Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Yet again soe made their game spec too high
hercules
Member UncommonPosts: 4,925
in PlanetSide 2
It was a problem in planetside and Everquest 2 at launch it is same in planetside 2.the minimum spec as it is is higher then most games and is not playable at that you need at least the recommended to play and not even possible in big battles.
They really need to optimise it big time if they plan to grab a mainstream audience ,I recall how many people left planetside at launch due to high specs and it will happen again.if people did not upgrade enmass in 2005 when the economy was booming for planetside ,no way will they do it in 2012 in a deep recession.
Comments
I see where your concern is, however you have to take a moment and realize that the game gets optimized and unoptimized with every other patch. They're messing with it until they get it right.
Posting here about it won't get it fixed either. You have to give your input on the Beta forums under Technical Issues. If you have never participated in a true Beta before, then now is a great time to learn.
For instance, I have a below min spec machine (Should not be able to play PS2 at all) and the game was frustratingly unplayable 2 months ago, beautifully playable a month ago (I'm talking 30+ FPS in large battles with no hiccups), and now it's just stutteringly unplayable after this last patch. Instead of whining on MMORPG.com I decided to post my specs, feedback, and constructive criticism about it on the PS2 Beta Forums where that stuff belongs.
Maybe I'll be able to play next patch, and maybe not. Hell, with my specs I shouldn't of even been able to play AT ALL, but I was able to because previous Beta testers gave their feedback, and now I am doing the same.
On top of that, SOE always tries to release games that are made for next-gen machines. Yes, it's a pain in the ass for those of us that don't have tons of money, but it seems like they've been putting a little more effort into optimizing PS2 for lower end machines than is usual for them.
theres numerous posts about this issue, moreover, theres also posts that some people with on par or over reccommended specs continue to has frame rate issues will some , also on par or in some case slightly under. are having better frame rate than their counter parts.
they have no choice but to get the game optimized which they are doing, what im more interested with is how the dev time will handle getting people with ATI cards up to snuff in gameplay performance.
Everything this guy said is true. When I first got in my 32bit win xp dual core 280gtx was able to play confortably on medium except for shadows. Then they decided to improve performance for higher end rigs and that patch made the game unplayable for me after. Anyways its 2012, the beta was fun enough to make me order a completely new system that should last me 5+ years.
As for the quick Google, it returns pretty much what are listed as the beta requirements.
Even though it lists XP, it also lists 4 GB of RAM - so you're looking at 64-bit XP. They want at least 3.0 GHz dual core - whether you're going AMD or Intel. Now, the GPU side's definitely interesting. 256MB, eh? But saying 4850 or higher? Er...no, lol. That would be 512MB min then. Course, that 8600 is quirky as Hell - because that's not on par with a 4850. That's getting into the 8800 Ultra and the 9800s....and above. Then of course, you run into the issue where somebody sees 4850 and they believe because they have a 5xxx, 6xxx, or 7xxx card that they're good to go. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You'd be looking at x850, y850, z850... a 5670 or a 6770 is not as good as a 4850. The 5670's better than a 4670 and the 6770 is better than a 5770 or a 4770... but that first number's going to throw folks.
But yeah, based on what one sees at the various hardware surveys from folks like Steam and the rest - some of the MMO developers do not realize how much the general MMO populace lags behind.
And lol, those are just the min specs - as in everything turned off and at an itty bitty resolution. There's likely a post somewhere on the forums over there about various recommended specs for running at various resolutions. If you want to run at X, you need Y - etc, etc, etc.
I ran into the same thing with TSW. I didn't have the money sitting around to upgrade my machine and the girlfriend's - not when we can play other things fine. It just wasn't time yet.
For PS2 though - one might have the expectation that folks that play these kind of games are more likely to have updated their machines to play the SP/MP versions. So you can kind of see where they're coming from...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I'd guess that MMO developers actually have a really good idea of what kind of hardware people are playing/attempting to play their games with.
The min spec on this game appears that it will be a machine that was approaching top of the line (mid/high) about 4.5 years ago... by the time of launch, it will be about 5 years old.
Not sure there is anything particularly out of line about that...
this is what i saw for specs
http://help.station.sony.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/35012/p/5833
The game is still in the earliest stages of Beta so these are far from the final specifications, but below are listed the current recommended specs for running PlanetSide® 2 as it was meant to be run.- OS: Windows XP
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 or higher / AMD Phenom II X2 or higher
- Memory: 4 GB RAM
- Hard Drive: 15 GB free
- Video Memory: 256 MB RAM
- Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8600 series or higher / AMD or ATI 4850 series or higher
- Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Current Recommended System RequirementsEQ2 fan sites
Looking at the following, I'd guess that two MMO developers do not have a really good idea of what hardware people have...
PS2 coming:
MoP Sep 2012:
GW2 Aug 2012:
TSW Jul 2012:
RIFT Mar 2011:
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Do you mean amd CPU's?
Because i'm running PS2 with a pair of 6850's in crossfire and the game is smooth as silk, even in the most intense battles.
That matches what I found on some other sites, and it's completely incoherent. If a GeForce GT 520 meets the recommended requirements and a Radeon HD 6850 doesn't, then something is very badly broken to the degree that the game isn't ready for alpha testing, as the latter card has something like 6 times the performance of the former.
Posting drivel like that on their official web page (meaning I blame SOE, not you) does more to muddle than clarify the issue of whether a computer can handle the game. That completely defeats the point of posting system requirements in the first place. It would be more informative if they were to throw up their hands in the air and say, "We have no clue whether your computer can handle the game."
But then, SOE's web pages has always been a complete disaster. Once I looked into Vanguard and concluded that the game hadn't released and wasn't close to it--and later learned that this was about two years after release. The Infantry web page required you to register and log in before they information on how to download the game would appear. I don't hate SOE the way some people do, but their web site has to be costing them customers.
To take it apart a little more, it requires DirectX--but we have no idea what version. A card in the GeForce 500 or 600 series meets the recommended specs, even if it's a renamed card from the 400 series--but if you have one with a sticker on it that says 400 series, it doesn't. And if you have an AMD card that is several times as fast, that also doesn't. Nvidia's mid-range card from the 8000 series meets the minimum specs, but ATI's high end from that series and the one after it doesn't. Who wrote that? Even Nvidia marketing flacks usually don't exaggerate that much.
And a dual core processor meets the minimum specs, while a higher clocked quad core with equivalent cores doesn't? A very slow ULV dual core meets the recommended specs, but a dramatically faster quad core doesn't? I can understand saying, this particular processor or better, but why Core 2 Duo E6850, and make people look up the specs on it elsewhere? Even people who work for Intel probably usually don't know the specs just from the model number.
Im running like a 3yr old PC (wasn't even top-spec back then) and my PS2 in it's current state runs fluid on 1920x1080, dunno what's your gripe about, unless you're playing on a pentium3 machine.
Lot of games out there that are specced way beyond what PS2 is, and those are current "beta specs"
All of the ones that you list except for the Planetside 2 one are at least coherent. You could tell me that you have such and such hardware, and I could tell you that it meets the requirements or doesn't, or maybe only that it's right around the minimum requirements. That's the point of posting system requirements. And to be fair, there is some wiggle room, as one person may think that 20 frames per second on minimum settings is fine, while another thinks 30 is unplayable.
WAY too early to conclude anything right now. That said, theyre pretty much on top of things. Lots of reports coming in and lots of replies on their part.
after looking at the spec's for the various games listed, they seemed pretty straight forward tbh, so not sure how he came up with more than 1 as being.. a bit out of touch.. but yes, the requirements for the game do appear to be a bit confusing, not that i'd be rushing out the door to upgrade any time soon.. hopefully when the game is actually closer to release, they will be able to post more 'coherent' spec requirements for it.. but .. this is SOE.. so im kind of wondering if thats a realistic assumption.
Um... it was pretty simple - look at the requirements: CPU & GPU for all the games aside from TSW and PS2. You could meet the requirements for all of the other games, but not meet the requirements for TSW or PS2. It's not about the requirements being coherent or not - it's about the level of the requirements and having an understanding of the hardware out there being used by the masses. TSW and PS2 do not.
Yes, there is most definitely the separate issue of the PS2 requirements not making sense in of themselves... but that's not the point I was making. It was a simple point - the PS2 requirements are going to exclude a lot of folks like the TSW requirements did. The two developers are out of touch with where the gamers are...as far as min requirements.
Same on the CPU side - they're all pretty much 2.0GHz dual cores - but TSW's asking 2.6GHz and PS2's asking 3.0GHz.
I mean, that's pretty straightforward - so I'm not sure where the confusion's coming from...
edit: And as I said earlier, people will often get confused by that number in the front. Consider the HD 4850 and the HD 7750. Yes, the 7750 is DX11, OpenGL 4.2, SM 5.0 compared to the DX10.1, OpenGL 2.1, and SM 4.1 of the 4850... but it's barely better than the 4850...63v72 GB/s bandwidth, 10000 vs 12800 Pixel, and 25000 vs 25680 Texture. The 4850 actually sports 1000 GFLOPS to the 7750's 820 GFLOPS.
Course, if you move up to the 7850 from the 7750... yes, it eats the 4850. Course you're paying twice as much for that 7850 as the 7750...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I can run it on high with a GTX 470 , i5 PCU and 4 GBs with no hitchs.
Not bad considering my gig is nearly 4 years old.
You seem to be completely missing the point. The problem is that they list two cards that aren't remotely comparable. It's kind of like a game releasing with specs saying it requires a Radeon HD 7870 or 6450 or equivalent. If you've got a card that performs somewhere in the vast chasm between those two without being terribly close to either, they've told you both that it's way over the required specs, and also that it's way below them and you shouldn't bother trying to run the game.
You can argue that a Radeon HD 4850 is somewhat high end, as it was $200 at launch--and a great value at that price. But a GeForce 8600 anything was never high end, and by the end of 2008, it was quite a stretch to call it even a budget gaming card.
The recommended specs were worse than the minimum, too. Why list a Phenom II X6 as if to imply that a Phenom II X4 isn't good enough, unless the game really can put those last two cores to good use? And if it really does need six cores, there isn't much chance of it being playable on two as in the minimum specs. And why GeForce 500 series or later, as if to exclude the 400 series, when the 500 series is nothing more than a respin of the 400 series. That would be like saying that if you have a Core i7-920 with the D0 stepping, it's good enough, but if it's the C0 stepping it isn't, even though they perform the same.
You've had that hardware for nearly four years? That's interesting when you consider that the first motherboards that could take a Core i5 processor launched about three years ago, and the GTX 470 less than 2 1/2 years ago.
guys remember also one thing, they will launch thing who use top notch computers and force most of you to buy a new one, capitalism at his best, make things to force you spend even more on other things.
also note japanese devs always like to launch game with high grade specs for it take a little longer to look old. complaining about it will not make then stop doing it, only way is wait and see if you will play at launch or just when you feel like to upgrade
There are mmorpgs with similar specs - gw2, tsw
There are a whole host of fps with simmilar or higher specs
It's one thing to be able to put high end hardware to use and allow players with it to turn settings higher than those with mid-range hardware. It's quite another to say that people who don't have a high end system can't play at all, as opposed to being able to play with reduced settings.
Just because the ATI is technically a faster performing card, doesn't mean that that faster card is going to perform as well as an Nvidia card that is technically a slower performing card.
Notice how games now-a-days will have those littler blurbs "runs best on..."? That's usually because they have some form of partnership withthe GPU builders or because the game is specifically optimized for that brand card.
Have you never noticed that people will play a game with an Nvidia card, and tons of people playing the same game with an ATI card that is supposed to outperform the Nvidia cards people have no trouble with, can't seem to get the game to run on those ATI cards?
It's very possible that Nvidia is wroking directly with SoE to get better performance out of what are lower end cards compared to the ATI ones, and that SoE is specifically working to optimize the game towards Nvidia cards and not ATI. ATI and Nvidia do not use the same architecture in there their GPU's, and if a game is built with a specific brand in mind then it's going to run better on a lower end card for that brand then it is for a higher end brand of a card they didn't build the game for.
It's no longer as simple as "this card is 6x faster then that card". It's about what GPU manufacturer is the game developer working closest with, getting the most support from, or developing towards.
It's not incoherent at all. PS2 is obviously intended to "run best on Nvidia", why wouldn't a lower end Nvidia card be listed over an ATI card that is technically higher end?
PS: Case in point:
http://www.planetside2.com/
Scroll to the bottom of the page, you'll see the Nvidia logo listed there. When you see a GPU manufacturers logo, or any company logo outside of the developer and publisher of the game, it means they have a partnership with that company. In this case, SoE has partnered with Nvidia and both SoE and Nvidia are gearing PS2 to run better on Nvidia cards then on ATI.
This ATI's fault really. Nvidia does a good job of working with game developers to ensure that more games are built to run on their cards better then ATI. Coinsidentally, CPU's work very much the same way; afterall, isn't Nvidia associated with pentium and ATI with AMD?
Oh my. There is so much wrong there. Where to begin.
That Nvidia pays a company to put an Nvidia logo on the game is just a marketing expense. Expecting a game to run massively better on AMD cards as a result of marketing expenses like that is like expecting a product to be awesome because you saw ads for it on television. The marketing department might help with sales, but it doesn't make products better.
Yes, Nvidia does work with some game developers to help them optimize code through their "The Way It's Meant to be Played" program. AMD does the same, and calls their program "Gaming Evolved". That's taken into account when comparing the "average" frame rates of different cards among a bunch of different games.
There is some variance in which particular games run better on which cards for complicated architectural and driver reasons. But for one particular game to run even 20% better on Nvidia cards as compared to AMD cards than you'd expect from an "average" game is definitely an outlier. And remember that, by definition, the average is 0%. The only games I've seen show up much in reviews in recent reviews that favor one GPU vendor over the other by substantially more than a 20% margin are DiRT Showdown (maybe 40% advantage for AMD) and Civilization V (varies wildly with driver versions, as it was the first DirectX 11 game to implement multithreaded rendering and neither Nvidia nor AMD had drivers ready).
If Planetside 2 really does run more than 500% better on Nvidia cards than you'd expect from comparable AMD cards, then the game engine is completely broken. Apart from a simple bug (or several such bugs) that should soon be fixed, it's hard to imagine what could cause that short of deliberate sabotage. Even implementing proprietary Nvidia stuff like GPU PhysX just means that you turn that particular feature off when you're running it on an AMD card, and then it still runs fine.
And no, processors aren't the same way. AMD and Intel don't partner with game companies to get them to optimize games for their processors. Some games do favor one processor vendor over the other more than average due to complex architectural reasons, but for one game to be 50% more favorable to one vendor than "average" for a given number of cores would be an extreme outlier.
And no, Nvidia isn't associated with Pentium. That's an Intel brand name, and Nvidia and Intel don't get along with each other very well. Remember how they were suing each other for billions until they settled a while ago? The processors that Nvidia makes use the ARM architecture and Tegra brand name, and geared toward cell phones and tablets. They're irrelevant to GeForce cards at the moment, though ARM is trying to move up into higher power, higher performance markets--and Nvidia's upcoming Maxwell architecture will reportedly have ARM cores on board doing who knows what. The reason AMD is associated with ATI is that AMD bought ATI several years ago. That's kind of like saying that AMD is associated with SeaMicro or that Nvidia is associated with 3dfx.
How can I be missing the point - when mine was the point being called into question? I already commented in the thread (Post #6) on how quirky and off the specs were. Even said that it's most likely a case they meant to say 8800 instead of 8600. That saying 256MB VRAM with a 4850 makes no sense since it's a 512MB min card.
My point (as should be obvious since I listed the specs for the other games) was the hardware level that TSW and PS2 are at in comparison to the other games - that the developers for the two are out of touch with what folks have. I've said that repeatedly. It's been questioned. I'ved explained it in the simplest terms that I can.
I can't be missing my own point - when I'm the one making it. And I'm not missing your point, because I made the same point early on in the thread. It's not the point that I'm focusing on...
...I mean, seriously - you think somebody would list all those other specs just to show that other companies can list specs that do not look stupid? No, it's to show how out of touch Funcom and SOE are...
...which is a case of others missing the point.
/facepalm
I mean, c'mon - it's the effin' topic of the thread. "Yet again soe made their game spec too high" - and tada, that's what I'm discussing. Not that they do not know how to list specs for a beta....
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
No sir, it's not wrong. Those are partner logos, in the case of Nvidia it usually means they provide extra support for the specific game.
No the game engine isn't broken, it's the way game development has worked for quite a while now. The whole "plays best on" means that that GPU manufacturer provided added support to ensure that the game runs better on thier cards then their competitors.
And yes, Nvidia has an association with Intel in the way of a 1.5 billion dollar lisencing fee.
"Under the new agreement, Intel will have continued access to NVIDIA's full range of patents. In return, NVIDIA will receive an aggregate of $1.5 billion in licensing fees, to be paid in annual installments, and retain use of Intel's patents, consistent with its existing six-year agreement with Intel. This excludes Intel's proprietary processors, flash memory and certain chipsets for the Intel platform."
Nvidia also has a history of partnering with SoE. They did it with EQ2, SWG, and now PS2.
http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/pc-games/planetside-2
Nvidia was even giving away beta keys.
But please, feel free to tell people they're wrong about things you obviously didn't bother to actually look up first, it does wonders for your credibility.
A little bit of reading goes a lot further then behaiving like a know-it-all.