Has anyone noticed how many new games are advertising the minimum system requirements only? This is really starting to bother me, because a game is typically unplayable (for me anyway) at the bare minimum settings. Many games don't even look nearly as good as they could when running at the recommended requirements. It bothers me to see a new game that the company tells me is playable on my system, but just because you can actually make it run doesn't mean it will be a nice experience. Anyone else notice this trend and have any thoughts about it or know the reason why it's happening?
No idea why it's happening, but it's a great way of ensuring fewer sales. Ideally, PC games should be designed to run on a wide range of systems (TF2 looks good on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB, single core, 1 GB system). Even worse: games that run poorly on high-end systems (usually half-arsed consoles ports). GTA IV and Saints Row 2 run like crap, based on reports I've read on the Steam forums.
Half arsed is right. The console port of Mass Effect was pretty good. The interface was certainly an improvement. Problem is something the newer Nvidia drivers just grabs the game by the spine and breaks it in 20 places. Neither Bioware nor Nvidia seem to be doing anything to fix the problem. And us people on Steam are still missing the DLC.
I like the "requirements" for Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The minimum ones look so low that the box has to be lying. The recommended requirements has a little post script that says "Note: recommended specifications provide optimal experiance for single player and up to 4 players on medium map size." What about if you want to play with 8 people on a huge map?
Why are they only giving recommended and minimum? Because they don't know the maximum yet. Look out for console ports when it comes to specs. Most of them have coding which is about as efficient as the government. The other problem with console games is they are not designed to be flexible. They are meant for static peices of technology from 3 years ago.
Minimum can mean alot of things to alot of people. Gamers mostly assume it means 'playable' but the company could take it as 'program runs a tiny map on minimum settings' and recomended as 'playable.' In general, wait for reviews and such on almost every game not made by stardock. Stardock games are always awsome. I played Sins on a computer which cost about $300 when we got it 5 years ago.
Protip: Don't buy half-assed X-Box to PC ports, not for any reason, ever.
It should also be noted that the people who publish/develop those games are heavily invested in destroying PC gaming, which they see as the biggest cause of piracy [and loss of money]- In that way, their strategy is similar to Ford and GM of the 70s... what with their, "Really shitty small car" idea: If you make it bad enough, people will stop buying it and buy what they used to buy instead. It didn't work for Ford and GM, it won't work for EA, Bethesda, Rockstar etc... They'll whine more and more about how piracy is their downfall and not very very poor production.
Honestly, this is the overwhelming reason I bought Sins from Stardock/Ironclad: instead of just "rah rah, piracy is killing us... DRM!! DRM!!" they tried [successfully or otherwise] to stem the tide of "bad business" with their distribution model. While Im not 100% behind them on their long series of patches, I dig that some friends and I can get a LAN game going just by dragging and dropping the folder to another computer... I gets everyone one the same page really fast. Developers who think people are going to pay $50 x 8 licences to play an hour or two on New Years Eve smoked some bad granola.
-DrGonzo
Protip: Don't buy half-assed X-Box to PC ports, not for any reason, ever.I never do. The games I play on my PC are meant for my PC. Xbox dumps are an EZ way to make money before sending a game out to pasture. (I don't oppose well-made multiplatform games; Valve's games come out on the Xbox and the PC and never once have I felt ripped off by their PC games)
I agree: crappy, unoptimized, clunky, dumbed-down console ports -- not piracy -- hurt sales (along with stupid DRM schemes).
The only reason I bought Mass Effect at all was that I heard the UI was about 6000% better on the PC version.
...and...
I played Sins on a computer which cost about $300 when we got it 5 years ago.
My main complain about sins... it run poorly on high end system... i have a dual Xeon 4 core, 16 gb ram, NV 8800 Ultra 768mb... but sins is not faster and have the similar limitation that the guy with a 300$ computer from 5 years ago...
In 2003, 6 year ago, the first desktop PC processor who support 64 bits was out... in 2005, 4 years ago, first Desktop PC processor with multicore was out... anno 2008 come sins, able to run it on computer from prehistoric time but not able to use the power of any cheap computer that you found everywhere... by example, here, in any big food store, between bread and salad, you can find low end computer at very low price... these low end computer have minimum two core and support 64 bits... Why Stardock have made Sins compatible with the recycled computer from some obscure place in the African jungle... in no way, the local guy with a few $$$ month income will buy the game...
