Yea, because nvidia LOVES it when their video cards don't work with games.Originally posted by: pcmax
Oh it's not laziness, try greed. Wonder how much kickback Nvidia gave them for it
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
OK, here's your answer.
EA pushes their devs to release way too soon, so the dev's had a choice, spend extra time writing in fallback support for outdated protocols that render slower. (doing all the optimizations that go with it, bug testing it, etc) and spend less time on content, bug fixes, gameplay, etc. Or develop to a more current spec (almost any video card made sense the fx 5200 is dx9 ps 1.4 compatible) save time in testing and optimizations. And possibly knock out more gameplay bugs and make better content and still meet EA deadlines.
The fact of the matter is that technology changes. Its like people complaining that a lot of new software wont work on windows 98. Its simple efficiency. They just looked at the demographic and found that the cost outweighed the gains of adding support for older video cards. That means your in a minority in their eyes, and minoritys get screwed.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Marketing hype? That pic looks bland. For some reason Far Cry looks much better using my 6800GT. Maybe it's just the "marketing hype." :roll:
Now get rid of that sh!tty card.
Some of us play our games for the game itself. We couldn't care less about the eye candy. Starcraft is fun, but the graphics aren't great. Same with Tetris, etc. FarCry could be viewed the same way. Just because a game can be pretty doesn't mean it HAS to be pretty.
Some of us are perfectly happy running only "medium" details on BF2. If you can run Ultra_High, well congrats, your e-penis is bigger than mine.
Originally posted by: obsidian
Yea, because nvidia LOVES it when their video cards don't work with games.Originally posted by: pcmax
Oh it's not laziness, try greed. Wonder how much kickback Nvidia gave them for it
Yes, because nvidia LOVES it when people buy new video cards
Sorry, but Dice is not owned by EA. They also have the financial means to support their own devopement. I call total and utter bs on the "EA made us do it" excuse.
Yea, I can imagine all those people whos nvidia cards no longer work wanting to upgrade to yet another nvidia card instead of the other options available. Stop being dumb. No companies that don't have a total monopoly (like microsoft) like it when their older products are incompatible with newer technologies when they don't have to be.Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Yes, because nvidia LOVES it when people buy new video cards
Originally posted by: obsidian
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Yes, because nvidia LOVES it when people buy new video cards
Yea, I can imagine all those people whos nvidia cards no longer work wanting to upgrade to yet another nvidia card instead of the other options available. Stop being dumb.
At no point did I say every customer would buy an nVidia card. I'm simply saying that it would boost sales. More than likely most customers would be impressed that the GF4 served them as long as it did and buy another NV card.
If a few people are upset that a 3-4 year old card doesn't work any more, then let them buy ATI.
It's not like nvidia has anything to lose by this game not having GF4 support. They don't sell those any more.
From a purely sales stand point, it can't hurt them.
obsidian makes sense its not an nvidia thing, just careless programming, the end result of which doesn't even justify their demands. heck if crytek can program for ps1.3 why can't they.
JackBurton's remarks are at best pitiful.
JackBurton's remarks are at best pitiful.
Maybe if you worked on your e-reading skills instead of thinking about other people's penises, you'd see where he can't even play BF2 at med settings. And since he's complaining about the way it looks, I'm going to go off on a limb here, but I don't think he's happy running the game that way.Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Marketing hype? That pic looks bland. For some reason Far Cry looks much better using my 6800GT. Maybe it's just the "marketing hype." :roll:
Now get rid of that sh!tty card.
Some of us play our games for the game itself. We couldn't care less about the eye candy. Starcraft is fun, but the graphics aren't great. Same with Tetris, etc. FarCry could be viewed the same way. Just because a game can be pretty doesn't mean it HAS to be pretty.
Some of us are perfectly happy running only "medium" details on BF2. If you can run Ultra_High, well congrats, your e-penis is bigger than mine.
