Dying Light 2 Lead Designer Says Xbox Series S GPU Is 'Holding Us Back' From 60FPS

IS 30 FPS really that bad? I do own Series S, I'm just not interested in Dying Light but I assume 30 FPS in a non-competetive singleplayer game wouldn't be that much of an issue? I saw some gameplay videos and the world does look dense af so Tymons comment makes sense to me. I feel like 60 fps would be achiavable but the pop-in would be awful to look at

Just use AMD FSR? Drop res to 900p?

No need to attack the developers but it is poorly optimized on all consoles. There’s no reason that if the series x can have an exclusive 120 fps mode that it also couldn’t do 1440p 60fps on performance and the series S 900p 60fps. I think they just ran out of time even after delaying it.

Oh no here come the "developers are wrong" parade, those who don't know how developing a game works always know best 😑

I find all the arm chair devs really frustrating. Folks treat their own speculation as fact when it's not. It's clear Techland are doing their best within the limitations of both the hardware and their engine which only they know the insides of.

I think Techland have done a decent first pass for the launch. The game is not unplayable it's not a Cyberpunk not even close to those levels of broken.

We can all wish it could do better as I am sure every Dev does for every game ever made. However wishes don't solve problems and often times it's going to just take time while they work on the things folks are highlighting.

While I do think some folks are going a bit overboard with the vitriol this does feel a lot like the first Dying Light. It wasn't perfect at launch either but only got better going forward.

Me I have finished my first run at the game though I only really focused the story. I had a few glitches, maybe 5 I think, but there was a whole lot of fun in between.

I am going straight back into a new game to try other game choices and to do a more complete run this go around. It just that fun for me and I hope folks who do have genuine issues get to that point too.

I mean it was only a matter of time before the S started being an issue like this, right?

@Vepra It is a locked 30 fps, so no it is not bad at all in my opinion. I choose almost 4K at 30 fps and it feels great and looks very nice!

One of my biggest tech mistakes over the last few years was falling under media influence and getting Series S. And before people start hammering on me, no, not because of some MS/Nintendo/Sony debate.
It was a mistake because I believed the experience wouldn't be affected as significantly to matter to me. In reality, presentation is subpar, performance is typically targeting 30fps max and is painfully worse compared to 60fps modes on other machines.. If I have been objectively informed about the state of things, no I would not have decided to skip Xbox generation, I would have made some cuts and purchased Series X instead.

@Vepra we've all been playing games at 30fps for years and years lol. 60 is nice, and i do now prefer it to be honest, but anyone pretending 30 is unplayable is just being silly lol

When the devs criticize the series s hardware when the series x version is just 1080p60, I can't take them seriously anymore. The problem is the engine and poor optimizations inherited from the first game.

I've seen nothing in the game to suggest S shouldn't be able to do 900p 60fps.
I'm on X though, and its 60 fps yes, but 1080p. It should be able to do 1440p at least.
Poor optimisation imo.

@NeutronBomb and to have them blame the system after having to delay the game more than once, and then deliver it buggy as hell (on everything but PC apparently) is ridiculous. own up to your game not being what it should have been, and fix it. be adults.

XSS and XSX are the standard that was put out for the XB Platform. Techland has known the standard for a long time. If XSS is the bottleneck then developers should be using that as their lead platform to avoid issues like this.

You have to remember there is still a lot slower then XSS hardware on many PCs. I understand what the developer is saying but the rationale is essentially, "We thought we could do X with this hardware, but it turns out we can only do Y". That is like saying, "I want to build a 400 storey building, let's build the first 100 floors and then figure out the next 300". Well, if the building has fundamental flaws in the design and foundation that won't get it to 400 floors, then you might as well restart the building because essentially you didn't plan it properly.

I’m sure after some optimisation they could achieve a resolution bump to the Series X performance mode.

@Savage_Joe I came here to say this.

If the high end versions had been in better shape, then it would have been fair to blame the Series S, but as it is, this would be like blaming the Switch for Deadly Premonition 2.

As a PC builder, people really seem to be forgetting some things here. The key thing being is that the GPU is the most versatile piece of hardware in any rig.

i'm also seeing many people claiming the Series S isn't next gen and that its holding things back. People don't seem to know why things is called generations anymore.
Series S GPU is literally whats in the other systems. Its clock speed was just toned down but its literally the same GPU tech. It can pump out the exact same visual model fidelity but not at the same framerate.
it could be said that the S could achieve 60 on that game but some GPU heavy things (like shadows) would have to be culled down. The less it has to process in real time, the better its performance will be.
So this sounds more like they don't want parity removed for the sake of performance. The CPU is identical to all machines, just about, so they definitely had breathing room for all the important things.