Since Stardock have the source of sins, why not compile it for 64 bits... don't need to optimize the code, allow us only to go over the ram limit from 32 bits application...
And it become a must to be with Entrenchment... try a huge map with multistar... soon of later, you hit the ram limit ( 3gb for win32, 4gb for win64 using wow64 for emulate the win32 env )... yes, i know... entrenchment is a beta... optimisation will resolve it... but once optimised, it will not remain a lot of room for mods... and what about the 2 future other expension... they will use more ram too... with time, on any machine, we will need to use map 1vs1 with 5 planet only...
Sins budget was around 1 million $$$, in one year, the return was ten time this amount... sins is a real success, normal since it is a very good game concept and at these level, Stardock/Ironclad have made wonders... why not invest now some in the return money for a sins 2 engine... stop upgrade actual limited engine with micro expension who will make the game unplayable on any machine...
This was noted by Blair or Craig over on the Sins site, but having two different versions of the game would screw up the RNG's predictability and lead to a whole new boat of sync issues.
I've noticed this as well, plus it seems like the recommended requirements listed are becoming increasingly 'optimistic'. I know marketing doesn't want to admit their game needs SLI'd GTX 280s to run smoothly on decent settings, but if you lie to me I'm just going to be less likely to buy anything from you in the future. They need a better defined standard for this sort of thing. Like 'minimum' means, "This game will run smoothly on low settings with this hardware, even in multiplayer." Recommended, to me at least, should mean, "This game will run smoothly on mostly high settings with this hardware, even in multiplayer." If I meet the recommended requirements, I should not be chugging on medium settings in a 1v1/single player mode.
BTW, kyogre12, Cavedog and GPG have always had shady marketing practices on the box. I recall them claiming Total Annihilation would run fine on a P133 and 32 MB RAM; it wasn't until I ran it on a P350 and 64 MB RAM that I could play a 2v2 on a medium sized map without severe slowdown. As for SupCom, well I'll never buy from GPG again because of that mess. I exceeded the recommended requirements, yet could not run a 2v2 on a medium sized map above 15 fps with no battles going on, on low settings. When there WAS actual fighting going on it went to 5-6 fps. Nice lying on the system requirements guys, it not only cost you all my future business but several other people's future business as I happily trash the game whenever someone asks, "Hey, is SupCom worth trying?" Maybe in 2 years people will have system that can run that game smoothly.
Hah!
That's a great idea. In fact, I'll go one further and suggest that all games (especially those under the Games for Windows banner) should have three different recommended specs for low, med, and high settings. That way the consumer would no exactly what they're in for and wouldn't have to be stuck with an open PC game that no one will accept as a return. PC Gamer offers suggestions for building low, med, and high rigs in every issue. Going this route could be a big plus for the industry.
I take some offense to all this games on consoles are dumbed down crap, the last intelligent game I played on the PC was Starflight and Starflight 2. Mass Effect "Open World" my ass!
I've been playing PC games for a while, and console games too. But you want to know what is acutally killing PC gaming. All these stupid FPS games about some space marine/soldier/merc/whatever my name is number 203.. (Granted I am looking forward to Killzone 2)
PC gaming is now really only the space of 4X games likes Sins and GalCiv 2. Both of which are great games. But here's too dreaming Binary Systems will pull a fast one, topple EA reclaim their rightful place and release a next generation sequel to the Starflight Series... 16 bit all the way! Maybe 32...
This thread reminds me of Neverwinter Nights 2: Unstable at any speed. Over two years after release, a multitude of patches and two expansions, I've still yet to see it run without a single hitch on any single computer I've tried it on (well above 10).
Heck I make sure i got some of the best tec for the computer just to be safe hence why my 2 4870s are on the way...
The fact that there is no standard in what exactly minimum or recommended system requirements mean is hurting PC gaming....we need standards....FAST!! But perhaps the Windows Experience Index can help a bit....or more information or something....
Stardock should add that to their Gamers Bill of Rights.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