The only thing pitful, is you still using that card to play modern day games. I'll tell you what, since you LOVE your card so much and have convinced yourself your card is just as good as the newer cards, I'll leave you sitting here typing and b!tching about why your old ass card won't work on BF2, and I'll just go play the game. Have a nice day.
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Maybe if you worked on your e-reading skills instead of thinking about other people's penises, you'd see where he can't even play BF2 at med settings. And since he's complaining about the way it looks, I'm going to go off on a limb here, but I don't think he's happy running the game that way.Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Marketing hype? That pic looks bland. For some reason Far Cry looks much better using my 6800GT. Maybe it's just the "marketing hype." :roll:
Now get rid of that sh!tty card.
Some of us play our games for the game itself. We couldn't care less about the eye candy. Starcraft is fun, but the graphics aren't great. Same with Tetris, etc. FarCry could be viewed the same way. Just because a game can be pretty doesn't mean it HAS to be pretty.
Some of us are perfectly happy running only "medium" details on BF2. If you can run Ultra_High, well congrats, your e-penis is bigger than mine.
The only thing pitful, is you still using that card to play modern day games. I'll tell you what, since you LOVE your card so much and have convinced yourself your card is just as good as the newer cards, I'll leave you sitting here typing and b!tching about why your old ass card won't work on BF2, and I'll just go play the game. Have a nice day.
JackBurton,
Take a look at history. Find me another game that did this? I have no desire to play BF2 however to render a GF4 card out of date this quickly is pretty stupid. There are lots of people that don't upgrade their video cards that regularly. My Ti4200 pretty much plays any game out there except BF2. I am just happy I don't have any desire to play it.
Just spend 10 minutes to try and find a game that made a two year old card completely unusable to play the game.
I think you will have a hard time. Unless of course you try to refer to 3DFX but that was simply caused by 3dfx going out of business.
Indeed, I just picked up Guild Wars from Walmart yesterday and BF1942 is down to $10! Lots of other good semi-new titles or $20 or less like IIRC Doom 3, Far Cry, Joint Operations, Call of Duty I'm guessing too. There's still enough people that play the original Quake online... granted it is one of the best FPS ever, but a lot of times the older titles are better or more fun.
Codewiz, I agree that they should support older hardware even if people are content playing with super low settings (Hey, if you like 640x480 256 colors, knock yourself out). But if the game developer simply wants to code for newer cards, that's their decision, bad or not. This isn't the first time EA has made a stupid move. So the options you have are, if you want to play the game you'll have to upgrade, if you don't, I guess you ain't playing.Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Maybe if you worked on your e-reading skills instead of thinking about other people's penises, you'd see where he can't even play BF2 at med settings. And since he's complaining about the way it looks, I'm going to go off on a limb here, but I don't think he's happy running the game that way.Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Marketing hype? That pic looks bland. For some reason Far Cry looks much better using my 6800GT. Maybe it's just the "marketing hype." :roll:
Now get rid of that sh!tty card.
Some of us play our games for the game itself. We couldn't care less about the eye candy. Starcraft is fun, but the graphics aren't great. Same with Tetris, etc. FarCry could be viewed the same way. Just because a game can be pretty doesn't mean it HAS to be pretty.
Some of us are perfectly happy running only "medium" details on BF2. If you can run Ultra_High, well congrats, your e-penis is bigger than mine.
The only thing pitful, is you still using that card to play modern day games. I'll tell you what, since you LOVE your card so much and have convinced yourself your card is just as good as the newer cards, I'll leave you sitting here typing and b!tching about why your old ass card won't work on BF2, and I'll just go play the game. Have a nice day.
JackBurton,
Take a look at history. Find me another game that did this? I have no desire to play BF2 however to render a GF4 card out of date this quickly is pretty stupid. There are lots of people that don't upgrade their video cards that regularly. My Ti4200 pretty much plays any game out there except BF2. I am just happy I don't have any desire to play it.
Just spend 10 minutes to try and find a game that made a two year old card completely unusable to play the game.
I think you will have a hard time. Unless of course you try to refer to 3DFX but that was simply caused by 3dfx going out of business.