They really didn't word it in a good way.

Never been a fan of 2 consoles launching simultaneously or the mid gen refresh (Xbox one X). Just release ONE CONSOLE and go with THAT CONSOLE until the end of that gen. This mix and match approach is not only confusing to nongamers but just makes technical nightmares that need not be.

This is not good news..

The problem here is they've aimed for the sky with the PC version and then had to scale down for consoles, where as most devs actually aim for consoles as the priority and then scale up for PC.
The game is cross-gen and to only be running at 1080p 60FPS on Series X and PS5 is a disgrace.

Damn yous, series s. How could you?? I guess it's back to forza horizon 5 and halo infinite and other great games, that can be run decently.

@Medic_Alert while I agree that the xbox one was... what you said it was 😂 the Switch has been a major exception to that. That is one true underpowered POS that has managed to sell 100M+ units. The problem with the xbox one (which was still stronger than my 2013 gaming laptop) were the games (xbox has no games, yada yada), being more expensive than the ps4 and Don't Mattrick killing the console before it even launched.

I bought the mammoth xbox one and really loved it, and it's still capable of running DL2 and Halo Infinite decently even with all its shortcomings.

So is this 30 FPS just on the series s or on all consoles? I'd imagine that ok the series s could be only at 30 FPS but the other's should be much higher no?

You've gotta respect the open response from the developer, at the end of the day you can only fit so much on a single piece of paper know matter how big or small the design is. Erasing some of the designs to find a gap to expand & make it look better in depth can be task that is hard to furfill and complete to show to the audience with delightment, and that's how it is with a limited amount of memory to cram on & implement on a CPU GPU, it's a shame many people don't know it, you get what you're given I suppose.

DL2 is a good game, but not being able to choose performance mode is a bit of a kick in the teeth for me personally. I bought a next gen console (series s) so I could play next gen games, I could play DL2 on xbox one an not no the difference apart from the price. Great game just needs performance mode adding sooner rather then later.

Right. Coming from the same devs who launched the game in a broken state on all platforms and are going to drip feed us content to their unfinished game... yeah, it's totally not their fault. Give me a break. I'm sick of these devs and their laziness and their lies.

Seems more like a case of unrealistic expectations of the Series S. It does have strengths, but GPU (and memory bandwidth) are not its strong points. This has been seen already in some Microsoft games like FH5 and Halo Infinite. Also 360 games only getting 2x resolution as opposed to the One X at 3x.
With frame rates matched the One X has much higher resolution in lots of games over Series S. This is a GPU heavy game as can been seen from PC performance. They may be able to drop graphics settings lower and go to 720p(or lower possibly) for 60fps, but that would really hurt the presentation if the game as it relies so heavily on detailed foliage.

I wouldn't talk like those players but there are better ways to address feedback. The way they communicate was meant to backfire. Just work on the patches and don't say what might and might not work. I assume it's a mistake but Microsoft/Sony/Epic sewers? LOL I guess he means servers.

Seeing the game on Series X points at poor optimisation on all consoles. They blame Series S. Oh boy. Why not blame Xbox One or the cancelled Switch version (the latter is a joke)? Wait, I just checked and there is a Switch cloud version 😂.

@Vepra it has nothing to do with being a competitive multilayer game or not. It's about the kind of gameplay. In a turn-based RPG like Dragon Quest, 30 fps wouldn't matter. But in a game with a lot of action and movement like this, 30 fps just sucks.

And yeah, I'm really salty about 30 fps on the XSS. I didn't realize it wouldnt have a 60 fps mode or I wouldn't have bought it.

Since it's not been brought up yet, and for all those using this as justification that the Series S "shouldn't exist" or is "holding the games back";

Dying Light 2 is also on the XBox One and PS4.

To have a game running on the base Xbox One, and not be able to hit 60fps on much stronger hardware is, again, a sign that they really didn't optimise the versions of the game.

@Richnj not to mention the abundance of "bad optimization" reviews on steam. Apparently pcs are holding the game back, as well.

When the game can only do 1080p/60 on series x, I would agree indeed it is the game that is holding the hardware back.

Yea, lots of density. They made a game that simply aimed at specs higher than this new generation, making it simply a poor experience on consoles.