Don’t want to sound arrogant, but most people here (including OP and the writers of the article) don’t seam to know much about video game development.
Because statements like “… Isn’t about graphics or frame rate; it’s memory” don’t make sense at all.
Because if you fast memory is to small you would either more often read from a slower memory which results in less frame rate or you would need to make the stuff that fill up your memory (most often textures) smaller (lower resolution) which “reduces graphics”
The article says something more business politics related: “Microsoft requires all games to run, feature-complete and without changes in quality or mechanics” on both Versions S and X. I’m not really believe this to be true because this would make the existence of more powerful X version completely pointless. However what I think can be the case is that Microsoft QA is forcing the studio to adapt the game for the series S before it could be published. This needs time. Since there is no low spec version for the PS5 there is no need for additional adaptations.
Microsoft is OK with the S having a lower resolution and frame rate, that’s why it exists.
They aren’t OK with the X having a feature that the S does not, and that’s what’s blocking Baldur’s Gate 3. Split screen is possible on the X, it’s not (currently) possible on the S, that’s what they’re working on.
Removing split screen from both isn’t an option because the PS5 version supports it. The Xbox version would get murdered if they do it.
The reason why split screen doesn’t work on the S is, yes, due to the available memory. At it’s best, it has 8GB that runs 1/2 the speed of the X, + another 2GB that are so slow as to be essentially useless for gaming.
What could split screen bring that it will not work with the S memory? Because one object will not take up twice the space just because split screen. The texture of it will (hopefully) only loaded once for both screens.
What can change is the total amount of objects that are loaded into memory since the players can now be simultaneously on two different places.
So as a Developer you will need to find a way to get around this. Maybe by reducing the textures of the objects even more, so that you can load more of them in the same space. Or maybe by remove non essential object from the scene at all so that by default less object needed to be loaded. Also the screen is now half the size so maybe limit the field of view more to start loading in objects a little later.
What ever they decide to do, this will require additional steps that are only needed because MS want’s the game to be optimised for the series S.
From a Developer perspective I could understand if they maybe decide to ditch the Xbox release completely because of this additional workload needed.
Plus: if removing background objects from the scene in order to save memory is something that needs to be consistent on both S and X version because of MS policy, you will get “less graphics” on the X then what would be possible, just because the S exist… What completely undermines the complete existence of the X.
And of course non of this is just because split screen. This will most likely be true for every game on Xbox. It’s just that for most games it’s enough to cut resolution down for the S and leave the rest as it is.
Each view of the world requires that the entire visible world be loaded twice, so that it can be seen from each players perspective independent of the other.
If we go into a dungeon, I go left and you go right, it has to render both pathways simultaneously. In a single player or single screen two player game, it only has one path to consider.
Loading in memory and rendering are different things. Of course it needs to be rendered twice but also you cut resolution in half so rendered both screens is not that much more of work.
Did I at some point say that I’m the most advanced expert?
I just pointed out that many of the statements in the article don’t make sense from a logical point of view. Split screen with this game on the S will be possible, I’m sure it will, but that requires additional work to do regardless of what the reasoning behind this is.
Now I just reading pointless sh*t Talk while I was trying to hold a technical conversation… But yes thank you all.
Dude, you rocked up saying both the writer and I didn’t “seam [sic] to know much about video game development,” then proceeded to be, well, loud and wrong about how split screen works. You can’t get defensive when you started out attacking.
Didn’t want to be offensive sorry if you felt that way.
I think I made my point clear. Maybe I’m wrong about some details about split screen maybe we talking all about the same stuff but misunderstanding each other IDK. But again my main point is a different.
Because all my statements about split screen are actually just coming from general knowledge about game development and working on a network multiplayer game and assuming what would not be needed in local co-op I actually did some research about this topic now to make sure I didn’t had false assumptions here.
This video here shows one Implementation of split screen youtu.be/tkBgYD0R8R4 of course this could be implemented differently by larian studios but I’m pretty sure the basic principle stays the same.
And the basic principle is not running the game two times. It’s running two Views at the same time in the same world. So obviously there is no need to have everything twice in memory. So right now I don’t see anything about what I said about split screen being proven wrong.
Of course there will be more load on the hardware for two players split screen but it’s not the game running two times.
No questions that the a slower RAM compared to X or PS5 is causing bottleneck on the series S, never denied this, but this bottlenecks will go down in FPS performance and all of this can be worked around by developers by “optimising” the game. At which point this optimisation is seen as reduction in quality is up to debate. That’s what I want to say.
BG3’s PC minimum specs list 4gb vram and 8gb normal ram. Assuming windows uses 3 gb, that’s 9gbs of total memory that the game needs. They could just use lower res textures when in splitscreen and be done with it, but I guess they want to compromise as little as possible
Edit: apparently Microsoft wants games to use less than 6 just in case someone tries to activate all background functions at once. That is indeed quite stupid.
I didn’t see any mentions of how much overhead the system has in the article? I had assumed it would be 2 gb as why else would they make 2gb of the memory slower than the rest. Someone else in the thread basically confirms that, but apparently Microsoft wants games to run within 6gbs just in case background downloads / chat etc takes 2gb more.
Because statements like “… Isn’t about graphics or frame rate; it’s memory” don’t make sense at all.
I get what you’re saying but it does make sense actually. The Series S has incredibly under-powered memory which has hobbled a lot of developers thus far. It’s the core reason why they can’t get split-screen working right yet. Framerate/graphics are more associated with GPU performance, which is not as big of an issue for the S. Everything bottlenecks on the very small, very weak memory they provided.
Nah, the specific issue they’re having is definitely a memory issue. Split-screen doesn’t really require that much more processing power, but it does need more memory, and preferably faster memory, to buffer everything.
In theory yes, but practically speaking trying to access a lot of the modern web over TOR would be at best painfully slow and at worst almost impossible thanks to DDoS protection providers like cloudflare.
This right here. A very large part of the web is inaccessible from TOR. Last I tried you couldn’t access social media, Google constantly forces you through captchas because it thinks you’re a bot, and anything on a CDN will either forces captchas or just doesn’t work. Financial institutions absolutely are all inaccessible.
Privacy is important, but most of the places you want to go with TOR to stay private won’t let you in because malicious actors want to use it for the same reasons.
While I agree with you, I’m wondering what the benefit is of watching youtube and posting/reading lemmy/mastodon through a tor network. Because those are the main things I do. While I do understand that in some countries and also in public wifi networks the chances of traffic being intercepted and man in the middle attacks are higher, I do not expect that to happen to my fibre connection in my western country.
Unless you browse Geocities sites from 1998, intercepting and MITMing is simply not an issue. Everything built nowadays uses https, which fully protects you against those.
Yeah people when they discuss Neworking and VPNs I’ve noticed are either illiterate to the existence of https or are deliberately not mentioning it for the purpose of misleading people in some way (in the case of VPN sponsorships it’s to get people to buy them).
I’d rather not waste my time reading an article about a program I’m not currently using to find out if I should use it our not. I’d rather see a post that has bulletpoints with pre’s and cons. My time is limited enough as it is.
[edit] I realise that my comment will probably come across as unfriendly so I will add some explaining to it.
I am currently in a western country using a fibre landline and I trust my internet provider to not intercept my data or use things like a man in the middle attack. Am I right for assuming that and if so, would tor prevent that? Will tor slow down my internet? I mostly watch youtube videos and read/post on lemmy/mastodon. I am not against using tor at all, but my energy and time are limited so I don’t feel like reading a whole article just for an app I do not feel the need to use. I am currently very happy with my firefox browser and all the add-ons I use. And with all the modifications I have put into it to make it work just the way I like. Would I loose all that by switching to tor? I am prepared to change to tor but I am not in the camp of “protect privacy at all costs, even if it greatly inconveniences me”. Especially if the risks of not using tor seem quite low in my situation.
okay. perhaps instead of wasting your time writing an entire paragraph, you should read the article and you’ll find out that that entire paragraph was irrelevant
it’s actually not an article about the pros and cons of tor. it could not be summed up in bullet points about the pros and cons of tor
i’ll admit to being a little facetious before, but i implore you to read articles before commenting on them
Thing is… if I have to do that for every time someone linkdrops an article, I’ll have no time left in my day.
if you spent less time writing comments about articles you haven’t read, you might have more time. do you do this in other walks of life? wander into restaurants you’ve never eaten at and announce “i don’t think there’s really any reason to order the fish”?
And it seems I was right that I have no real reason to use tor.
okay, i’ll sum the article up for you. the more people that use tor, the more it protects vulnerable people. journalists writing exposés about corrupt governments, refugees trying to flee, etc. the more normal people using tor, the more they get lost in the crowd. it’s nothing to do with whether you have any reason to use tor, that’s irrelevant. by using it, you’re helping those in vulnerable positions. happy? now go write something inciteful
Sounds like they are becoming worried over the growth of these networks and wants to convince the large public that they should stay away.
It’s pretty much standard tactics to paint a false picture of something, and they get away with it too. I bet people will now say “mastadon, isn’t that where there is child porn? No thanks”.
I know I am gonna be one of the few, but I use YouTube as my main viewing of things. I don’t use Netflix, or any of the other services much. Premium is something I can’t be without anymore tbh, the ad free and downloading is super convenient for me and I like how a lot of my premium subscription goes to the creators I watch the most.
That’s where I’m at. I use it regularly for learning new things and for entertainment, so I don’t mind paying for it, and getting rid of ads while supporting creators is perfectly fine with me.
You can get ad free Youtube with Firefox plus ublock origin for free. There are even Firefox extensions to skip the paid sponsor ads in every youtube video nowadays. There are also countless Youtube downloader programs out there. You don’t need to pay for it at all to get the features that YouTube premium offers.
Paying to support content creators is the only reason I would consider YouTube premium unless I was very tech illiterate, I guess. YouTube music also seems somewhat worth the price, in my opinion.
Edit: This comment can come off as condescending. I don’t mean it as such, if you pay for YouTube premium that’s cool. I just wanted to make it known that people don’t have to pay YouTube money to get those features if they don’t want to.
I get where you’re coming from, however I find it is personally easier and it is within my financial means to pay for premium instead. I am aware not everyone can but I am glad I can do that. I also support some creators through Patreon for their YouTube content as well. Currently, I am almost completely ad free with the content I consume and sometimes that means I pay money and other times I use an ad blocker. I should also note that I watch the majority of YouTube on my iPhone or on a PS4 and while there are alternatives on the App Stores I prefer the native YouTube apps.
I don’t have a problem with them charging for the service. But they keep raising it dramatically over and over. You’re paying $15 a month to watch content a YouTube creator is getting 25 cents to create. If they wanted to charge $9.99 a month for a family plan I’d be all about it. At the prices they’re charging there are services running full blown movie houses
What’s sad and superficial is that these kinds of restrictions and bans just cover a symptom but don’t cure the problem. Maybe they even make it worse. We need an overhaul of our cultural foundation and educational system.
Names starting with Nigge are not uncommon in German - it can be traced back to old lower German, meaning ‘new’ - as in, the new guy in the settlement.
In some cases local dialects ended up adding an r to it over the centuries - and nowadays a bonus of problems signing up to websites.
No offense, but I’d say your claim of ‘not uncommon’ is rather inaccurate, and with an additional ‘r’ at the end, that would be even fewer people. Honestly, in all my life I’ve neither met nor heard of someone named either variant. (Though for the first one, a quick wikipedia search brings up two apparently-notable-enough people, a quick general search suggests overall it’s less than 500 out of the 84 million Germans. No result for the r-variant, and one news story about a guy struggling with his name being the German equivalent.)
I suppose “Niggemann” or similar would be more common, but also not terribly so, from my experience.
I know several people with Nigge in the name - probably less common in the parts of Germany where lower German wasn’t spoken.
It also exists as component in the middle nof names, both with and without r - and does so in other languages as well.
