1. That's why they made Series S. They wanted to sandwich Sony is price & performance, but have lost on the latter and lost on arguably the most important metric: the value perception.

Yes Series S might be cheaper than PS5 Digital but you're getting a lot more value for $100 more (or $50 more if you consider getting the new black Series S). And a $399 PS5 Digital provides at least equal (if not superior) performance in 3P multiplats while being $100 cheaper than a Series X. Ironically by sticking to the normal console production strategy, Sony outplayed Microsoft and technically did nothing different compared to any other generation!

Now Microsoft are stuck supporting Series S for the rest of the generation. They promised Series S would get native versions of games for the whole gen, and they can't walk that back. Maybe there's a small window of a legal loophole they can utilize (there very well could be; I'm no legal expert), but it would be a big risk. Series S is going to pose some bigger issue going forward in terms of allowing 3P devs to scope their AAA games for a PS5/Series X baseline because the Series S simply does not have comparable specs. Looks like actual game development is not as easy in terms of scalability, as adjusting resolution of textures and image output.

I'm curious if they could lead to more 3P devs choosing to either skip Xbox platforms, or prioritize them for ports much later, since they have to always factor the Series S into the picture. And I think MS are trying to address this self-inflicted problem through big 3P acquisitions (when you own the 3P, they don't have a choice) and leveraging that to influence more 3P devs/pubs to "scope down" for stuff that's suitable for Series S, meaning those 3P are less able to baseline target Series X or more importantly, PS5. It would essentially be a form of engineering parity across the board, but through manipulated circumstances rather than naturally occurring (i.e Series X & PS5 being close enough in performance to basically result in natural parity).

That's a whole lot of words for something being so wrong.

 

[Topher]

True, but it comes across as extraordinarily tone-deaf when their main opposition are making it a point about them wanting make development less of hassle for devs. Its been central to Cerny's pitch since day 1 to avoid the mistakes of PS3, and yet... well, we get quotes like this!

I get what you are saying, but there are not a lot of good ways for Booty to address this. The further we get into this generation the more XSS is looking like an anchor for Xbox, but Booty is never going to say that. So how does he answer these questions without throwing devs under the bus and also not shitting on his own product?

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

I really don't think it is an unreasonable statement these days. There are no games out now that are even attempting to push the envelope with gameplay that would require stronger hardware. it's more graphics optimization, which seems to be a skill sorely missing from many game studios.

 

[Corndog]

Oh plan better, ok because devs have to pick up the tab for your bullshit console. Have fun trying to increase that userbase.

I believe ps3 was difficult to develop for until programmers got some experience on it. I assume that’s what he is saying. And no I am not console warring.

 

[Reallink]

Devs are already targeting Steam's super majority of potato GPU's (like GTX 1060's and 1650's) which are even weaker than SS. Worst case scenario they just have to do a batch conversion that halves or quarter rez's all the game's textures and run it at like 540p on SS. If MS wants to sell a potato, let the people play a mashed potato. With fast food and retail starting teenagers at $15-$20/hour, I'm not really sure who's that arsed about and/or can't afford the extra $100 (for a PS5) or $200 (for a SX). The Series S doesn't really make logical sense.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Matt Booty's fucking buffoonery at interviews will ensure he never gets the job. I'd pick Aaron before Matt as Spencer's replacement, and Aaron is as useful as tits on a bull.

 

[El Pistolero]

https://www.thegamer.com/xbox-series-s-game-performance-devs-plan-better/​

Even more work for overworked developers. The Booty has spoken; In its wisdom, it said: "Be better!"...

 

[yamaci17]

after seeing n64 textures on last of us and requiring tons of patches + weeks of optimization on 8 gb at 1080p, I really dread how nextgen games will run on S. I really do hope they run fine and look okay but at this point it feels like the memory is a huge limitation even at 1080p

i've always talked about how the similar behaviour was with 2-3 gb gpus happened back in 2016 but no one listened and everyone was sure that games would "scale" in terms of memory. yet somehow devs can't even scale games that target 10-11.5 GB VRAM usage to 8 GB VRAM. good luck with that I guess...

 

[Heisenberg007]

"plan better."

 

[Kataploom]

Such sensationalism, much wow.


I wish more people would read beyond the topic title but ah well. One day.

You kidding? It's a feast for haters. I mean, they barely have any business outside shitting on internet, not even playing some game sometimes, something has to feed them.

Microsoft needs to be putting in more effort to make porting down easier.

It's literally impossible to make it easier, you develop the game for Series X, once you're ready to make the Series S version, you test it on the same Series X using the Series S profile and adjust graphical features accordingly. There's no separate SDK or development environment for Series S, you only develop for Series X and adjust as needed. Modern Vintage Gamer said so in an interview but can't find it anymore... It wasn't on his channel.

Yeah, it feels like game development skills have seriously deteriorated.

I think that can be a factor considering more devs learn to work with high level languages and dev envinronments instead of "coding to the metal", but AFAIK there's a seniority lacking problem in the industry, developers with greater experience migrate to other better paid, easier to work on and with better work/life balance industries like Web/mobile apps dev.

IMO it could also be that software these days is just TOO COMPLEX, one single thing requires so much knowledge to implement, test, etc. to avoid breaking things and the fact that publishers rush releases don't give devs enough time to make a quality product. I don't think a single high skill professional like those in game industry feel right by leaving half assed work in a production build.

It's not a single dev going through this pain but "they" refers to id engine devs who was mentioned by a poster as not whining. They had also worked on the system already. They predicted the pains that later devs went through because they had gone through it. They HAD worked with it.

And how would you know if it's impossible? If developers make cuts to make it possible so they can release on xbox or in BG3 case say that they are skipping it due to Series S issues how would you know if it's a "crying dev" or the actual Series S being a pain in the ass?

What? what you're saying here isn't clear. I will just point out that there are games that run at half the framerate on Series S vs their bigger console counterparts sometimes even with missing features like raytracing.



Now you must just be pulling my leg because there is no way you actually believe that.

How? The resolution struggle with the Series S is mainly gpu related. Memory constraints are different and related to other things like map sizes, enemies on screen, BVH raytracing. How would the industry be proving that wrong? Especially as 'the industry' is complaining and id actually released doom on Series S without raytracing exactly as they predicted they would?

1. Do you mean this dev? Well, there are a couple of them actually, that was before the console came out: Source.

A couple devs don't mean the entire studio, which BTW, had another person saying good things about the Series S in that article.

2. We already have complex games running on XSS or about to release. Even the RT only Metro version... I mean, are you saying that BG3 is more complex than Starfield gonna be? What about the dual world rendering in The Medium?

3. Ok, games are gimped on XSS, which means only XSS version is affected, nor XSX or PS5 seem compromised beyond their own limitations.

4. Yes, I don't have to "believe" XSX/PS5 limits are being pushed all the time, you just have to see current gen games like Jedi Survivor going below 1080p internal resolution in current gen consoles, other games won't release with 60 fps mode and when they do (like Requiem), they're just too compromised. They don't need the XSS to limit them, devs are hitting their performance ceilling consistently on those consoles and that's before they think of XSS.

Because that's their job. Doesn't mean what they said is being proven wrong. They're making games that have the Series S constraints in mind. They are making games around that system.

They complained that the memory constraints don't allow them to do BVH raytracing. Lo and behold Doom Eternal was missing raytracing on Series S. Not exactly proving themselves wrong is it?

Again, that's a XSS version being gimped, not XSX/PS5 version being gimped because of XSS. For XSX/PS5 owners, XSS won't matter at all.

BTW, most of the reason why XSS don't get RT is because of these expensive hybrid lighting models, that's because RT is currently an expensive gimmick no console should try to push. If devs want to make even XSS RT performance somewhat decent, they should make something like Lumen or full RT like Metro Exodus, which runs on XSS and performed/looked way worse when they just had "RT on top of rasterized" lighting model. I'd opt out of using RT this generation at all though.

I believe ps3 was difficult to develop for until programmers got some experience on it. I assume that’s what he is saying. And no I am not console warring.

Nothing compared to PS3 AFAIK, XSS doesn't even have its own dev kit, you develop for XSX and adjust graphics accordingly on a XSS profile on the dev kit.

 

[93xfan]

So their advice is "Git gud!"?

No. It’s a clickbait article taking 2 words way out of context.

 

[Ozriel]

They complained that the memory constraints don't allow them to do BVH raytracing. Lo and behold Doom Eternal was missing raytracing on Series S. Not exactly proving themselves wrong is it?

And that’s in line with what Booty is saying. Next time round, they won’t even bother attempting to get RT working on Series S and just focus on what it can handle from day one. That should make their work easier.

Series S owners already know the hardware isn’t going to give them games on the level of the flagship consoles and I presume they’re perfectly fine with that.

Nobody buys an RTX 2060 and expects RTX 4080 tier performance.

 

[DeVeAn]

It's a great little box but yeah the GPU and RAM is a chokehold, when we've got games looking better on PS4 Pro (Street Fighter 6 runs at 1440p on PS4 Pro, 1080p on Series S) it's a bit of a flare shot.

No VRR though and world tour runs 30fps on PlayStation 4 pro.