Yes, if you hadn't noticed, the topic I was addressing was your comment about FARCRY.
Marketing hype? That pic looks bland. For some reason Far Cry looks much better using my 6800GT. Maybe it's just the "marketing hype." :roll:
Now get rid of that sh!tty card.
I believe your e-reading skills are in need of some work.
Jay75, don't let them try to tell you otherwise, but the GF4 is still a very good card.
I still have a Ti4400 in my machine and I haven't come across any game that I couldn't play at very high resolutions and settings.
Now don't get me wrong, the card is showing it's age, and is not going to run games like the 6800 or the x800 cards, but it's not supposed to be compared to that. And the previous nVidia generation sucked big time. The FX series were a very shoddy product, and by the time that they were half decent, nVidia decided to abandon that line in favor of the new 6x00 series.
I could see if the card only pushed out a few frames per second and if it didn't have "all" the eye candy that the present cards do, but it doesn't even look as good as a game that is much older, like the old BF1942.
I wouldn't say that it's the programmers that are lazy. They're told what to do and have a limited time to do it in, so usually the company decides what to include, what not to include and when it rolls out. The programmers were probably told not to include the specs cause it would take more time, and the testers probably wouldn't have tested for that either, otherwise they would have seen this and it would have been fixed. They probably did release it too early and for that you get a product out the door which doesn't mean it's going to work on every machine the way it should, but hopefully if they're worth anything at all, they'll listen to the customer and fix their shoddy product.
So for you guys who are spouting crap about people that should upgrade their hardware when it does work in everything else except the one piece of software, why not provide some constructive comments instead of your lame "buy a newer video card"?
The only upgrade I'd consider an "upgrade" would be the 6x00 series or a similar ATI product, but if I went with an FX, it might "look" better, but I'm sure it would run like crap (unless it's the 5900 or 5950 which isn't much of an upgrade IMHO). You shouldn't have to upgrade your card though if it will push out the frames.. never have had to in the past, and even with the changing times, visuals are usually not the first problem, it's processor power to push the frames out.
I know that many people who go to our LANs who have older hardware will not upgrade their vid card just to play that one game (and BF1942/Desert Combat was a very popular combo at our games). I've never seen a game come out yet where the newer sequel looked worse than the older/original.
Not that it will help alot, but I would write to EA or any other developer and voice your concern about their product. Tell them what you like and don't like about it, and with more people telling them, perhaps they'll do something about it. For right now, I would just take your game back and ask for your money back since it won't work on your hardware as you expected (which it should).
I still have a Ti4400 in my machine and I haven't come across any game that I couldn't play at very high resolutions and settings.
Now don't get me wrong, the card is showing it's age, and is not going to run games like the 6800 or the x800 cards, but it's not supposed to be compared to that. And the previous nVidia generation sucked big time. The FX series were a very shoddy product, and by the time that they were half decent, nVidia decided to abandon that line in favor of the new 6x00 series.
I could see if the card only pushed out a few frames per second and if it didn't have "all" the eye candy that the present cards do, but it doesn't even look as good as a game that is much older, like the old BF1942.
I wouldn't say that it's the programmers that are lazy. They're told what to do and have a limited time to do it in, so usually the company decides what to include, what not to include and when it rolls out. The programmers were probably told not to include the specs cause it would take more time, and the testers probably wouldn't have tested for that either, otherwise they would have seen this and it would have been fixed. They probably did release it too early and for that you get a product out the door which doesn't mean it's going to work on every machine the way it should, but hopefully if they're worth anything at all, they'll listen to the customer and fix their shoddy product.
So for you guys who are spouting crap about people that should upgrade their hardware when it does work in everything else except the one piece of software, why not provide some constructive comments instead of your lame "buy a newer video card"?
The only upgrade I'd consider an "upgrade" would be the 6x00 series or a similar ATI product, but if I went with an FX, it might "look" better, but I'm sure it would run like crap (unless it's the 5900 or 5950 which isn't much of an upgrade IMHO). You shouldn't have to upgrade your card though if it will push out the frames.. never have had to in the past, and even with the changing times, visuals are usually not the first problem, it's processor power to push the frames out.
