Halo Infinite Players Discover Split-Screen Exploit On Xbox Series X|S

Maybe 343 should employ them to help them out....

Keep flogging the dead horse with 343i

343i? More like 234n!

You know… because… <clears throat> because we can’t play 2, 3 or 4 player split screen multiplayer so it’s 234n…

234Nope, get it?

Tough crowd…

Judging by other things like tank gun and flyable Pelican, this'll probably be patched out in the next update.

Imagine if it was just a case of putting a menu option in there to act as a shortcut in allowing this local co op…and 343 still couldn’t do it

"So the question is, if it already works this well, why has 343 Industries decided to pull the plug on its development? "

They told you. Live Service.

This is what happens under Live Service models. Everyone is too busy making you new armour colours and silly hats to provide you with actual features for the game.

@A01 Not true.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/halo-infinite-split-screen-co-op-working-xbox-one/

Split screen works on base Xbox One. And even so, players would forgive 2 player limit on Xbox One, and full 4 player on Xbox Series. The Borderlands games do this.

I'd imagine that the CPU demands of running 2-4 instances of the game simultaneously necessary for Split Screen is too much for such a weak CPU as installed in the XB1 series hardware. If you cannot bring it to the XB1, then maybe they have decided not to bring it to 'Series' either. At least by bringing online co-op, it enables all Xbox consoles equally to offer the same features/modes etc and still bring 'co-op' to its 'Single Player' designed campaign.

So no I am NOT surprised that Series S/X with their much more modern and 'multi-threaded' capability running more 2x faster than an XB1s can cope well with being able to run multiple different instances from different perspectives from each players view-point.

I know 'other' games - Like Borderlands may do it, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING. Different Devs, different engines, different use of resources, different assets/artstyles etc make a massive difference. Maybe Borderlands has a much 'lower' GPU resource usage due to its 'artstyle' and able to offload Physics, AI etc to GPU so that its not CPU limited for '2 or more' instances but Halo: Infinite is more CPU intensive and therefore cannot run 2 instances at a reasonable 'frame rate/visual presentation.

At 60fps, everything in one frame (all the Physics, movements, hit detections, object positions, health, 3D layout for each players view objects placed, textures pulled in, lighting, shadows etc calculated, post processing, sending to TV etc) all needs to be done in 1/60th (0.0167 of a second - much quicker than you can actually blink - even 30fps is quicker than a human can blink...) of a second. So you need 'sufficient' CPU as well as GPU processing power to run multiple instances on 'Local' hardware...

I couldn't care less about Local co-op - I can play co-op online if I wanted but the Game was designed to be played Solo first and foremost - you are THE 'Master Chief', not just another Spartan in the same world or a twin. Its a SP story and its narrative is designed around a Single Master Chief defending humanity. Not saying it isn't fun to play with others, but as a 'narrative', its not designed around multiple Master Chiefs...

@UltimateOtaku91 all this glitch does is enable the in progres (now canceled) code 343 had already implemented. They would not get much by hiring people that figure how to unlock a dev-only mode.

@Tharsman well if it works for those people then surely it wouldn't of been hard to do for 343. Looks pretty good in the video above so makes no sense why they scrapped it if it was there anyway.

@UltimateOtaku91 did you skim over the bits about crashes, save file corruption and visual glitches mentioned in the article? Plus likeliness Xbox one can’t handle any of it?

Also not mentioned, and my guess for reason stopping it, is the open world design and having players get too far from each other, requiring to basically load between two and four times the assets and world locations on screen at the same time.

If online co-op allows players to go across the world independently but the local one forces some shackle range limits, everyone would be annoyed.

@Tharsman then they would have to communicate with the community and explain that the split screen co op has been scaled down and that you can't go too far away from each other, games like borderlands 3 and tiny Tina and fhe latest pvz games have split screen with a lot going on at once and on big maps, so I'm sure they could make this work with enough effort or support from another dev. They obviously wanted to relocate their time and effort into the live service aspect of the game and make sure its getting a lot of regular content, which isn't a bad thing.

343 has become the laughing stock of the video game industry.

@BAMozzy "I know 'other' games - Like Borderlands may do it, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING"

The point would not be a technical one, but one of gamer expectations. The fact that people accept the games having a 2 player limit on one gen, while they get 4 player on the gen ahead of it, is the point.

Why would BL fans be ok with it, but Halo fans wouldn't?

And 2 player split screen and 4 player co-op online is exactly how campaign on Halo 3, ODST, Reach, 4, and MCC works, why would Halo fans all of a sudden find anything less than 4 player split screen on Xbox One unacceptable?

"you are THE 'Master Chief', not just another Spartan in the same world or a twin"

This is exactly how it worked for Halo CE and Halo 2.

I don't think we Halo fans ever asked for 4 player spilt screen co-op. Just the stand 2 player co-op that has been a series staple. Honestly don't understand 343i decision to not go thru with this especially if 4 player on series X is working as well as it is. 2 player should be feasible and I do believe with online co-op there is a limit to how far you can get away from each other.

Remember a few years ago when people kept sending 343 a bunch of pizza? They are so not getting pizza now.

@Richnj Its not the point about whether XB1 gamers would be happy with 2 player Split screen whilst Series players get 4 player its more the point of whether Halo fans would be happy to have NO offline co-op on XB1 due to the Hardware limitations of trying to run multiple instances of the game simultaneously whilst Series S/X gamers get up to 4player split screen...

BL may well be able to offer 2 player on XB1 hardware because the Game Engine, Design of the Game and different use of resources etc not being so CPU intensive that it can offer 'just' 2 player offline co-op - with its much more basic artstyle, its perhaps not so GPU intensive either and scales down better without looking so 'bad' when settings are dialed back too.

You have a 'weak' CPU in an XB1 that was originally designed for 'notebooks' - cheap, low end, power efficient mobile devices,predominantly 'battery' powered. That is where I expect the issues lie - as I explained in my first comment. If you can 'barely' run 1 instance at a 'reasonable' level on XB1S - which lets be honest, isn't that great both visually and on performance, but now have to do 'twice' as much, albeit with 'half' the image size 'each', calculate 'everything' from 2 different views in different areas of the map, calculating all the physics, hit detection in 2 different areas of a big open world section, you need the a LOT of resources to do so.

Halo:Infinite is a much more CPU intensive game than Borderlands and therefore is not going to have the same 'overheads' when it comes to 'doubling' (or more) of certain aspects of the workload. CPU intensive games will certainly struggle because they may not have the 'overheads' to double the amount of Physics, hit detection, object tracking, AI etc etc to offer ANY local co-op on XB1S hardware and then I do expect that the Halo Community to be split - offline co-op ONLY on Series S/X hardware and XB1 users only get online co-op...

I know that other Halo games also didn't really work narratively with multiple Master Chiefs but still offered 'co-op' - but as I said, I know it can be 'fun' to blast through campaigns together, but its not as if the game was 'designed' narratively this way. Its not like Gears where it was designed narratively as a co-op game - albeit AI controlled in Single Player. I understand it can be 'fun' and that online co-op is still coming for those who 'enjoy' playing Halo 'co-operatively'. Its not being 'cancelled' entirely - its just NOT coming as an offline, couch co-op mode anymore which I think is fair enough.

All I said is what one dev team with a different engine, design brief, artstyle etc etc can offer does not mean that 'every' game is built that exact same way, with the exact same workload and resource demands etc etc. H:I is a CPU heavy game - even on PC's with much better CPU's than a Series X, Borderlands isn't!! that alone can be a reason why BL can offer 2-player split screen on XB1 and Halo can't...

Narratively, its a Single Player game and if you want to play co-op, as you could on 'previous' Halo games, they are bringing co-op via online so EVERY Halo gamer regardless of Platform gets the 'same' content which is fair enough.

@BAMozzy "its more the point of whether Halo fans would be happy to have NO offline co-op on XB1 due to the Hardware limitations"

I don't know why people keep arguing this when I've already provided evidence for it working on XBone.

Hardware limitations for 4 player offline split screen. We’re talking about the Xbox One here right? Even the N64 had that.

All that proves is that one person glitched his way into a 2 player 'co-op' that seemingly ran - in his words, well enough in that section he was playing in on his XB1. That doesn't mean that the 'entire' game doesn't have potentially game breaking issues and/or severe problems that cannot be easily rectified in certain areas of the map - particularly those large bases when filled with enemies, vehicles etc having two players with vehicles - each loaded up with AI firing rocket launchers for example and crashing the XB1. (maybe even does with 4player on Series X)

Being able to play a 'bit' by glitching into something is NOT proof that the game worked well enough to release as a Patch or had the time/money to spend months trying to get it up to a 'consistent' standard for playing the entire Campaign without issues for the 'half a dozen or so' gamers that would actually bother trying to play 'couch' co-op - especially when online co-op exists.