 

[RCU005]

Great strategy from Xbox: Let’s make development harder for a console that has less than a third of market share and makes devs <10% what PlayStation and Nintendo.

 

[Robb]

Feels like an overblown problem to me in an age of cloud solutions etc. if you don’t want to downgrade your game/make a native version, just make a cloud version and suddenly it’s playable on Series S without downgrades.

 

[hyperbertha]

From the OP:

He goes on to say that devs should find it easier once they've moved onto their second game for the platform, since they can "plan better, knowing where some of the sharp corners are."

Is this the quote? If so, what a fucking dishonest thread title.

No the meaning is essentially the same. He admits they will run into sharp corners, and expects them to plan better to avoid a problem that shouldn't have been there in the first place. The clown.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Another reason for devs that don't expect much sales to skip Xbox as a whole, free exclusivity for PS5 without moneyhatting.

 

[Forsythia]

MS should allow devs to release a game only on Series X and skip the S.

 

[rofif]

What’s the big deal? They can lower the resolution and objects amount and textures and done.
It’s only last gen power and most games look last gen anyway
/s

 

[acm2000]

It's almost like pc gaming never existed on this forum, you develop to the highest hardware (x) and then you can downscale to the lowest (s).

As we move into these "next gen" only games the tools/engines catch up to make it easier to make these games and using the MS profiler you can lower settings to get things running on the S.

It doesn't affect the end result on the ps5/X version at all.

 

[Riky]

So what is this really about? Starfield being 30fps? I see no proof of any MS game being BAD on series S.

Forza Horizon 5 looks stunning on Series S, Halo Infinite runs at 120fps. Then the real next gen only stuff runs great on Series S.
Metro Exodus, Flight Simulator and the Matrix Demo all run really well on Series S so the machine is clearly quite capable.
We'll see how Forza Motorsport runs soon and that's a big test as it should be doing things like in game RT that weren't possible last gen. Looking at the mentioned titles though I don't think it will have a problem.

 

[Edmund]

Matt Booty (Banned - Lazy Dev Rhetoric)

 

[Nydius]

Like the comment Booty said is reasonable and nothing is wrong with it, it's just taken out of context by the usual suspects.

He’s saying the first game a dev makes that has to deal with feature parity between X and S will be difficult, and after going through that process they will learn to “plan ahead” for their next game.

“Here’s our amazing next gen, 12 teraflop console and its dev kit… but make sure you get it running on our gimped 4 teraflop machine with 6gb less ram. Once you struggle with your first project, you’ll be better positioned to optimize for your next one!”

How is that at all reasonable? It’s not. It’s rather bullshit for developers, honestly. It’s making them increase their workload to make, effectively, two versions of the game on Series consoles where they only need to make one version for the PS5. And they see almost no benefit from that extra work — all the benefit goes to Microsoft who has leaned on the Series S for sales this generation.

 

[Tsaki]

or prioritize them for ports much later, since they have to always factor the Series S into the picture.

Baldur's Gate 3 says Hi.

 

[Banjo64]

It's almost like pc gaming never existed on this forum, you develop to the highest hardware (x) and then you can downscale to the lowest (s).

As we move into these "next gen" only games the tools/engines catch up to make it easier to make these games and using the MS profiler you can lower settings to get things running on the S.

It doesn't affect the end result on the ps5/X version at all.

You should send a tweet to Larian to let them know.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sounds like a rough statement to make. I like the series s a lot but it's obviously been a pain for devs to master.

 

[SeraphJan]

Not a fan of Series S, but if multiplat games could run on Nintendo Switch, there are no reason it can't on Series S, just reduce frame rate to 30, resolution to sub 1080p, low res texture etc.

If you buy a budget console, expect budget experience, as simple as that

 

[Corndog]

You kidding? It's a feast for haters. I mean, they barely have any business outside shitting on internet, not even playing some game sometimes, something has to feed them.

It's literally impossible to make it easier, you develop the game for Series X, once you're ready to make the Series S version, you test it on the same Series X using the Series S profile and adjust graphical features accordingly. There's no separate SDK or development environment for Series S, you only develop for Series X and adjust as needed. Modern Vintage Gamer said so in an interview but can't find it anymore... It wasn't on his channel.


I think that can be a factor considering more devs learn to work with high level languages and dev envinronments instead of "coding to the metal", but AFAIK there's a seniority lacking problem in the industry, developers with greater experience migrate to other better paid, easier to work on and with better work/life balance industries like Web/mobile apps dev.

IMO it could also be that software these days is just TOO COMPLEX, one single thing requires so much knowledge to implement, test, etc. to avoid breaking things and the fact that publishers rush releases don't give devs enough time to make a quality product. I don't think a single high skill professional like those in game industry feel right by leaving half assed work in a production build.


1. Do you mean this dev? Well, there are a couple of them actually, that was before the console came out: Source.

A couple devs don't mean the entire studio, which BTW, had another person saying good things about the Series S in that article.

2. We already have complex games running on XSS or about to release. Even the RT only Metro version... I mean, are you saying that BG3 is more complex than Starfield gonna be? What about the dual world rendering in The Medium?

3. Ok, games are gimped on XSS, which means only XSS version is affected, nor XSX or PS5 seem compromised beyond their own limitations.

4. Yes, I don't have to "believe" XSX/PS5 limits are being pushed all the time, you just have to see current gen games like Jedi Survivor going below 1080p internal resolution in current gen consoles, other games won't release with 60 fps mode and when they do (like Requiem), they're just too compromised. They don't need the XSS to limit them, devs are hitting their performance ceilling consistently on those consoles and that's before they think of XSS.


Again, that's a XSS version being gimped, not XSX/PS5 version being gimped because of XSS. For XSX/PS5 owners, XSS won't matter at all.

BTW, most of the reason why XSS don't get RT is because of these expensive hybrid lighting models, that's because RT is currently an expensive gimmick no console should try to push. If devs want to make even XSS RT performance somewhat decent, they should make something like Lumen or full RT like Metro Exodus, which runs on XSS and performed/looked way worse when they just had "RT on top of rasterized" lighting model. I'd opt out of using RT this generation at all though.


Nothing compared to PS3 AFAIK, XSS doesn't even have its own dev kit, you develop for XSX and adjust graphics accordingly on a XSS profile on the dev kit.

Not sure what you’re saying.
The ps3 was known for being difficult to develop for. The memory wasn’t unified. The gpu was weak. And the cpu required a lot of multi threading to get the most out of it. And obviously the series s takes more work as well with its weaker gpu and less available ram.

 

[Three]

1. Do you mean this dev? Well, there are a couple of them actually, that was before the console came out: Source.

Devs get a console before it comes out. They had worked with it. Even assuming for the sake of argument that they didn’t have it, what would they have discovered once they had the system? Did it have some hidden high speed RAM they weren't aware of? They were senior engine developers. They knew the RAM amount and bandwidth on a fairly standardised piece of hardware. What would they have discovered to compensate that?

2. We already have complex games running on XSS or about to release. Even the RT only Metro version... I mean, are you saying that BG3 is more complex than Starfield gonna be? What about the dual world rendering in The Medium?

Define "complex". BG3 is doing splitscreen meaning it has some more requirements that starfield doesn't, because it is simultaneously maintaining assets from two parts of the world in RAM and rendering them simultaneously.

3. Ok, games are gimped on XSS, which means only XSS version is affected, nor XSX or PS5 seem compromised beyond their own limitations.

That's not how it works for everything if it's a gameplay feature. Take the BG3 example, series s is having issues but that prevents or delays a Series X release until they figure something out. Now if Larian Studios wanted to avoid that 'sharp corner' they could have just cut splitscreen from everything and planned ahead and not announced it for their next game.

4. Yes, I don't have to "believe" XSX/PS5 limits are being pushed all the time, you just have to see current gen games like Jedi Survivor going below 1080p internal resolution in current gen consoles, other games won't release with 60 fps mode and when they do (like Requiem), they're just too compromised. They don't need the XSS to limit them, devs are hitting their performance ceilling consistently on those consoles and that's before they think of XSS.

If you're not hitting your performance ceiling on console then you're doing it wrong, you're meant to hit the ceiling. Resolution isn't where you need "planning" or where the Series S would limit XSX/PS5. It's things like assets, modes, map layout/size etc.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Not sure what you’re saying.
The ps3 was known for being difficult to develop for. The memory wasn’t unified. The gpu was weak. And the cpu required a lot of multi threading to get the most out of it. And obviously the series s takes more work as well with its weaker gpu and less available ram.

One mistake doesn't make the other one a right one. PS3 was a mistake, and even Sony admitted it.

Mark Cerny frankly recounts Sony’s mistakes with the PlayStation 3

PlayStation 4 architect Mark Cerny shares an insider's view of what went wrong on the PS3.

venturebeat.com

 

[Heisenberg007]

Another reason for devs that don't expect much sales to skip Xbox as a whole, free exclusivity for PS5 without moneyhatting.

Or they can just contact Sony and mention that they are interested in PS exclusivity.

• Earn some extra money from Sony,
• Make the game they wanted to make without compromises,
• Gets PlayStation's fantastic marketing,
• Avoid worrying about optimizing the game for 2 additional SKUs,
• Cut down the time needed to ship games

win-win-win.