I know that many people who go to our LANs who have older hardware will not upgrade their vid card just to play that one game (and BF1942/Desert Combat was a very popular combo at our games). I've never seen a game come out yet where the newer sequel looked worse than the older/original.
Not that it will help alot, but I would write to EA or any other developer and voice your concern about their product. Tell them what you like and don't like about it, and with more people telling them, perhaps they'll do something about it. For right now, I would just take your game back and ask for your money back since it won't work on your hardware as you expected (which it should).
And if you hadn't noticed, I was commenting on your broad generalization that included all games:
And then you go on to mention BF2 right after that:
Well guess what fvcko, the OP can't play with "medium" details on BF2, that's why this thread was started, and that is where my Far Cry argument stemmed from. Which goes back to my original statement, buy a new card if you want to play it.
Now if you don't mind, I'm leaving this thread and I'll let you go back to thinking about penises.
To the OP
Don't feel bad. I tried the demo and on my Barton 2500+, 1GB RAM, GF5900 w/ 128MB machine it ran pretty poorly.
I did the PC gaming thing for a while, I'm going back to consoles. Screw this twelve month upgrade cycle.
Don't feel bad. I tried the demo and on my Barton 2500+, 1GB RAM, GF5900 w/ 128MB machine it ran pretty poorly.
I did the PC gaming thing for a while, I'm going back to consoles. Screw this twelve month upgrade cycle.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Take it from someone who has upgraded from a ti4200, buy a new card already. I make it a habit of skipping generations when it comes to to upgrade. I skipped the FX and 9xxx series, and now have an x800 pro.
No one is forcing you to upgrade to PCIe or even buy a 400 video card. A 120 dollar 9800 pro would play BF2 well, I imagine. You could sell the ti 4400 for almost half that.
OP has insufficient RAM anyway. Enjoy old games at high settings with your old hardware. Trying to run the latest games even at lowest settings will just result in dissapointment anyway. Not many games compare to BF2, let alone BF1942 in the size of the environment and number of players and schtuff going on. I don't know 'nuff aboot it... but as I recall, Geforce 4 series were generally slower than Radeon 8500 when quality features like AA/AF were enabled. So the fact that a lower pixel shader version now turns out to hamper them even more is not surprising. If it can somehow be forced to work then I suppose one could expect even lower performance. Stop banging your head against a wall and sell it while you can and you can prolly upgrade to a nice card for $50, which when considering spending $50 per game is insignificant. As said, get 'nutha 512MB RAM to avoid performance degradation too, otherwise there ain't much point in upgrading the viddy card. If upgrading ain't yer thing then stick to the limitless number of old titles or switch to a console.
Battlefield doesn't look flashy but it makes use of many advanced features like bump mapping, pixel shading and vertex shading. Have you seen the 3dmark05 canyon demo? Battlefields mountains are rendered just like that. The 4*00 cards just can't execute those shader calculations.
I can think of some games (MOH
A and Silent Hunter III come imediately to mind) out in the past year or so that rendered GF4 MX's "unusable", not that they were very usuable to begin with. This is why it is so hard to keep the technology moving. People like Codewiz refuse to let the old stuff go. Developers have to deal with this by making sacrifices to ensure compatibility.
Actually around 3 years old. I just found the receipt for my ti4400 dated 4/02 and they hadn't been out long before I picked up mine. The 4200 wheren't even out yet at that time or I woulda saved some dough and bought one of those instead.
Because Far Cry is an engine that's a full year older?
If you get 3 years out of a high end GPU, you've already gotten a bargain. Anything more is getting greedy.
If you get 3 years out of a high end GPU, you've already gotten a bargain. Anything more is getting greedy.
I've been playing some of the demo (Radeon 8500), i average around 35-50 fps but the graphics look like CRAP. Atleast it runs the game
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter