FarCry 4 and the death of the dual core CPUs in gaming

[Rakehellion]

If every CPU has multiple cores, it would be bad programming to limit the game to a single core. Software has to be written to be multi-core capable. It's not simple like OH HEY I THINK I'LL ENABLE MULTICORE WITH THIS HERE BOOLEAN VARIABLE AND I'M DONE!

That's exactly what they're doing here. The dual-core limitation is artifice.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Too bad FC4 is massively broken for a lot of the PC playerbase. It likes to crash before it even loads the first part of the game. Sadly I'm one of the affected. Thankfully I didn't pay money for the game. (Came with GTX 970)

Update drivers and get fully patched?

There's been some conflicts with some software that caused the game to have issues. I think RAZOR software has been troublesome.

That said, it ran fine for me out of the box. GTX760

 

[Texashiker]

Some of this may just be Ubi's poor job at coding, but it rubs me wrong when the game outright locks out what it thinks is too old. Install, run, and let the user make the call whether their hardware&performance in sufficient.

Look at Skyrim, Oblivion, Borderlands, Rust and Borderlands 2. They are massive games that run great on older dual core cpus.

Why is it all of a sudden a dual core cpus are not enough?

I place the blame directly on the coders.

 

[ThinClient]

Rust is a massive game?

bwuahahahahaha...

 

[Texashiker]

Rust is a massive game?

bwuahahahahaha...

Uh, yea. You played the game? Ran from one side of the island to the other?

 

[ThinClient]

Uh, yea. You played the game? Ran from one side of the island to the other?

Map size is such a tiny aspect of what makes a game "big." You realize that 75% of that island was entirely devoid of anything other than ground mesh and texture, right?

 

[Texashiker]

Map size is such a tiny aspect of what makes a game "big." You realize that 75% of that island was entirely devoid of anything other than ground mesh and texture, right?

No duh, really, since when? You do realize the developers are still adding content?

In case you are wondering, yes I have played rust, to the tune of 136 hours.

Rust is a massive game from the size of the island to what you can do.

 

[ThinClient]

No duh, really, since when? You do realize the developers are still adding content?

In case you are wondering, yes I have played rust, to the tune of 136 hours.

Rust is a massive game from the size of the island to what you can do.

I have 400+ hours into Rust and used to run my own server, son.

 

[Texashiker]

I have 400+ hours into Rust and used to run my own server, son.

I am probably old enough to be your dad.

Even if you disagree that rust is a massive game, it meets the definition of a massive first person shooter game. As in the game goes on when you are disconnected from the server.

 

[ThinClient]

I am probably old enough to be your dad.

Even if you disagree that rust is a massive game, it meets the definition of a massive first person shooter game. As in the game goes on when you are disconnected from the server.

Massive as in the number of people who play it, not how big the map is LOL

The server continuing while you're offline is called "persistent" not "massive."

Son.

 

[Texashiker]

Massive as in the number of people who play it, not how big the map is LOL

The server continuing while you're offline is called "persistent" not "massive."

Son.

Kid, you need to get your definitions right,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

MMOs usually have at least one persistent world, however some games differ.

 

[darkewaffle]

This is amazing.

 

[postmortemIA]

I'm having trouble equating using more cores = bad programming.


Several years ago it was 'bad programming' if the game didn't use more cores.

Using all 4 cores != hardcoding processing onto 3rd core

 

[Spungo]

Using all 4 cores != hardcoding processing onto 3rd core

Hardcoding cores without checking the number of cores available = extremely low quality console port. It seems like most modern games are crappy console ports.

We shouldn't be shocked when companies put zero effort into their PC versions. Remember the game Dead Space? Remember how the controls were totally screwed up? They didn't even attempt to port it to PC controls. It's like they put a software emulator around it and sold it without any beta testing.

For those who have never played it, Dead Space felt weird because console controllers are fundamentally different from computer mice. A mouse works based on position. If I move my mouse 1 inch to the right, it will move X number of pixels to the right. If I move it 1 inch to the left, it should move that same X number of pixels to the left. Console controllers don't have positions, so they work based on something more like a velocity. If you hold a controller analog stick slightly to the left, your character will continue rotating until you take your thumb off the stick, and the stick always returns to the same position. Apply that type of logic to a mouse and you get Dead Space.

The solution is to leave negative reviews on metacritic when this happens. Don't just pirate the game and declare victory. That's not victory. The company execs would say "we lost sales to pirates" instead of "we lost sales because metacritic says our game sucks due to broken controls and stability issues"
Metacritic stopped me from buying Rage. The people reviewing it all say it's a buggy console port.

 

[Texashiker]

Metacritic stopped me from buying Rage. The people reviewing it all say it's a buggy console port.

That is why we all need to boycott far cry 4.

Stand in solidarity with our dual core gaming brothers and sisters,

 

[ImpulsE69]

Stay on topic, I want to know who the father is...

 

[Stringjam]

After having spent the weekend emersed in FarCry4, I can attest that it is $60 well spent. I love open world games, and Far Cry 3 was amazing for me. So 'reskinned Far Cry 3' is a great thing, imho.

I would have easily paid $100 for it. Bargain bin game it is not, at least in my experience.

I agree totally.

I have a hard time hating the only dev still making an open-world, mission-based FPS focusing on the single-player experience.

This game isn't a "reskin," in the sense that I'm interpreting that word. There is a ton of new assets in this game. I'm sure they reused some models, AI scripts and animation rigs, but why not? Why spend tens of thousands of dollars in labor to create the mechanics and then not use them again (if they're good) to cut development time for the next game?

One thing I do think they could improve is creating more enterable man-made structures. The games are natural environment heavy and it would add some variety to the scene.

I hope Ubisoft keeps re-skinning this franchise, because I'll keep buying it.

 

[MWink]

As someone who is currently running an old Core 2 Duo and will soon be moving to a G3258, this is an issue that affects me. If game companies want to require 4+ core CPU's then I guess I just won't be buying/playing their game. It's the same as with companies putting nasty DRM in their games. I just won't buy it. There are plenty of other companies who will not inhibit my ability to play their games and they will get my money. As I've gotten older I've realized that there are no games that I just HAVE to play. There are tons of other great games out there and I will spend my money/time on them.

 

[futurefields]

dude G3258 is a $60 dollar cpu, yeah you're not going to be playing a lot of games thats just reality

 

[Spungo]

That is why we all need to boycott far cry 4.
Stand in solidarity with our dual core gaming brothers and sisters,

We can each have our own reasons for avoiding certain products.

One weird thing I've been doing recently on Steam is sort games by their Mac/Linux support. I like the idea of being able to play games on Linux or a Mac. That was always the big thing about Windows. People would switch to Linux if they could play games on Linux.
I should probably put Linux on a hard drive just so the stats at least show that people are using Linux and playing the Linux versions of games.

 

[ThinClient]

As someone who is currently running an old Core 2 Duo and will soon be moving to a G3258, this is an issue that affects me. If game companies want to require 4+ core CPU's then I guess I just won't be buying/playing their game. It's the same as with companies putting nasty DRM in their games. I just won't buy it. There are plenty of other companies who will not inhibit my ability to play their games and they will get my money. As I've gotten older I've realized that there are no games that I just HAVE to play. There are tons of other great games out there and I will spend my money/time on them.

I've been thinking about this whole CPU-requirement debacle when something came to mind that put me right on the fence in the debate.

Sometimes a company wants to control the way their product is perceived or consumed.

There's a local beer company that refuses to sell certain brews of theirs outside of their brewery because they want to control the quality (it's a hilariously complex fruit sour that takes 18 months to make) of the drink when it is consumed. They want to preserve the efforts they made, to make sure that the customer is getting exactly what the brewery intended to offer.

I can see why someone would want the product they worked hard to create to be consumed a certain way or at a minimum quality or to make an effort to preserve the experience that they intended to create by avoiding too much product degradation.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a game dev to make that kind of decision.

 

[Bateluer]

As someone who is currently running an old Core 2 Duo and will soon be moving to a G3258, this is an issue that affects me. If game companies want to require 4+ core CPU's then I guess I just won't be buying/playing their game. It's the same as with companies putting nasty DRM in their games. I just won't buy it. There are plenty of other companies who will not inhibit my ability to play their games and they will get my money. As I've gotten older I've realized that there are no games that I just HAVE to play. There are tons of other great games out there and I will spend my money/time on them.

Do articles like this affect your decision at all? Ubisoft may just be starting the trend here, but dual core CPUs are running on borrowed time. At least, in terms of gaming. You still plan on buying the G3258 instead of springing for a full i5? Checked Newegg, and the cheapest i5 quads are ~170 USD.

 

[RussianSensation]

dude G3258 is a $60 dollar cpu, yeah you're not going to be playing a lot of games thats just reality

Exactly. For 10 games listed that run well on that a 3258 OC, there are 10 games that run 30-50% slower than on quad cores. My first quad core was a Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz that I purchased for $299 in August of 2007. Back then I realized that I can keep 20-30 tabs open in the browser, run an anti-virus in the background and game, something that was just not possible on my E6400 @ 3.4Ghz.

We have been saying for years that no one should be building a PC gaming rig with a dual core CPU in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 unless that gamer mostly plays specific dual-threaded games such as Skyrim or Blizzard titles. Look, if it's not FC4, it would be some other game sooner or later. Fact is in many PC games a Core i5 /7 will be 30-50% faster than a 3258. Therefore, all that money spent on faster cards above R9 280 would be simply wasted on the 3258 anyway.

I don't understand how people can afford to spend $ on PC games but can't afford to step up to a Core i5 that will last them 5 years. This is not the 1990s-2000s anymore where you needed to upgrade your CPU and GPU every 2 years. Nowadays, the extra cost of getting an i5/FX series CPU means a peace of mind for 5+ years. My Jan 2011 2500K will turn 4 years old and it's barely showing its age. I came to a realization a long time ago that it's better to buy a faster CPU, monitor you will enjoy and a solid PSU upfront and just worry about your SSD and GPU upgrades for the next 5 years.

Even games like BF4, Metro 2033/LL, Crysis 3, or COD:AW will have major performance drops of 30-50% with a dual-core/i3. No one should have expected a $60 CPU to be gaming capable for the next 4-5 years. The same thing is happening with 2GB videocards and we also warned that would happen based on history.

When current consoles were announced with 8GB of RAM/VRAM and 8-core CPUs (6 usable), that day the death sentence for dual core CPUs and 2GB cards was signed. Now it's just a matter of time before more and more games come out that will keep destroying dual core CPU setups with 2GB GPUs. For someone building a new system, an FX6000 series and a 3GB GPU should be a minimum stating point, but moving up to an i5 and 4GB GPU is highly recommended.

Next year there will be even more demanding games like the Witcher 3 and we are just getting started as the graphical demands ramp up with developers targetting PS4/XB1.

 

[Sulaco]

My last computer was a mid-high end PC I built for around $1200 that had a Quad Core in 2009.

That's over 5 years ago.

 

[Bateluer]

I don't understand how people can afford to spend $ on PC games but can't afford to step up to a Core i5 that will last them 5 years. This is not the 1990s-2000s anymore where you needed to upgrade your CPU and GPU every 2 years. Nowadays, the extra cost of getting an i5/FX series CPU means a peace of mind for 5+ years. My Jan 2011 2500K will turn 4 years old and it's barely showing its age. I came to a realization a long time ago that it's better to buy a faster CPU, monitor you will enjoy and a solid PSU upfront and just worry about your SSD and GPU upgrades for the next 5 years.

With age comes experience. Although I did refer people over to Haswell i3s over FX 6300 and FX 8xx0 builds as recently as August . . . but they were on budgets looking to spend under 600.