I'm running a Radeon X800 which I have had no problems running any other games I've wanted to play until now. I can run Fallout 3 just fine with it. I've felt no need to upgrade and them Demigod comes out and REQUIRES Pixel Shader 3.0 which my card doesn't support. I know that the game would run fine if I wasn't forced to use Pixel Shader 3.0. And I know Radeon X800 is a few years old, but I've had no need to upgrade and still don't feel as if I have reason enough so far. I don't need any posts of people saying "Buy a new graphics card, you can get a Pixel Shader 3.0 card cheap." I'm well aware, don't tell me what I already know. The reason I'm posting is because of the principle of the matter. The dev team could have EASILY added in Pixel Shader 2.0 support. It seems like good business sense to me to release a game capable of running on as many systems as possible if financially feasible. Is the cost of what it will take to make your game more readily compatible less than the sales you would receive from the compatibility? Put simply: Is it profitable? It seems to me that it would be. Can it really be that expensive to support Pixel Shader 2.0 as well as Pixel Shader 3.0? I know it isn't a "one or the other" thing. Many other games have Pixel Shader 3.0 as an optional graphics feature. I, personally, really don't care if a game supports Pixel Shader at all. I would rather have a game that looks decent and runs smoothly than a game that looks great but runs like shit unless you have the latest everything. I have other things to spend money on in life than buying new computer parts every month. Could I upgrade my card if I really wanted to? Yes. Do I feel like the money I would spend on a new card is worth what I would get out of it? No. Almost none of the games I play would run any better than they do now. Pixel Shader is a minor "extra" feature and should not be required. FSAA is a much greater feature and games don't even require 2x. You can disable it if you want. As it should be.
So my point: Why require Pixel Shader 3.0 if you don't have to? Only thing I can figure is the graphics card companies are "bribing" these developers into requiring negligible hardware features to drum up more sales of their cards in a slow economy. There are still many gamers out there with Pixel Shader 2.0 cards and happy with them. I've seen forums all over the net of people irritated by the handful of games now requiring this: Demigod, GTA IV, Lord of the Rings: Conquest, and a few others. Personally, I'd rather do without the game than be required to buy a new video card. If nothing else, just because I'm expected to. There are plenty of better games out there that don't require Pixel Shader 3.0. Games with greater replay values.
I reiterate: It cannot be too difficult to allow Pixel Shader 2.0 support. Or even allow an option to disable Pixel Shader altogether if you don't have Pixel Shader 3.0 hardware. Why not? I would gladly do without if it allowed me to play the game. And I say it can't be too difficult because a small group of 3rd party programmers released a patch for Bioshock to disable Pixel Shader 3.0 and allow lower end cards to play it, and the game ran fine. The fix was very small and was as simple as deleting a few files and editing a few others to prevent the game from accessing Pixel Shader 3.0 features.
The Bioshock fix can be found here:http://www.shadershock.tk/
Furthermore, another 3rd party program was released some time ago when this problem arose with the onset of Pixel Shader 2.0. This little program, called 3D-Analyze, is capable of emulating any Pixel Shader version up to Pixel Shader 2.0 on cards that have earlier versions of Pixel Shader. It's also capable of skipping the loading of Pixel Shader 2.0 or earlier altogether. Therefore eliminating the need for the user to have a card with that feature.
If these basement programmers can do it, why can't Stardock? Why not release a patch to let those of us with "ancient" cards still play the game with Pixel Shader 2.0? If that's too difficult or time-consuming for you, then why not at least give us an option to disable Pixel Shader completely? A loader to set the graphics options before loading the game and a simple little box to tick to turn the all important Pixel Shader off. Surely you guys are capable of that.
In beta, you claimed that the game would eventually have Pixel Shader 2.0 support. Then at release, the minimum requirements changed and that idea was scrapped. What happened? Did you just not have enough time to implement it before release? Fine, that's understandable. But what's stopping you from releasing a patch for it now? Do you just think they're aren't enough people in need of it to be worthwhile? Search the net, there are a LOT of potential moneybags out there that wish this game could be played on their Pixel Shader 2.0 cards. That's more income for you. These people have either decided not to buy or have returned the game to the store because of this one problem. What's standing in your way?
I really support Stardock and the values that you guys stand for. Which is why I don't understand what the problem is with allowing Pixel Shader 2.0 support. Is there a law against it? Or are the guys in that department just too lazy to take a few days to build a patch? You tell me.
Maybe it was a business decision (time/cost/technical issues/ect vs projected amount of players they felt they would pickup)...and not them "being lazy".
I tell ya...I have a real contempt for the kids these days who run around calling developers "lazy"...it's unbelievable.
nice post, +1 for you.
I was in the same boat as you and follow them all through beta hoping pixel shader 2.0 would be supported. This game uses the supcom engine and supreme commander had pixel shader 2.0. I eventually upgraded my computer so I don't care about this anymore but I'm still bitter about it.
You kept mentioning it's easy to add ps2.0 but maybe it's not easy after all. My theory is that Demigod is a low budget game and they had to cut corners somewhere. Maybe it cost $200,000 to add shader 2.0 support (redrawing all the graphics again) and it would delay the game another 2 month. They then did a market analysist of how much money they can make and probably won't recover that $200,000.
Another reason behind it I think is if you did have a 3+ year old video card with 2.0 only. Then your cpu will also be the bottleneck. Since this game doesn't run that well on single core cpus or cpus 3+ year old. So adding shader 2.0 didn't seem worth the money so they dropped it.
I think Dawn of War2 didn't have shader 2.0 support as well, so we will start to see a trend as you have mentioned. Luckily Starcraft2 will support it from what I read although no official word on the system reqs. I also read somewhere that Windows 7 has emulation that it can make any videocard run up to pixel shader 3.0 so windows7 should be better for gaming.
I can see the OP's point even if I don't find it all that terrible that it requires Pixel Shader 3.0.
Pixel Shader 3.0 has been around for quite a few years now though. I don't upgrade my video card that often either and to be honest it isn't even something I consider as a factor anymore because it has been around long enough that it has almost been a non issue for at least 2-3 years.
Simply put, I imagine that that GPG simply figured that the majority of players would already have support given the relative age of Pixel Shader 3.0 or would be upgrading in the very near future. Targetting systems up to 3 years (possibly longer) doesn't sound unreasonable to me, that's still pre-Core2 era and includes P4 PCs. From that perspective, if the (overwhelming?) majority of your target workstations already support the newer standard then it may well not have been cost effective to code in legacy support.
Just some thoughts.
-dolynick
The proportion of PC gamers who regularly buy new games and who don't own 3.0 capable graphics is still rather tiny. There's enough data (steam surveys for example) out there about gamers systems to know how many people you'll realistically be excluding.
Also, I think you might be seriously trivialising how "easy" it is to make something pixel shader 2.0 compatible that isn't to begin with and no extra development costs is insignificant. Nor can you just "run the game without pixel shader", without it the display just wouldn't work and another system would be need to be developed to replace it instead.
I'm afraid it's reaching the same point as Windows 98, at some point it's good business sense not to include support for it anymore, there's just not enough people it would apply to for the work it would require. It's not something against you or a conspiracy with the graphics card vendors.
As the game manual says, "Any $40 graphics card will do"
If you don't have or can't afford a $40 graphics card....
Shader Model 3 has been around for five years; the Geforce 6800, the game's min req, was released in Spring of 2004. ATI lagged a bit in SM3 adoption, but it's definitely been around for quite a while now.
There simply comes a point in any hardware's life when "old" becomes "too old". Requirements go up and they won't be going back down.
This
I always have to laugh when I read about the pixel 2.0 shader crew appearing on forums (they did it with Bioshock too) demanding recently released games work on their very out dated hardware. Pixel shader 3.0 cards have been around since 2004 and it's been over 5 years now since that hardware was made available to pc gamers. Gaming on the PC means you'll have to upgrade to play newer games it's just something you need to come to terms with. Picking up a geforce 6 series or above card now days is extremely cheap which fulfills the 3.0 requirement
OP to put it simple. It's like you are playing on a Playstation 2 and demand it to play Playstation 3 games.
