Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy

[imported_Traxis]

Well, killing compatibility with the GeForce 4 cards hasn't hurt EA so far- The BF2 DVD edition was #1 on the sales charts last week, and the CD version was #4.

 

[daniel1113]

Just imagine the complaining that will naturally occur when distributors drop CD editions completely... brace yourselves for the whining.

 

[imported_Traxis]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Just imagine the complaining that will naturally occur when distributors drop CD editions completely... brace yourselves for the whining.

Pssh, I'm still pissed that games don't come on 3.5" floppys anymore. :|

 

[Stuxnet]

Let me demonstrate why I'm finished with you:

I say: "Valve and Id have a customer base that DICE and EA don't: other developers [because of engine liscensing]."

You hear: "DICE and EA don't have a customer base."

I think your problem is that you only read about one out of every 2.6 words... hence, your confusion.

Oh, and I'm a Sr. Analyst in Software Developement. I may not make games, but I know what kinds of business decisions that need to be dealt with. I'm not a hardware expert, but I understand what gets weighed in on decisions of compatibility, feature development, etc. Thus far, you've ignored it all. Your still stuck on the same two or three invalid points that myself and others have already stomped mudholes in.

Go ahead and keep living in your little world with your dated technology. Don't let the world rip your eyelids off as it flies past you.

 

[GeneralAres]

Like I said EA doesn't have a customer base? Other game developers develop games for customers. The customer is the one buying the game and needs it to run on their hardware. Whether Valve and ID develop software with the intent on licensing the engine has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware they choose to support. They are able to support more hardware for various reasons, including have superior programmers and having a better grasp of what is in actual customers systems. They know the more practical hardware they can support the more software they will sell including the engine. But supporting more practical hardware for engine licensing is the most idiotic argument I have heard yet. Engine Licenses go to game developers who at a minimum don't release titles until 1 to 3 years after original engine is completed. Which means they could actually get away with supporting less hardware safely. Unless your speaking of some sort of Time Travel engine licensing scheme I am unaware of.

I'm not a hardware expert, but I understand what gets weighed in on decisions of compatibility, feature development, etc. Thus far, you've ignored it all. Your still stuck on the same two or three invalid points that myself and others have already stomped mudholes in.

Not only are you not an expert you have no concept of what the average user has in their system. If you call saying too bad buy a more expensive card "stomping a mudhole" then I've been dropping thermal nuclear warheads in your "mudholes".

Go ahead and keep living in your little world with your dated technology. Don't let the world rip your eyelids off as it flies past you.

Just because I build and sell high end systems today does not mean I tell my customers their 2 1/2 year old top of the line system is obsolete because DICE says so. People like you are what is wrong with PC Gaming today. No wonder the consoles are doing so well.

 

[Stuxnet]

No no... you're right. Everyone else is wrong. We have no idea what we're all talking about. How silly of us to challenge the almightly cable jockey. I should have known that my business expertise and software development expertise was no match for your monumental computer building skills, which obviously translates perfectly to a deep knowledge of software development profit margins, timetables, market and budget analysis, and other simple, mundane business considerations. I'm so sorry to have overlooked your obvious superiority.

You have my apologies .

(By the way, for the second time: I never said EA didn't have a customer base. Please learn to read AND comprehend.)

Anyway, I'm a little bored with you and we're just going in circles. You're really not listening to a word anyone is saying, so what's the point here.

 

[GeneralAres]

You are right my business expertise dealing directly with hardware vendors and a large number of end users who would actually be playing these games has absolutely no bearing on a conversation involving customers, games and the hardware they are using.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
Just because I build and sell high end systems today does not mean I tell my customers their 2 1/2 year old top of the line system is obsolete because DICE says so. People like you are what is wrong with PC Gaming today. No wonder the consoles are doing so well.

Their system is not obsolete, but it is not capable to play ONE game. There is more than one game on the market.

You sound like someone who buys a playstation, then complains a year later with Playstation 2 comes out or something. Hardware gets obsolete, no matter what kind of hardware you are talking about....

