117 réponses à ce sujet

[charmingcharlie]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The only problem with that idea, is then they would have to make 2 versions for the PC, one for XP users the other for Vista/Win7 users.

Nope they wouldn't have to make 2 version of Mass Effect 3 they would only have to make 1 version of Mass Effect 3, the Dx11 version.  If you are still using XP and Dx9 in this day and age then you can't be all that bothered about gaming on the PC platform and if cost is an issue then there is always the console route.

Now I am not trying to be nasty here and I appreciate money does not grow on trees but at the end of the day Dx9 users are now in a minority in the PC gaming community.  The latest steam survey shows that Dx9 users account for only 24% of PC gamers (and that figure gets lower every month).

Let me put it this way, if I came in here asking if Mass Effect 3 would run on my 10 year old PC I think the collective response would be "you have to be kidding us ?".  Seriously Win Xp passed it's used by date years ago, let it die and let the PC platform move on.

I don't own a Dx11 card myself yet, I am still using a GTX260 which is a Dx10 card.  But I would love to use Mass Effect 3 as an excuse to upgrade to a Dx11 card.  I want Mass Effect 3 to be something special on the PC, I want it to make use of all the new tech both hardware and software wise.  Alas it is all a pipe dream and all we will get is a Dx9 port of an xbox 360 game to keep that 24% happy because they won't finally ditch a 10 year old operating system.

[adam_grif]

If you are still using XP and Dx9 in this day and age then you can't be all that bothered about gaming on the PC platform and if cost is an issue then there is always the console route.

Or you just make a DX9/10 option in the menu, like all modern DX11 games? Low setting would use DX9. DX11 optional. The DX9 version can just be a console port.

[shep82]

While IMO the graphics between ME 1 and 2 are night and day and pretty damn good IMO a high res option would definitely be good. Seriously though am I the only one theat notices how good the graphics are on ME 2 compared to the first?

Modifié par shep82, 03 février 2011 - 03:08 .

[Ulzeraj]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The only problem with that idea, is then they would have to make 2 versions for the PC, one for XP users the other for Vista/Win7 users.

Nope they wouldn't have to make 2 version of Mass Effect 3 they would only have to make 1 version of Mass Effect 3, the Dx11 version.  If you are still using XP and Dx9 in this day and age then you can't be all that bothered about gaming on the PC platform and if cost is an issue then there is always the console route.

Now I am not trying to be nasty here and I appreciate money does not grow on trees but at the end of the day Dx9 users are now in a minority in the PC gaming community.  The latest steam survey shows that Dx9 users account for only 24% of PC gamers (and that figure gets lower every month).

Let me put it this way, if I came in here asking if Mass Effect 3 would run on my 10 year old PC I think the collective response would be "you have to be kidding us ?".  Seriously Win Xp passed it's used by date years ago, let it die and let the PC platform move on.

I don't own a Dx11 card myself yet, I am still using a GTX260 which is a Dx10 card.  But I would love to use Mass Effect 3 as an excuse to upgrade to a Dx11 card.  I want Mass Effect 3 to be something special on the PC, I want it to make use of all the new tech both hardware and software wise.  Alas it is all a pipe dream and all we will get is a Dx9 port of an xbox 360 game to keep that 24% happy because they won't finally ditch a 10 year old operating system.

First, OS != hardware AND hardware != graphics API
Second, the game must run on Xbox I can bet that unless they do a different codebase for one platform, it should run on the same consoles  that ran the first game 3 years ago.
Third, 24% is a hell of a big number

I think we'll have have 2 "branches" of the ME3 code: DirectX for Windows and Xbox 360 and a Opengl implementation for Mac OS X and Playstation 3. On the other side I think they can implement DX11 and keep the game backward compatibility. Blizzard is experimenting this with WoW.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 03 février 2011 - 03:37 .

[adam_grif]

It's no secret you can just make DX10/11 optional features for the highest graphics setting, its what Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Batman Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 does.

[shep82]

adam_grif wrote...

It's no secret you can just make DX10/11 optional features for the highest graphics setting, its what Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Batman Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 does.

True. I think they should do this however if they don't I'll still be happy because it will still look amazing either way.

[charmingcharlie]

Ulzeraj wrote...

First, OS != hardware AND hardware != graphics API
Second,
the game must run on Xbox I can bet that unless they do a different
codebase for one platform, it should run on the same consoles  that ran
the first game 3 years ago.
Third, 24% is a hell of a big number

Whether it is hardware or software both are prone to obsolescence and I would say a 9 year old API is long past it's sell by date.  I find it hard to believe you have anything else in your PC that is 9 years old.  As for  it running on the xbox I am not talking about the xbox here I am talking about the PC.  Yes the xbox version will be Dx9 but I don't want them to "port" the Dx9 version, I want them to concentrate on a PC version using Dx10 and Dx11 not waste their time bringing Dx9 for a minority of users.

We keep saying how we want the PC to have better textures and better this and better that yet some of us are not even prepared to put a little bit of an investment into our PC's to bring them up to spec so they can run all these fancy features.  How are we to expect Bioware to invest extra resources in their game when PC gamers won't invest in bringing their PC up to scratch ?

As for 24% being a big number, not as big as the 76% that are now using Dx10/11 machines and that 24% is "at the moment", by the time ME 3 hits that 24% will be half that and possibly be in single figures by ME3's launch.

adam_grif wrote...

It's no secret you can just make DX10/11 optional features for the highest graphics setting, its what Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Batman Arkham Asylum and Metro 2033 does.

It is no secret that is extra work for a developer to cater for Dx10 and the minority of Dx9 users as well.  This has inevitably led to the watering down of DX10/11's usage in games.  The only way we are going to see Dx10 and Dx11 properly used on the PC is if the developer ditches Dx9 completely to concentrate on Dx10/11 on the PC.

This is all a bit pointless, I have no doubt that ME 3 will be Dx9 only and we will get the crappy low res textures yet again.  That will probably be good news for those that are still stubbornly sticking to Win Xp and Dx9 but we will always be left wondering what Mass Effect 3 could have been like on the PC if Bioware had made a proper job of the PC version utilising Dx10/11.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 03 février 2011 - 04:26 .

[adam_grif]

It is no secret that is extra work for a developer to cater for Dx10 and the minority of Dx9 users as well.

They have to cater to them, because the PS3 and 360 versions exist. What is the point in deliberately removing the option to scale down to DX9 when you have to develop it anyway?

[charmingcharlie]

adam_grif wrote...

They have to cater to them, because the PS3 and 360 versions exist. What is the point in deliberately removing the option to scale down to DX9 when you have to develop it anyway?

I don't know how many other ways I can say it, yes I KNOW the Xbox 360 uses Dx9 (the PS3 doesn't it uses OpenGL) but I DON'T want the PC team to have to "port" the Dx9 version over to the PC (which will increase their workload).  I want the PC team to concentrate on a Dx10/11 version of the game.

If I want to play a Dx9 version of the game then the Xbox is there for that.  However on the PC I want them to push things to the limit with Dx10/11 and make Mass Effect 3 really shine on the PC that isn't going to happen if they are having to cater for a Dx9 version AS WELL.

[adam_grif]

I think you're drastically overstating the development effort required to get a Direct X 9 game from 360 running properly on the PC. The 360 is just a 2005 era PC anyway. The miniscule effort required to permit the DX9 game they are already making to run on the PC version is hugely worth it given that more than 20% of the PC market is DX9 only. It's easy for you to say "lol they're holding us back don't do it", but you're not one of the people who don't have a choice in the matter.

[Lunatic LK47]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

The only problem with that idea, is then they would have to make 2 versions for the PC, one for XP users the other for Vista/Win7 users.

Nope they wouldn't have to make 2 version of Mass Effect 3 they would only have to make 1 version of Mass Effect 3, the Dx11 version.  If you are still using XP and Dx9 in this day and age then you can't be all that bothered about gaming on the PC platform and if cost is an issue then there is always the console route.