If you want to keep up with PC gaming you will need to upgrade every 2-5 years depending on what you want to play and how nice the graphics you want look at decent FPS. The same goes with consoles. Sure some games come out for PS2 still, but the best ones come out for PS3 and 360, obviously.
It's probably someone with your kind of mindset on PC gaming hardware that comes into our games and lags it up with 2-4 sim speed and still thinks the games broken when the problem is actually the 5 year old Compaq you are running it on. Then that person comes to the forums and cries bloody murder on the game, all because their hardware is junk.
X800 is like ridiculously oudated. Time for a new computer, You can get a top notch tower for like 1100 with a core i7 chip and radeon 4850. My computer lasted 5 years before I upgraded, I was using a radeon 9800, which came out shortly before the x800.Im going to have to agree with Kstampy here, You may be able to run the game but it runs like shit, Its nobodys fault but your own.Bottom line: Stop being a cheap skate, get a decent computer and have a nice gaming experience. I never thought a Rig would make a difference in my gaming but its boosted my "skills" or rather, Skill output a good 25-35% in RTS and in FPS games because of graphics view distances and FPS, resolution, it all makes a difference. You're lagging behind in 2003 dude. The best mentality I can say, Build a computer to smoke games for like 2-3 years, with a good motherboard to upgrade with. Now with SLI and CF you can easily boost your gaming power without dropping more than 150-200 dollars
While I can run Demigod perfectly, I kinda feel with the TC. I use to (until recently) run around with a GeForce FX 5200 (AGP baby), and it was annoying as hell not being able to play any game. Understandably, my GC got much love. Now that I use an 8600GT (still not ideal, but works), a lot of my friends are still playing on their $600 laptops they bought last year and the only games we ever play at LAN parties on the PC are WC3 and SC. PC gaming is a very expensive hobby, but you get what you pay for I guess.
ATI were very slow on the uptake with SM3.0. You should blame them for your card being obsolete. It is just too old tech to support. Hell I remember playing games atleast a couple of years ago that required SM3.0.
Another thing is that if your PC is that dated, you'll probably have a real hard time playing anyways, because the game is very CPU intensive. I wouldn't personally play it on anything much less than my CPU, a C2D e6600 (conroe) 2,4ghz (which is getting old, 3 years since launch). With it i get around 2 SIM in 4v4. That's bordering on slow motion.
You should've seen the Eve Online forums early this year when they gave an almost 3 month heads up that they were going to start requiring Pixel Shader 2.0 support. (Not a typo, they wanted to require PS 3.0 by the end of the year, but backed off on that part.)
This is why I never buy top end. My wife's 7600GT runs this, and cost a lot less than an X800. Every time a PS 3.0 game comes out (for how many years now? Haven't you guys gotten tired of whining on game forums yet?), everyone with a pre X1000 ATI card complains, but PS 3.0 doesn't go away. Buy midrange, and if you can't afford it, buy a good low end. If you can't get that, why are you spending your time playing videogames when you should taking classes at the local CC or something to get a better job?
40$ graphics card will not run this game unless your running a quad core. HAHA. But then again, who in their right mind buys ATI?
Even if you could play no one would want to play with you because your sim speed would be beyond bad bad. If you are using an x800 im sure your processor is pretty bad to. Its 2009 this is a pretty intensive game since they chose to use the supcom engine.
[/quote]
so now its a conspiracy?
sounded pretty reasonable when Kryo said "old card is old".
thats just how PC gaming is. go bug Radeon about legacy support.
Well made post. However, you're being naive. It is definitely time for you to upgrade your graphics card. I honestly I don't know how you could enjoy playing Fallout 3 with a card like that. Makes my eyes hurt just thinking about it.
All I can say is, it's definitely time for you to upgrade. I'd recommend an ATI 4770. It is only a 100 bucks but is more powerful than cards 40-50 bucks more expensive. And paired with another 4770 in crossfire, it is the most powerful set up you can get for 200 dollars. Just so you know, dual 4770s are more powerful than a GTX 280. And a GTX 280 is around 350 dollars.
And another thing OP, STARDOCK DIDN'T DEVELOP THE FUCKING GAME OR CREATE THE GRAPHICS ENGINE. GPG games did.
You have rage issues. Also, people are probably ignoring the large majority of what you post because most of it can be summed up in a pargraph. Also, YOUR COMPUTER WILL NOT RUN EVERY NEW VIDEO GAME TO COME OUT EVER. The "principle" you're trying to justify is wrong. That is like expecting a 486 that you bought in the 90s to run games of today because of "principle". If you cannot come up with a reason other than the "principle" that your 6 year old computer cannot run a game in 2009 then you should probably just ask for a refund and gtfo.
One last edit, no one personally attacked you until you started slinging the poo. So take your rage to anger management and gtfo.
LMFAO, since when is dirty business a conspiracy? You're really gullible/naive if you think this doesn't happen every day. Thousands of times a day all over the world. Business make deals like these all the time, it isn't that far-fetched. Not at all overshadowed by the fact that GPG is owned by Microsoft and Bill Gates himself stole his design for Windows from Xerox. Microsoft's rise to power is seeded in dirty dealings.
I'm not the lease bit naive. What part about me not giving a shit about an upgrade right now can't you people understand? Do all of you speak English as a second language or something? You just continue to post the same redundant innane shit that's already been covered. I feel like I'm listening to a record skip and can't reach the needle to make it stop. Fallout 3 runs flawlessly for me. I'm perfectly aware of what cards and when to upgrade. I've been building and repairing computers for 12 years now. Every computer I've ever owned I built myself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember ever saying anything about Stardock developing the game. Although the wording in the last paragraph could be construed that way. That doesn't mean, however, that Stardock is innocent.
They sure ARE a waste of space since you quoted every single post ever made in the history of the forum first. Talk about a wall of text!
Then this is the bottom line - buy a $40 video card or the $50 game you bought WILL NOT RUN. That's it. If you are unwilling or unable to pay the extra $40 then don't bother typing another word - return the game and move on with your life. It's a wonder you paid for the game already if you're so damn stringent about purchasing anything to improve your PC's performance. (Wait....you did buy the game...right?)
This is how PC games are. If anything I think the requirements are too low, since the way the connectivity is designed it drags down people who can run the game well to the level of the person running the game the worst. But that's not entirely the issue here. If you cannot meet the minimum requirements needed by the game then you cannot play it, period.
Yea, and one simple sentence seems to continually get lost: I DON'T GIVE A MOTHERF**K ABOUT UPGRADING. STFU about how cheap the cards are or ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH IT WHATSOEVER. It's sickening. And did I ever say my computer would, douchebag? I don't think I did. Did I say anything anywhere about my computer running every game? Most of these guys on here just don't know how to read or can't understand English, but you just make shit up entirely. The whole point here is that this game could and would run fine on my computer if not for an unnecessary requirement being hardcoded in the game. Is that too difficult to understand? Really? It's a simple concept.
And yes I have rage issues. I have rage issues with people who continually post the same retarded drivel over and over again after I've specifically addressed the very thing they're posting on in my original post. LONG before the first reply. I still see it every other post.
And you know what? That's the problem. They're ignoring a majority of what I write and still think they've read enough to reply. If it's so boring you need to ignore it...ignore ALL of it and go post in another thread. You don't chime in on a conversation you've only heard part of.
Oh missed this - the principle that you are trying to avoid is that people with 2.0 shader cards have CRAPPY COMPUTERS.
Crappy computers run the game poorly. Computers that run the game poorly have low sim speeds. Low sim speeds drag down online performance for EVERYONE in the game.
Not supporting 2.0 is for the good of everyone. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Has the thought ever crossed your mind that perhaps it is you who is ignoring a majority of what everyone else is saying?
Everyone has provided the solution. You are the problem.
This.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