When I bought my house it had 2 prong electrical outlets. Did I whine and complain about it because I wanted to plug in 3 prong devices? No, I went out and got the supplies needed to retrofit my house for those devices. Obviously the previous owners made due with what they had, as they kept the 2 prong outlets and ran some of the same appliances I did (fridge, washer/dryer, etc...)

There is more than one solution to a game taht will not support the hardware you have. One option is to not buy a game that won't run on your hardware if you are unwilling to ugprade your system.

As was pointed out, sales do not seem to have been tremendously hurt by this decision, which potentially suggests maybe the decision was not so assenine as you seem to suggest it was. EA is all about business and $$$, I have no doubt that if it would have been more profitable for them to choose to make DICE code for GF4 series, that they would have done just that.

I'm not trying to defend EA, but you have to understand their point of view. I don't necessarily like many of EA's practices, but that doesn't keep me from understanding them.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
Not only are you not an expert you have no concept of what the average user has in their system.

The 'average' user doesn't even have a GF4, they have onboard video. What is your point?

 

[GeneralAres]

When I bought my house it had 2 prong electrical outlets. Did I whine and complain about it because I wanted to plug in 3 prong devices? No, I went out and got the supplies needed to retrofit my house for those devices. Obviously the previous owners made due with what they had, as they kept the 2 prong outlets and ran some of the same appliances I did (fridge, washer/dryer, etc...)

How does a 30-40 year old electrical upgrade compare with a 2 1/2 year old PC one? It doesn't.

As was pointed out, sales do not seem to have been tremendously hurt by this decision, which potentially suggests maybe the decision was not so assenine as you seem to suggest it was. EA is all about business and $$$, I have no doubt that if it would have been more profitable for them to choose to make DICE code for GF4 series, that they would have done just that.

Sale numbers including the large number of people returning this game or the ones who have it but it will not run?

You are missing the whole point. The cards excluded especially high end GF4 are more then capable to run this game if a PS 1.3 rendering path was included.

The 'average' user doesn't even have a GF4, they have onboard video. What is your point?

That should have been 'average' user who bought a PC with an intent to play games. The GF2MX and GF4MX are the most successful in these areas.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
You are missing the whole point.

Of course he is... we ALL are!!! You're right, we're all wrong... blah blah blah.

This is getting to be quite humorous. Stubborness and arrogance in its purest form.

One thing is for sure... if some wank over in tech support came over to me and my team and started lecturing us on feature decisions, budget decisions, etc, I'd shove him in front of a very large, very fast-moving bus.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres

The 'average' user doesn't even have a GF4, they have onboard video. What is your point?

That should have been 'average' user who bought a PC with an intent to play games. The GF2MX and GF4MX are the most successful in these areas.

I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet more 'average' users have a 5200 than one of those cards. The 5200 was an immensely popular card for being such a POS.

And how can you possibly argue that anyone using a GF2MX/4MX card does not have outdated hardware? The GF4MX is based on GF2 technology, which I think I was using with my celeron 300 or whatever. BFV played on a GF4MX but not very well. I don't think GF2MXs had 64 megs, and BFV would hitch like a mofo unless you had at least 64 megs on your card.

Maybe you're mad because you steered customers towards GF4s when they were not quite so outdated, but still old. Now they're coming back to you and complaining.

How does a 30-40 year old electrical upgrade compare with a 2 1/2 year old PC one? It doesn't.

Product lifecycle. Technology advancement. The timescales are different but the concept is exactly the same. When presented with 'obsolete hardware' 2 people chose different paths:
- previous owner chose to not use modern appliances that required 3 prong plugs (i.e. not run newer games on outdated hardware)
- I chose to re-wire (upgrade if you will) so I could use the latest technology appliances.

You should have seen these people's fridge. It was OLD.

I'm surprised you couldn't see how they would be similar, it's a fairly simple and straightforward example. I see you chose to ignore the console comparison.

Hardware gets outdated, it doesn't matter what 'market' you are in or who you are talking about. Embrace it as a fact of life and learn to deal with it. If you choose to fight it, you will be in for a difficult time like the 'mom and pop' farms vs. large high technology mega-farms. Like the factory worker who lost his job to the overseas market and rather than learn new skills to make himself more marketable to employers, he chooses to picket and whine and complain.

Sale numbers including the large number of people returning this game or the ones who have it but it will not run?

Neither of us have numbers indicating how "large" this is. It could be a fraction of a percent and support jbourne and my point or it could be 20% and support your point. Without the actual numbers, such a statement is totally and completely worthless. Neither of us knows how 'large' this population is.

Consider that in your line of work you may see a relatively skewed distribution of consumers... i.e. those who NEED upgrades because their hardware is old. The people who have 5200s and CDROM not DVDROM drives will be your customers in a few years when those become obsolete, but now they have no reason to look for your services.

 

[GeneralAres]

Of course he is... we ALL are!!! You're right, we're all wrong... blah blah blah.

Yes you are wrong not necessarily everyone else is though.

This is getting to be quite humorous. Stubborness and arrogance in its purest form.

One thing is for sure... if some wank over in tech support came over to me and my team and started lecturing us on feature decisions, budget decisions, etc, I'd shove him in front of a very large, very fast-moving bus.

I actually listen to my techs. The fact that you don't doesn't surprise me one bit. That is not just arrogance it is ignorance.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres

Of course he is... we ALL are!!! You're right, we're all wrong... blah blah blah.

Yes you are wrong not necessarily everyone else is though.

This is getting to be quite humorous. Stubborness and arrogance in its purest form.

One thing is for sure... if some wank over in tech support came over to me and my team and started lecturing us on feature decisions, budget decisions, etc, I'd shove him in front of a very large, very fast-moving bus.

I actually listen to my techs. The fact that you don't doesn't surprise me one bit. That is not just arrogance it is ignorance.

And what in the hell makes you think my techs are qualified to offer such advice?

You see, this is your problem... you don't know your role. You don't know where your expertise begins and ends. I don't tell Accounting how to do their jobs, and our support staff doesn't tell me how to do mine. You should follow suit and quit trying to offer your infinite wisdom to anyone who's not deaf.

 

[bhanson]

It is fully up to the developers (and investors) as to what they choose to support. There is no governing 3rd party to make sure all applications produced are compatible with X, Y, and Z. It's part of our market, get used to it. If what you have is not compatible, then there's really not much you can do about it except go on exactly how you were before it came out, or upgrade and choose to take advantage of evolution. They have no obligation to you, they chose to spend their time and money into making their product better by advancing technology, instead of maintaining legacy support.

The choice is yours, what are you going to do with it?

 

[Stuxnet]

By the way, I just installed my new 6800GT and it screams like a mother in Battlefield 2 .

 

[GeneralAres]

I wish there was a way to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet more 'average' users have a 5200 than one of those cards. The 5200 was an immensely popular card for being such a POS.

Actually alot more low end Radeon SEs were sold after the GF4MX, now it is the GF MX 4000.

And how can you possibly argue that anyone using a GF2MX/4MX card does not have outdated hardware?

In this situation I am not really pushing for the MX cards, meerly I am stating what is most common in people's systems. Though the GF4MX should be able to load and play this game with everything turned off on low detail.

Maybe you're mad because you steered customers towards GF4s when they were not quite so outdated, but still old. Now they're coming back to you and complaining.

Not even remotely. People were told to buy whatever was the best fit for what they wanted to do at the time. When the GF4s were out they were the best at what they did.

Product lifecycle. Technology advancement. The timescales are different but the concept is exactly the same. When presented with 'obsolete hardware' 2 people chose different paths:
- previous owner chose to not use modern appliances that required 3 prong plugs (i.e. not run newer games on outdated hardware)
- I chose to re-wire (upgrade if you will) so I could use the latest technology appliances.

You are missing where your analogy goes wrong. This is like upgrading you wiring so you can use ONE new device. Look again at how many things you have plugged into outlets.

