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
[–] 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