Unless you can provide a Full playthrough, testing the most intensive areas of the game with all the explosions and effects in 2 player co-op and that it runs with at most, a few frame rate drops, then I'll take that as 'Proof' it works on XB1 - until then, all I have seen is 'one' person testing (the other stationary, not moving, not shooting etc and a static 'view', no extra physics, hit detection, explosions etc to calculate...

That is just proof that they had attempted to get it working but doesn't mean that it doesn't have major issues in some areas that render it 'unplayable' when 2 people are actually 'playing' co-operatively instead of one person whilst the 2nd controller is doing nothing - No movement to calculate, no scene changes to calculate and render, no new enemies or objects to call in, no shooting to track, no hit detection to calculate, no physics to work out etc for that character. Get into a base with two players tackling it from 2 different directions and you may have a completely unplayable experience as 'Proof' it doesn't run on XB1 then...

@Techno92LFC Do you remember the original perfect dark? splitscreen with coop, and even a counter-op mode. Both players could go anywhere they wanted. Good times

(...and Rareware did it! Microsoft managers might have forgotten... )

@raftos I remember it ran absolutely terrible too. Nobody wanted to play the co op campaign but they'd be happy to do the multiplayer.

@Richnj That "evidence" you provided is a Twitter video, and I just watched it. The user in question is only running the lower half of the co-op, there's no-one actually using the controller on the top half so it's inconclusive if the OG Xbox One could actually handle it, but judging from the inconsistent frame rate on the lower half of the screen I'd say no, it can't.

It's more than likely that this version of the co-op campaign is the entire reason the 343 scrapped the mode entirely.

Wow 343 really are making themselves look like 🤡 lol

@BAMozzy there's no way this game couldn't do 2 player local splitscreen in on Xbox one it's not a technical marvel lol as @Richnj already provided evidence that it can

People will argue forever over whether last gen could run this, I personally am adamant Infinite would've been dead on arrival as a next gen exclusive, but feature parity is not needed. I suspect you could find an area that makes last gen chug. There also may be issues where next gen stutters less badly with 4 players. But 2 players on next gen totally should be viable. I'm not mad personally, but 343 could use good publicity instead of bad publicity, that alone would justify the dev/QA time.

@Nalverus it was terrible indeed. hahaha

But I played co-op a lot with a friend of mine. I think that part of the fun was trying to break the game.

@BAMozzy @Would_you_kindly @Acurisur @A01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnmKzYME8BM

Xbox VCR runs Halo Infinite Split screen very well. It's blurry, but it works fine.

There you go. Better evidence.

@Richnj 540p, poor frame pacing not consistent 30fps, poor LoDs, various visual glitches, map issues, save corruption problems etc etc and that's 'just' fine??

If 343i released that in that standard and said there you go, there's your split screen - enjoy.... They'd be ridiculed, heavily criticised and destroyed the franchise! That is nowhere near 'GOOD' enough to release...

Good enough to prove something could be made to work but at what sacrifice? the Visual quality sucks!!! Frame rate isn't great! even though 30fps would be 'expected', that's still not good enough with the 'ugly' visuals and numerous issues to release!!

If anything DF's video proves that!!

@BAMozzy It's an unfinished mode, where the low res and frames were expected, and the other issues were noted as problems on the Series X version (as in, not exclusive to the Xbox VCR version). The original claims were that the VCR couldn't run the mode, not that the mode couldn't have bugs in any version.

Digital Foundry, the guys who obsess over details like res and frames, opened with "turns out, split screen works really well on XBox One VCR". They were really positive about the mode in its current (unfinished) form.

But considering how you've said "I couldn't care less about Local co-op" why would you be upset that XBox One VCR players got to play the game in a worse state than you need to?

I mean, you also banged on about showing you it running 2 players playing at the same time, which I've done, you still aren't happy.

And made unnreasonable requests like "with few frame drops", because you want an open world Halo to run smoother than any other Halo in split screen, and you somehow expected it to come from unfinished code.

It seems like there's another reason you are so against the mode, besides the stated reasons.

"They'd be ridiculed, heavily criticised and destroyed the franchise!"

Unlike right now, where they canceled split screen on all versions, in all forms, and not once were ridiculed, heavily criticised, or labeled the destroyer of the franchise.

@BAMozzy they probably stopped working on split screen ages ago & just didn't announce it until recently it's an unfinished feature that they unintentionally left in it so it wouldn't run flawlessly

@Would_you_kindly @Richnj It doesn't run 'well' on Xbox One VCR at all!!! I would not say that 540p, terrible Level of detail pop-in and the amount of scaling down just to try and get close to 30fps but still need to scale down 'further' to get better performance as 'acceptable' let alone running well at all

If its running that 'badly' now, how much more can they scale back to 'improve' the performance? Maybe they can never improve the performance because that's the 'best' it ever gets due to the WEAK CPU.

I am NOT talking about the bugs/glitches that may/may not be resolved, just that a 540p game is hardly acceptable on a Switch (unless in Handheld mode) let alone an Xbox One. As DF said, its Switch level aesthetics - which maybe acceptable to Switch gamers - after all they must be used to playing with low res graphics, without anti-aliasing etc.

At the point they are at - they would know whether or not that mode is worth persevering with and whatever 'backlash' follows that decision. Apart from all the bugs/glitches that need to be fixed, the fact is that the game runs 'poorly', rarely touching the 30fps cap but generally in the 20-30fps range with poor 'Switch Port' like visuals with so much pop-in and poor LoDs, you can't even tell what 'enemies' are up ahead until you get so close that they 'pop-in'.

Yes it maybe 'good enough' to show that they have at least made an effort and tried to get a Split screen option on Xbox hardware - but also goes to show how they have turned everything down to its 'lowest' quality, capped to its 'lowest' frame rate, and 'minimum' resolution (1/4 of 1080p or 540p) and still can't achieve a 'consistent' game-play experience so how can they 'release' that 'mess'...

Maybe they will give in and release it and let gamers 'decide' if its 'good enough' for them to be 'enjoyable' and playable enough. I know that if they released it, there would be a massive backlash against them and more so than cancelling split screen which also would harm the Xbox brand by allowing their own 1st Party studio to release something of that 'quality' as 'acceptable'...

Now if this DF video means that 'gamers' demand they release as is, maybe spend a bit more work to make it easier to access and doesn't corrupt saves, it won't be on their heads. They can turn round and say we know it wasn't 'good enough' or up to an 'acceptable' release level which is why it was cancelled but public demanded it be 'released' anyway so it's on their head - they, nor Xbox can be blamed for releasing a 'broken, ugly mess that under performs' Split Screen mode...

540p and 'up to' 30fps with such low visual settings to get things to even run maybe acceptable on Switch Ports - the fact that games like those run on a Switch is 'good enough' for some people, but its not acceptable for Xbox or their First Party flagship IPs.

@BAMozzy Well we're just moving goal posts at this point. We've gone from "it just wouldn't run" to "well, this mode that I'm never going to play, doesn't run well enough to my personal standards, so I've decided that nobody wants to play it like that". As DF said, this proves the theory that the VCR just couldn't handle it is wrong.

We aren't even talking about 540p sub 30fps being just how the game runs in general, we are talking about how it runs in split screen on the Xbox One VCR. It's a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction. We're justifying the removal of a mode for Xbox Series X and S, and Xbox One X and S, because a few people might play the game on VCR, and some may even play it in split screen, where maybe half of them might complain about Switch graphics.

Which is total BS when you consider how well the game runs on an Xbox Series X in 4 player split screen. The VCR split screen mode may become a funny meme (we all remember Craig), but the XSX split screen would end up being the star of the show here. All in all, the inclusion of the mode would be praised, and the performance on VCR would be a footnote.

@Richnj The VCR XB1 is NOT that much worse than a XB1S - that 'small' bump in GPU isn't going to make much difference at all and so that 'performance' is likely to represent the 'state' of the game on XB1S too.

The XB1X does boost the CPU a bit more so maybe won't be so poor, but maybe can't hit 30fps much more consistently if that's the cause of the 'bottlenecks' on XB1 VCR - they all have the SAME CPU.

540p with 'Low' visual settings, LoDs pulled right in is NOT acceptable - even with a bug free, glitch free, perfect 30fps on an XB1S regardless of how it runs on the VCR which is only 'slightly' less powerful and if its CPU limited on XB1 VCR/S, its going to be on XB1X too.

If the game can't run at a locked 30fps with 540p, lowest setting visuals and that amount of pop-in on a VCR XB1, its not going to run significantly better on a XB1S and XB1X may well struggle too as it doesn't exactly have a much better CPU.

Which again brings me back to the 'Parity' point. If Series S/X can run it well enough at decent enough visuals and frame rates, but XB1 cannot, which I think it cannot - because that level of visual quality is NOT acceptable, let alone the performance, then should they release at all. Maybe they don't want their game ''looking' that bad, don't want their name associated with that level of visual quality/performance - I'd be 'embarrassed' to put that out!!

@BAMozzy why are you defending this so much at the end of the day they shouldn't have promised something if they couldn't deliver , this is like when games come out that don't run that well on series S & everyone starts yelling it's bad optimization lol

@Would_you_kindly I'm not defending 'this' so much as the principal behind this. I would of defended CD Project Red if they decided to Cancel the XB1 versions of Cyberpunk over releasing that 'mess' and incurring all the backlash they got for that. Even today its not a 'great' experience and now not even getting the DLC either so maybe that should of been cancelled!!

All I am saying is that just being able to 'play' something doesn't mean that its fit to 'release'. Apart from ALL the work needed to fix the numerous bugs, glitches etc - many maybe not 'game breaking' but certainly distracting and ugly. After a year of patches, fixes and optimising for XB1 hardware, they would know if they could 'optimise' further and still 'keep' the same 'experience' to 'improve'.

As stated, the game is already been scaled down beyond what is 'expected'. 720p at the lowest with some decent reconstruction up to 1080p is the 'minimum' - not 540p with basically no real draw distance and everything turned down to 'low' doesn't exactly leave much headroom and no hardware overheads to improve the game to an 'acceptable' level - if anything, this proves it to me - not that there is 'hope' they could with time and money, deliver a 'presentable' and consistent Split Screen experience but that the Hardware is seriously struggling at 'well' below acceptable Visual levels just to get any 'performance' and that is 'below' acceptability so no chance to get it up to 'presentable'. I know the Original may have had poor frame rates, but so did Goldeneye and that was 'acceptable' 20++ yrs ago, its not acceptable today when 'people' expect 60fps and begrudgingly accept 30fps if its consistent...

@Richnj 540p at sub 30fps is unacceptable performance, especially in a FPS game. I don't want to give myself a headache looking at that, nor would many people I'd wager.

However 343 should have just dropped the feature on last gen consoles instead of scrapping it for everyone.

Yes that would be harsh on last gen gamers but that's the price you pay for playing on aging hardware.

@Acurisur @BAMozzy But objecting to XBox One Split screen because of 540p and sub 30fps, and lower asset quality, is inconsistent, Single screen play, a finished mode, is also capable of these figures on these consoles. So the whole idea that these players won't accept these figures or that releasing a game in this state is just unacceptable, is just a flat out lie.

"On Xbox One S, Halo Infinite makes a number of visual compromises to maintain its target frame rate of 30 frames per second. Among the various downgrades though, like lower quality assets and lighting, players on the Xbox One S will find the game scaling down to 540p regularly. In all, Digital Foundry writer and producer John Linneman called the Xbox One S version of Halo Infinite a “Switch port of an Xbox One X game.” However, Linneman later said that this was a good thing because, while the game was pushing the One S to its limit, it was still playable.

Also going against the Xbox One S version of Halo Infinite is the game’s overall performance. While both the Xbox One X and One S run Halo Infinite at 30 fps, the latter has additional issues that make the game feel worse overall. According to Digital Foundry’s testing, frame-time on the One S version jumps around constantly, producing a slight stuttering effect that, overall, makes for a worse experience."

Source: https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/halo-infinite-resolution-technical-preview/

And again, I have to stress, it's weird that you are deciding for XBox One VCR players what is acceptable. If they don't find it acceptable, they can just not play it, right?. If you personally don't like the performance, either get a better xbox, play it online, or just play single player.

Why is "you guys can't have it, because I don't like the results" a thing?

@Richnj I'm on Xbox Series X so this doesn't affect me, but as far as Xbox One owners not accepting that kind of performance, if you think most of them would accept 540p you're kidding yourself.

And it's not even their decision, it was down to 343 who decided it wasn't good enough. All this postulating isn't going to do anything, especially when most people have already moved on from Halo Infinite.

@Richnj If you are willing to accept that terrible visual quality and performance, then you are part of the Problem with gaming and in particular, those devs/publishers that release extremely 'poor' performing games and then expect to 'improve' with patches over time.

You should have standards and not release 'crap' just to get it out, tick boxes, etc and if 343i decide that its never going to be 'good' enough for them to 'release' then so be it - after all, it will reflect back on them much worse and for longer if they release it than cancel it.

Just because something works on a Series S/X and well enough to release, doesn't also mean that they should screw over XB1 gamers by either not releasing or by releasing a sub-standard, ugly mess.

Being 'playable' does not mean that its 'fit/ready' for release. There are Alpha builds of games that are 'playable' on hardware but far from being in a 'releasable' state and this is not in a releasable state - hence it was cancelled!!!

@BAMozzy "then you are part of the Problem"

The problem of acceptable performance of split screen on last gen consoles?.

That's like saying that accepting the performance of Switch versions of xbox one games is a problem. It's not.