Hardware gets outdated, it doesn't matter what 'market' you are in or who you are talking about. Embrace it as a fact of life and learn to deal with it. If you choose to fight it, you will be in for a difficult time like the 'mom and pop' farms vs. large high technology mega-farms. Like the factory worker who lost his job to the overseas market and rather than learn new skills to make himself more marketable to employers, he chooses to picket and whine and complain.

No kidding, I deal with it daily but this is a simple argument. You have a piece of hardware still capable of running this game.

Neither of us have numbers indicating how "large" this is. It could be a fraction of a percent and support jbourne and my point or it could be 20% and support your point. Without the actual numbers, such a statement is totally and completely worthless. Neither of us knows how 'large' this population is.

I can surmize very well based on all the inventory I deal with and especially from the feedback from our suppliers.

Consider that in your line of work you may see a relatively skewed distribution of consumers... i.e. those who NEED upgrades because their hardware is old. The people who have 5200s and CDROM not DVDROM drives will be your customers in a few years when those become obsolete, but now they have no reason to look for your services.

Our customers cover the whole spectrum and since we deal with Dell too we see alot of global market share info. People's system specs are failry low to mid across the board. It is all the big mouths online who like to try and feel important by flaunting or lying about what components are in their PC. It scares alot of people from posting so they don't feel embarrassed ect...

 

[GeneralAres]

And what in the hell makes you think my techs are qualified to offer such advice?

You see, this is your problem... you don't know your role. You don't know where your expertise begins and ends. I don't tell Accounting how to do their jobs, and our support staff doesn't tell me how to do mine. You should follow suit and quit trying to offer your infinite wisdom to anyone who's not deaf.

#1 you have no concept of who I am or who I work for. If you think you are somehow so superior as to not take a technicians advice into consideration I would have fired you along time ago. People like you are dime a dozen and are exactly what is wrong with the current IT industry and in this respect PC Gaming.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
#1 you have no concept of who I am or who I work for.

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
People like you are dime a dozen and are exactly what is wrong with the current IT industry and in this respect PC Gaming.

Could you do me a favor and read the first part back to yourself, you self-righteous hypocritical weenie?

Thanks

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
If you think you are somehow so superior as to not take a technicians advice into consideration I would have fired you along time ago.

Piggy-backing off of your first comment (and the reason why you need to get off your high horse and suck on your own words for a moment), you have no idea what my techs' jobs are. Just because I don't solicit business advice from them doesn't mean I don't listen to them. I listen to them with respect to what their JOBS are. They're smart enough to keep their advice limited to the scope of their field of expertise, just like I do and like you SHOULD do. Furthermore, all of this applies to you and your critisisms of DICE and EA. On one hand, you tell me I know nothing of your situation. Well guess what you twit... you know just about as much about DICE and EA (and myself for that matter)... and you OBVIOUSLY have very little understanding of the "larger picture" and how technical decisions are impacted by a company's given business model. Nor do you have any comprehension of their time budget and dollar budget. All along you've tried to over-simplify the situation with BF2 with absolutely no knowledge of the data DICE and EA obtained and analyzed or their specific business situation. You also have no firsthand knowledge of games development (nor do I, but I DO have quite a bit of experience developing software and handling the overall picture that comes along with it) and are therefore in no position to be making such idiot statements like "they should have just added compatibility for XYZ because it would have been more profitable".

You want to presume to know enough about EA, DICE, and even myself so that you can make these broad, uninformed statements, but when someone comes at you in the same fashion (and it hasn't just been me), all of a sudden we "don't really know who you are or what you do". You basically just want to operate in attack mode with impunity.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, child.

You must be one stubborn guy to work with. You have quite a few people here trying to tell you you're way off the mark, but you've ignored it all and stuck to your guns in spite of it all. How much can a guy like you really listen to his techs with such a narrow-minded approach to such a slew of opposition... or do you just employ a bunch of yes-men? Honestly, I would be surprised to find out that you were actually responsible for any number of employees, given your inability to listen and how frequently you completely miss a point. To be blunt, your communication skills suck.

 

[GeneralAres]

I actually have a very good understanding of the larger picture. You just have a problem grasping the facts. I would be more then willing to properly analyize the real data if it would ever be released but it will not for obvious reasons. You can try and protect other people who make bad decisions like you obviously do or you can wake up and learn how to do your job properly.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
You just have a problem grasping the facts.

Yeah... me and the rest of the world.

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
I would be more then willing to properly analyize the real data if it would ever be released but it will not for obvious reasons.

Well, regardless of WHY the data isn't released (because it's really none of your damn business), the fact remains that YOU DON'T HAVE IT. So stop drawing conclusions upon it.

Originally posted by: GeneralAres
You can try and protect other people who make bad decisions like you obviously do or you can wake up and learn how to do your job properly.

Wow... still violating your own advice? You don't even know my background, the company for which I work, how many employees for which I'm responsible, or anything else for that matter... yet you tell me I can't do my job.

That's precious, especially after what you said about how I know nothing about you.

Good stuff, kid

 

[MikeMAN]

i prefer pb&j sandwiches

 

[GeneralAres]

This is a good comment from another game developer and it explains the technical aspects of it and why it is not hard to do:

I think this is a poor decision. Dropping support for the GF4MX series is justifiable (since they're really GF2s), although not the best business decision, but lack of support for GF3/4 is not. Yes there's the ps_1_3 limit in D3D and the NV_register_combiners issue in GL. Yes there's the 96 constant limit.

Both are not difficult to surmount - Cg can generate 'fp20' code which is equivalent to ps_1_3 on GL, and is basically a scripting tool for NV_register_combiners. nVidia even provide code to run that through GL.

The 96 constant limit is mainly an issue with hardware skinning, since bone matrices eat up constants for breakfast. Solutions include splitting the skeleton in half, or having the option to use a lower detail skeleton (which would be a good option for scalability anyway).

Neither of these issues are very hard. Material and skeleton systems should be designed to be scalable anyway. So this is one of 3 things:

1. Laziness
2. Technical snobbery
3. A crushing lack of time

I suspect the latter. But don't pretend this is a good technical decision - not only is this issue very solvable - it's run-of-the-mill. Locking out all the people with GF3/4's is not a good business decision either. Some people in here seem to think the only people who matter are those who are capable of pulling out cards and upgrading them every 2 years. That's very short-sighted, and rather arrogant and elitist - there are LOTs more ordinary PC users who don't do this, and excluding them just accelerates the move away from PC game playing to the simpler technical experience of consoles.

 

[natto fire]

I wonder if people are going to complain when their faster X800XT is obsolete to the slower 6800 NU because it supports PS 3.0? (Whenever games start using it that is).

:roll:

This is why it pays to compare specs and read lots of info when buying video cards. Especially if you are planning on keeping the card for over two years, and are expecting to play the newest games on it. All 8500 and up cards support SM 1.4. The game runs pretty good on a buddy's 9000 Pro o/c'd.

Of course, the market is probably flooded with GF4s now , so you might not be able to sell it for much and get yourself a SM 1.4 card.

As for the specs not being on the case, I find it hard to believe that someone ripped the stickers off of all the games there. Always check the specs before buying, or maybe he should have downloaded the free demo.

 

[Extrarius]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
If you wanna play a game with a cutting-edge gfx engine.... you need a cutting edge system.[...]

Believe it or not, this is a recent development. There was once a time when the latest greatest game ran even on the lowest end stuff. As far as I can tell, the last game to do that was Quake 3 - it looked great and ran fantastic on onboard video.

The only reason it doesn't support the GF4 is that they don't want to write the shaders for it. What they should do is just remove the shaders entirely if the card doesn't support them and just use simple everyday texturing for everything. It'll probably look like crap, but most people would buy a "the gf4 doesnt support our technology"-type excuse so it'd be win-win.
If the engine can already swap between shaders 1.4 and 2.0, it shouldnt' be at all difficult to add in 1.3 and then just generate passthrough shaders for everything.