The point of this example is that you can’t just filter and be done with it - depending on what you’re doing filtering, flagging for review or not filtering and acting on complaints are all valid strategies - but there is no version where you can do without staff to either block or unblock names.
edit looks like the slur filter on lemmy.ml censors the name of German journalist Stefan Niggemeier
Racism, homophobia, and similar phenomena often come from ignorance and from living within a bubble. But many responses to them also show clear signs of ignorance and living within a bubble…
“In case a gatekeeper does not comply with the obligations laid out in the DMA, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company’s total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement.”
Meta’s global revenue last year was $134 billion. It would have to be a historic fine to even make a dent. I’m not hopeful. This will be another “cost of doing business” situation.
They haven’t gotten that fine yet and $13 billion out of $134 billion is absolutely a “cost of doing business” fine. If they still make massive profits at the end of the year, they haven’t been hurt.
Corporations have to be punished and they rarely are.
No, a million is cost of doing business. Once you get into single digit percentage fines, you’re hurting them. Or do you expect shareholders to say, “ah, that’s fine, that’s just the EU, we’re gonna hold Meta stock because we like them”?
Another thing to consider is that it’s also about how many of those fines can the company absorb. Fine them a million? They can take a thousand of those before it even starts making a dent. But how many of the 1% fines can they take? 5? 10? 20?
Why would you want that? Do you seriously want to bankrupt a company for a single mistake? Not sure that’s the world I want to live in. Once this cat’s out of the bag, it’s hard to put back.
I agree, they haven’t got that fine, never mind actually paid it. But it would be about a third of their profits, not exactly negligible, and it could double for repeated offences.
Imagine you making $100K last year doing some shady business. You got caught and convicted in federal court, your punishment is $10K fine, and that’s it. You’re free to change your tactics and make sure you don’t get caught next time.
It’s a little bit stink, but it’s the best you could asked for.
13 billions to Meta may not be a slap on the wrist, but more like 5 spanks and 15 minutes timeout.
Imagine your “shady stuff” is not putting money into the parking meter because you are lazy. You get hit with a 10k fine. You then fix that and start putting money into the parking meter. Because ultimately it cost you less to fix it, than pay the fine. That’s the language corporations understand.
That said, my original point is that training data gathered from queries is probably not valuable enough to offset the costs of unpaid GP4 query compute for the biggest smart phone manufacturer on earth.
The data is valuable, but for GP4 access, OpenAI would rather scrape chat forums, sell integration licenses, or sell pro licenses to offset all those damn Nvidia chips.
I doubt that’s the play. OpenAI is probably locked into a service contract, and Apple had built the platform so different 3rd party LLMs can be swapped out by Apple or the end user. So if OpenAI breached the contract, Apple could go with a different default model.
I had never heard of Humane until I read this article. After also reading Engadget’s review of the thing, it sounds like an absolute nightmare to use.
Maybe I’m too old-school and impatient, but I’ve never been able to make voice assistants work for me. It’s a feedback loop: the assistant fails to do a task, so I become resistant to using it in the future. Even the thing I’ve used an assistant for the most, playing music out of a Nest speaker, seems to still be hit-or-miss after years of trying, and in some ways seems to be getting worse.
The gestures also sound awful. As with voice assistants, I’ve never gotten comfortable with smartphone gestures beyond the most rudimentary. I strictly use 3-button navigation on my phone, and I use Connect as my Lemmy app of choice because it allows me to disable all the swipe commands for upvote/downvote.
I stopped all voice assistants when they started getting snippy with me for being rude to them. I don’t need a poorly design if statement snapping back at me for showing my frustration at its inability to do a basic task.
Hamad discovered that the video, which was taken by Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza, was misclassified as pornographic. He said he received conflicting guidance on whether he was authorized to help resolve the issue but was eventually told in writing that helping troubleshoot it was part of his tasks. A month later, though, Hamad was reportedly notified that he was the subject of an investigation. He filed an internal discrimination complaint in response, but he was fired days later and was told that it was because he violated a policy that prohibits employees from working on issues involving accounts of people they personally know. Hamad, who is Palestinian-American, has denied that he personally knew Azaiza.
engadget.com
Top