Now I am not trying to be nasty here and I appreciate money does not grow on trees but at the end of the day Dx9 users are now in a minority in the PC gaming community.  The latest steam survey shows that Dx9 users account for only 24% of PC gamers (and that figure gets lower every month).

Let me put it this way, if I came in here asking if Mass Effect 3 would run on my 10 year old PC I think the collective response would be "you have to be kidding us ?".  Seriously Win Xp passed it's used by date years ago, let it die and let the PC platform move on.

I don't own a Dx11 card myself yet, I am still using a GTX260 which is a Dx10 card.  But I would love to use Mass Effect 3 as an excuse to upgrade to a Dx11 card.  I want Mass Effect 3 to be something special on the PC, I want it to make use of all the new tech both hardware and software wise.  Alas it is all a pipe dream and all we will get is a Dx9 port of an xbox 360 game to keep that 24% happy because they won't finally ditch a 10 year old operating system.

There's something called expensive costs, especially when we're still in a ****ty economy. Everyone is worried about looking for ****ing jobs, so show some consideration.

[Ulzeraj]

adam_grif wrote...

The 360 is just a 2005 era PC anyway.

Its a RISC machine with different binary code and instructions. From what I know it isnt just about passing a -mheybro-letsdo-i386now flag to the compiler so there should be some serious work. I don't know about the API tho... but this talk is so freaking wild speculation. I mean how much of the game is platform independent and what chages from version to version? Because as I said... there is no DirectX for PS3 and Mac so they are probably using SDL and OpenGL.

@ CharmingCharlie
Calm down. ME2 has better graphics and it runs even more smoothly than ME1 on the same hardware. Thats pure beauty. We know they're using a new engine so I'm very positive that it will be very satisfactory.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 03 février 2011 - 05:02 .

[Lumikki]

Why to hell someone think that if game support DX9.0c, it can't also support example DX11. Also who to hell would be so crazy that doesn't want to support DX9.0c in PC, when they would lose about 25% of they customers because of it.

If I remember correctly?
DX9.0 max texture size 4k (4096x4096)
DX10 max texture size 8k
DX11 max texture size 16k

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 février 2011 - 06:42 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Lumikki wrote...

Why to hell someone think that if game support DX9.0c, it can't also support example DX11. Also who to hell would be so crazy that doesn't want to support DX9.0c in PC, when they would lose about 25% of they customers because of it.

If I remember correctly?
DX9.0 max texture size 4k (4096x4096)
DX10 max texture size 8k
DX11 max texture size 16k

Same reason why older games won't work on current PCs, old games are just not programmed for newer hardware or newer operating systems. Want to play a Windows 95 game like Star Wars: Dark Forces 1 on your PC? You can only do it on Steam, your current disc is useless for your PC.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 03 février 2011 - 07:55 .

[Fredvdp]

Mesina2 wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Problem, ME2 ON PC IS NOT A PORT!

Depends on how you define port. BioWare said they made both versions at the same time but it's clear the Xbox 360 was  the primary platform. That's why the PC version has low resolution graphics and why the user interface lacks the menu hotkeys present in other PC versions of BioWare games. At least they got ir right with the PC port of KotOR.

Lack of menu hotkeys?
Wha-?

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. What I mean is "press J to go to journal". ME1 has it, ME2 doesn't.

[rooky91]

At the end of the day, the game will sell best on consoles. So the game will be made first and fore most for console users, its just the way things go. I say blame the 360 for holding back the industry.

But thats just my opinion so don't kill me over it

Modifié par rooky91, 03 février 2011 - 10:52 .

[Ieldra]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

Textures usually are high-res in development anyway, and get scaled down for use on consoles and PCs likewise. There isn't any reason not to leave PC textures at a higher resolution. The only negative side effect might be that the PC version uses one DVD more. But who'd care about that?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 février 2011 - 12:17 .

[Big stupid jellyfish]

rooky91 wrote...

At the end of the day, the game will sell best on consoles. So the game will be made first and fore most for console users, its just the way things go. I say blame the 360 for holding back the industry.

But thats just my opinion so don't kill me over it

Why not release a version with low-rez textures for consoles and leave high-rez textures on PC versions?

[charmingcharlie]

adam_grif wrote...

I think you're drastically overstating the development effort required to get a Direct X 9 game from 360 running properly on the PC.

I think you are understating the amount of work needed to bring what is in effect 2 versions of Mass Effect 3 to the PC.  It isn't just a case of porting the Dx9 version and doing a Dx11 version.  Both versions would have to be extensively tweaked and tested to solve compatiblity issues.  In effect it is TWICE the workload for a developer to do a Dx9 and Dx11 version of the game and all because of a stubborn 25% of the market that refuse to move up to Dx11.  In the end it is cheaper and more efficient to just do a Dx9 version which is what will happen with ME 3 again.

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
There's something called expensive costs, especially when we're still in a ****ty economy. Everyone is worried about looking for ****ing jobs, so show some consideration.

If cost is an issue then there is always the console version should you find it uneconomical to upgrade your PC to current standards that over 75% of PC gamers have.

Ulzeraj wrote...
@ CharmingCharlie
Calm down. ME2 has better graphics and it runs even more smoothly than ME1 on the same hardware. Thats pure beauty. We know they're using a new engine so I'm very positive that it will be very satisfactory.

I am perfectly calm and they are not using a new engine they are using a slightly updated engine that doesn't appear to offer anything over Mass Effect 2.  You just need to look at the PS3 version to see there is very little difference with the "new" version.

Lumikki wrote...
when they would lose about 25% of they customers because of it.

It is 24% NOW and it is rapidly losing marketshare.  By the time ME 3 comes out it will be below 20% and quite possibly be in single figures.  It is entirely feasible that by the time ME 3 comes out you will have 90% of PC gamers with a Dx10/11 system yet we will be stuck playing a Dx9 game because of a stubbon minority that refuse to get with the program and update their PC.

If you want fancy textures and fancy graphics then you should be on a Dx10/11 machine by now and encouraging Bioware to embrace Dx10/11 for the PC.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 03 février 2011 - 02:54 .

[Lumikki]

Charmingcharlie what's you problem?

Is there something what you can't understand, when sayed, same game can have multible DirectX support sametime. Meaning ME3 can support DX9,DX10 and DX11. DirectX is backward compatible with older versions. So, when you graphics card or OS example doesn't support anything else than DX9, then it only use DX9 features. If how ever, you graphics card support DX11 then it can use it's features.

Now Bioware is FORCED to make DX9 any ways because Xbox, so there is no point to not support it in also PC side. Losing customers because stupidy is never option.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 février 2011 - 03:44 .

[MaaZeus]

Lumikki wrote...

Charmingcharlie what's you problem?

Is there something what you can't understand, when sayed, same game can have multible DirectX support sametime. Meaning ME3 can support DX9,DX10 and DX11. DirectX is backward compatible with older versions. So, when you graphics card or OS example doesn't support anything else than DX9, then it only use DX9 features. If how ever, you graphics card support DX11 then it can use it's features.

Now Bioware is FORCED to make DX9 any ways because Xbox, so there is no point to not support it in also PC side. Losing customers because stupidy is never option.

Well, not forced. As you said, newer DirectXs are downwards compatible. Batman Arkham Asylum for example has DirectX 10 support IIRC, so designing the game on multiple platforms does not necessarily need to limit all versions to the level of the weakest platform.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 03 février 2011 - 05:56 .

[Skilled Seeker]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

STG wrote...

Let us start with mouse sensitivity and work from there.

And continue on with making the PC version open, instead of locking us into recruiting members/doing missions in a certain order just because of console disk swapping problems.

Not to mention we miss out on content that we install on our hard drives (lots of dialogue) because of this.

[charmingcharlie]

Lumikki wrote...

Charmingcharlie what's you problem?

Is there something what you can't understand, when sayed, same game can have multible DirectX support sametime. Meaning ME3 can support DX9,DX10 and DX11. DirectX is backward compatible with older versions. So, when you graphics card or OS example doesn't support anything else than DX9, then it only use DX9 features. If how ever, you graphics card support DX11 then it can use it's features.

Now Bioware is FORCED to make DX9 any ways because Xbox, so there is no point to not support it in also PC side. Losing customers because stupidy is never option.

I understand your misconceptions very well thank you very much.  You however seem to have a problem with understanding the reality of the situation.  It is irrelevant that Dx9/10/11 are broadly compatible with each other the problem is if they produce a Dx9 PC version of Mass Effect 3 that needs to be tweaked and extensively tested for compatibility problems and if they do a Dx10 version that ALSO needs to be tweaked and extensively tested for compatibility problems to ensure the Dx10 only features don't cause problems.

In short as I keep repeating by doing a Dx9 and a Dx10 version of ME 3 nearly doubles the amount of work and testing Bioware would have to do on the PC version.  It isn't cost effective for Bioware to do that so they just stay with Dx9.

I don't even know why we are debating this, there is no way Bioware will do Mass Effect 3 for Dx11 because they will as perusual take the easy route.  That also means we will be stuck with low res textures but hey what matters is that  23.4% minority will be able to run the game, screw the 76.6% that actually spent money and invested in their PC

[Lumikki]

First there is no extra work to make DX9 stuff, because they ALLREADY have to do it because Xbox. So to make DX11 is the extra work, but so is the PC UI and keyboard and mouse controls. Also it's very high probability that ME3 has DX11 support.

I have my self Win7 with 4 cpu and DX11 graphics card, but do you see me to scream here that people need to upgrade they computers, because I want every game to be design for MY NEEDS. You are very selfish person and don't really undertand that upgrading computers is not needed, because for most of players they old PC's works just fine without need of upgrades. It's waste of money to upgrade, if you don't have need for it. Just because your gaming need is more in high end, that doens't mean it's okey to blame others about your own selfish needs to get everyting faster.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 février 2011 - 06:51 .

[charmingcharlie]

Lumikki wrote...

First there is no extra work to make DX9 stuff, because they ALLREADY have to do it because Xbox. So to make DX11 is the extra work, but so is the PC UI and keyboard and mouse controls. Also it's very high probability that ME3 has DX11 support.

Once again you missed the point, so I will repeat it shall I ?  If they make a Dx9 version and a Dx10/11 version BOTH versions will need extensive tweaking and testing.  If they just do a Dx9 version then only that version needs testing and tweaking.

Lumikki wrote... . You are very selfish person and don't really undertand that upgrading computers is not needed, because for most of players they old stuff work just fine without need of upgrades.

I do not even own a Dx11 card, I currently use a Dx10 card why do I not own a Dx11 card ?  Because there is sod all reason too.  I would love to use Mass Effect 3 as an excuse to upgrade to a Dx11 card.  I am not being selfish I am part of the 76% of PC gamers that own a Dx10/11 system.  If you ask me it is those that are still on Dx9 systems that are being "selfish" they want to hold back PC gaming just because they are too stubborn to upgrade their PC.

Oh and obviously the "old stuff" does not work fine because you are in here complaiining about the low res textures.

Lumikki wrote... It's waste of money to upgrade if you don't need one. Just because your gaming need is more in high end, that doens't mean it's okey to blame others about your own selfish needs to get everyting faster.

The PC is all about new tech, it is all about upgrading.  I have been a PC gamer for 20 years and never had a problem with upgrading my PC to meet the demands of the new games.  If people do not like upgrading then they shouldn't be gaming on the PC.  If they want a stable/cheap system for playing games that is what the console systems are for.  Once again 76% of PC gamers are on a Dx10/11 system only 23% of pc gamers are still using Dx9 hm it seems to me the selfishness of the minority is affecting the majority.