160
Why Baldur’s Gate III is an accidental PS5 console exclusive (www.engadget.com)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/gaming@beehaw.org
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent