53 réponses à ce sujet

[b0709]

First of all, please do not move this thread to technical support. Certainly we can have a discussion about a general issue like this in a feedback forum.

As you are probably aware, this game crashes with a black screen when trying to run it on a PC with less than 4 CPU cores.

 

I don't think it's very respectful of your paying customers to tell them that they're just out of luck like one of your community managers did in the technical support forum. Hiding behind systems requirements isn't the solution to this matter either in my opinion.

I'd like to remind the programmers at BioWare that Mass Effect 2 had a very similar bug when it was released. Somehow the game would not run on single core CPUs, even though the Unreal Engine 3 was normally running perfectly fine on such PCs. It turned out that the game would always crash when a prerendered video was supposed to start. So users came up with the fix to simply replace all videos with blank files, of course preventing people from experiencing parts of the story, but at least they were able to play the actual game. Then someone found out that using a small tool (one for improved graphical FX that did nothing whatsoever to the DRM!) was able to make the game playable completely. Later, BioWare even released a fix for the game. Most single core CPUs were then perfectly able to run the game. This episode clearly shows that often there's no technical reason to demand a certain number of CPU cores. It was a software bug back then, and it is very likely that it's a similar bug this time.

Many games these days have rather high requirements, but at least they usually start and most run well, even more so if the player doesn't mind to reduce some graphical details and accept lower FPS or other issues that might occur. Furthermore, the number of cores of a CPU is not the only factor deciding its speed, let alone the speed of the whole PC they work in. There are still dual core CPUs made and sold, fast enough for many current games. Surely you don't want to exclude so many players from playing your game.

And please do not forget that especially fans of RPGs and BioWare games do not always have and until now never needed the newest hardware. I'm quite sure that there's a significant number of people who are currently unable to play the game they purchased or who have refrained from purchasing it now that they learned they wouldn't be able to run it. The number should be significant enough for you to care.

And you know that there's no way the game was supposed to behave like this. If you had truly intended to limit this game to 4 cores or more, you would have implemented a simple message box telling the user so at the start of the game, like any other programmer would. But as any other programmers, you know that there's no technical reason for a software to actually depend on a certain number of cores. Certainly it might run slower or might behave strangely here or there, but to crash at the start like this at an intro video before even beginning to really use the CPU is simply a sign of bugs in your software. Bugs that you can and should fix. It's more than likely that the actual game will run fine then, as did Mass Effect 2.

So please, show your paying customers a little respect and acknowledge this bug. Among other bugs users might encounter now that the game has been released, it might take a while to fix, but I'm sure most people would not mind to wait a bit for it. If you don't, this would be exactly one of those reasons why many customers have so little respect for EA and voted it for the worst company in the US twice in a row. I thought that was supposed to change.

[Fidite Nemini]

Keep in mind that FB is another engine than Unreal and much more powerful in many aspects. That does come with the trade-off of higher system requirements and it is entirely possible that the engine simply doesn't run stable with less that four simultanous threads available. I am no tech-wizz that can analyze the source code to give a definitive answer, but assuming it's just a software block on the basis that a different game with a different engine had something like this is hazardous.

[Etragorn]

Considering the base system requirements for the game say "Quad Core" I don't see why people are complaining that it won't run on a Dual Core system...

 

Not running on Dual Core systems IS NOT a bug, it's that simple.

 

Also, I'd hardly call "Quad Core" the latest hardware. Quad core has been standard on even medium budget laptops for some time. I mean, my daily driver laptop is 3 years old, cost less than $1000 and runs a an i7 quad core processor, with hyperthreading!

[milikmt27]

doesn't BF 4 run on the same engine that DAI?....curious how that game works on dual cores and not this...srsly.

[Szaby59]

" Hiding behind systems requirements isn't the solution to this matter either in my opinion."

 

 

LOL 

There is no reason to be upset if the game does not run on a lower spec computer, they provided the system requirements weeks ago it's your own decision if you still would like to try...

BF3 and 4 can run on a DualCore but the performance is horrible not just in multiplayer mode but also in SP. Frostbite requires at least 4 cores or 2 Cores with 4 threads (and Mantle) to run fluently.

And don't forget that DA:I has much larger areas than any BF3/4 maps filled with NPCs so the CPU requirements are even higher.

[taigebu]

And also we must not forget that Dragon Age is a RPG ! Meaning it needs to calculate a lot of stats in battle whereas Battlefield...

[b0709]

I was trying to explain that there's no reason whatsoever for this game to crash with a black screen even if it would for whatever reason actually need 4 cores, which is unlikely.

 

I forgot to mention that this game even runs on the 360 and PS3, both of which have much less power than any current dual core CPU. If they can make it run on that hardware, nothing in the game can be so demanding that it couldn't run on fast dual core CPUs.

[Glaso]

I think the game requiring a quad core to play is because of denuvo, that crap needs to shuffle the exe's code in real time and it needs ressources a dual core cannot provide.

[Pootmatoot]

Considering the base system requirements for the game say "Quad Core" I don't see why people are complaining that it won't run on a Dual Core system...

 

Not running on Dual Core systems IS NOT a bug, it's that simple.

 

Also, I'd hardly call "Quad Core" the latest hardware. Quad core has been standard on even medium budget laptops for some time. I mean, my daily driver laptop is 3 years old, cost less than $1000 and runs a an i7 quad core processor, with hyperthreading!

 

 

The problem is few people consciously check for "number of cores" when looking at specs. They look for memory, they look for the graphics card, etc.

 

That's because no other game in the history of PC gaming has had a hard core number requirement - and, technically, it doesn't make any sense, because there are a lot of top-end dual-core CPUs that can process with a lot more grunt than low and mid-end quadcore CPUs.

 

It also doesn't make any sense because close to 50% of the PC market uses dual cores (according to Steam), and because there's only one PC market that's growing - ultrabooks.

 

The vast majority of this year's ultrabooks have dualcores, mostly with onboard graphics. I'm running on one - it happens to be hyperthreaded, so I can use the current driver workaround. The game works just fine on medium and a a few low settings.

 

So...it makes no sense from a marketing perspective (people don't check CPU core requirements, or even know), from a technical perspective (it makes zero processing sense, bar shoddy coding), or from a sales perspective (you've made a PC game but tossed out a vast chunk of people whose rigs could otherwise play it).

[plzhelps]

i hope who make dual core version client file indeed. i dying to play inquisition! moreover i can't refund inqusition anymore T.T

[Dahae]

Look dude if they explicitly state you need a quad core machine, you absolutely have no leg to stand on if you want to complain. 

 

It does seem to be possible for some people to run the game on dual core but the game isn't suited for it. 

 

You can't get angry at them for this for not working on a dual core; you either buy a quad core machine or you play a different game. Seriously how are you this entitled? 

[Pootmatoot]

Look dude if they explicitly state you need a quad core machine, you absolutely have no leg to stand on if you want to complain. 

 

It does seem to be possible for some people to run the game on dual core but the game isn't suited for it. 

 

You can't get angry at them for this for not working on a dual core; you either buy a quad core machine or you play a different game. Seriously how are you this entitled? 

 

 

 

When you release a game with a bizarre new requirement which makes no technical sense and that hits nearly 50% of your previous customer base, you can hardly be surprised people were taken off guard and complain.

[Siddarth90]

What the OP said is true, there is no technical reason for a game to be able to function on a quad core CPU but not a dual core one. Like he said, if the game was running too many simultaneous functions, only problem the system might face is being slowed down due a bottleneck in the CPU. This has nothing to do with minimum requirements imo, because there are many dual core CPU's out there that are more powerful than most quad core chips.

 

Also, the only time a computer really needs to use more than two cores on a processor is when you are multi-tasking with CPU intensive programs. Like watching a movie on 1080p and running Photoshop and also playing a game (Something along those lines basically). Having a quad core chip doesn't necessarily mean it's a better processor than a dual core one. It isn't as simple as More cores = better CPU, especially when you look at performance of the computer when running one program.

[Camalus]

" Hiding behind systems requirements isn't the solution to this matter either in my opinion."

 

 

LOL 

There is no reason to be upset if the game does not run on a lower spec computer, they provided the system requirements weeks ago it's your own decision if you still would like to try...

BF3 and 4 can run on a DualCore but the performance is horrible not just in multiplayer mode but also in SP. Frostbite requires at least 4 cores or 2 Cores with 4 threads (and Mantle) to run fluently.

And don't forget that DA:I has much larger areas than any BF3/4 maps filled with NPCs so the CPU requirements are even higher.

 

Actually there is a reason and pretty good one. I can play on my laptop which have i5m 2.2 ghz  and hd5650m gpu on low.

 

But on my E8400 3.6 ghz cpu and hd 7770 gpu I can't. And I'm sure my desktop would get better playing result than my laptop if I could enter in game. At least it did in any game so far. 

Nobody here probably expects this game to run on ultra with msaa *16, etc... but I don't see why it can't be played on low settings.

[Hair Serious Business]

 

to all who wish to upgrade their dual CPU to quad..I say don't waste your money because it won't make you game any more playable.

I have quad CPU and by results of "Can your PC run this" this game was supposed to run smooth for me...well it did 8h after that one nice big crash and after that I wasn't able to play again since each time I would get stupid "Black Screen".So this has nothing to do how many cores you have it's more game's problem and they said that they will fix this thing in patch...*sighs* I just hope that patch gets fast.

 

 

I don't think that even people with quad core have "smooth day".

Besides for all I recommend checking out this thread posted by BW about bugs and problems on PC and also I suggest leaving feedback there http://forum.bioware...unity-concerns/

[Siddarth90]

Actually there is a reason and pretty good one. I can play on my laptop which have i5m 2.2 ghz  and hd5650m gpu on low.

 

But on my E8400 3.6 ghz cpu and hd 7770 gpu I can't. And I'm sure my desktop would get better playing result than my laptop if I could enter in game. At least it did in any game so far. 

I don't and nobody here probably expects this game to run on ultra with msaa *16, etc... but I don't see why it can't be played on low settings.

This is exactly the sample problem I have. My 1.5 year laptop (non gaming laptop btw) runs the game but my gaming pc that has a dual core processor (Intel G3258, I got it because it's so easy to OC, and expected it to handle new games in mid to low settings without a hassle), 2gb R9 270 gpu can't seem to even get the game started. I have been able to play Diablo 3, Bioshock Infinite, etc on utlra settings without any problems at all!

[FumikoM]

If it requires quad core CPU to run, it requires a quad core CPU to run. Someone might hate that certain games get released on the new gen consoles only, and still they own only last gen, it's irrelevant. If you do not have at or above minimum requirement then don't blame the devs. Minimum req is there for a reason.

 

I do not understand why there are people who continue to be offended by this, it makes no sense whatsoever. Get a better PC or play on consoles.

[Etragorn]

I was trying to explain that there's no reason whatsoever for this game to crash with a black screen even if it would for whatever reason actually need 4 cores, which is unlikely.
 
I forgot to mention that this game even runs on the 360 and PS3, both of which have much less power than any current dual core CPU. If they can make it run on that hardware, nothing in the game can be so demanding that it couldn't run on fast dual core CPUs

Invalid argument. #1 - The POWER architecture, not to mention the tailored design, that the 360 and PS3 processors are based on cannot be compared to current dual core general purpose processors #2 - The PS3 has one main processor with 7 synergistic vector processing engines, while the Xbox 360 is actually a triple core 64-bit native processor, again, more threads/processing units than a dual core general purpose processor has.
 

The problem is few people consciously check for "number of cores" when looking at specs. They look for memory, they look for the graphics card, etc...

Those people should really have someone help them pick out a computer when they go to buy one because they obviously don't know what to look for regarding system specifications.

i hope who make dual core version client file indeed. i dying to play inquisition! moreover i can't refund inqusition anymore T.T

So, you bought a game, when you knew your system didn't meet the minimum specifications, and you're upset you can't get a refund, even though you had the opportunity for such, but didn't take advantage of it? *Head Literally Explodes*

[Fidite Nemini]

Little nitpicking:

 

It requires four threads to run. Not necessarily four cores. An Intel i3 CPU for example is a dual core, but has four threads thanks to hyperthreading. But it will not run as well as on a true quadcore of course.

[Pootmatoot]

If it requires quad core CPU to run, it requires a quad core CPU to run. Someone might hate that certain games get released on the new gen consoles only, and still they own only last gen, it's irrelevant. If you do not have at or above minimum requirement then don't blame the devs. Minimum req is there for a reason.

 

I do not understand why there are people who continue to be offended by this, it makes no sense whatsoever. Get a better PC or play on consoles.

 

 

Why, technically, would a game require 4 cores? There are many dual cores that far more technical grunt that many quadcores. You can play this game by "upgrading" your brand new 2014 top-of-the-line dualcore CPU to a far less powerful quadcore from 2010.

 

It's not about processing power. It's one of three things:

 

1) Shoddy QA on the coding, and it's making a rogue call way outside the boundaries of standard programing.

 

2) It's part of the DRM, which is using a dedicated core for encrypting/decrypting

 

3) It's a software check at startup because of the DRM requirements.

 

 

None of those things should make you go "Yeah, OK", even if you don't have the issue.

[tjentom]

I was having problems with the game crashing after the 'click to continue' screen. I have a surface pro 3, i7 which I believe has 4 cores.

[FumikoM]

Why, technically, would a game require 4 cores? There are many dual cores that far more technical grunt that many quadcores. You can play this game by "upgrading" your brand new 2014 top-of-the-line dualcore CPU to a far less powerful quadcore from 2010.

 

It's not about processing power. It's one of three things:

 

1) Shoddy QA on the coding, and it's making a rogue call way outside the boundaries of standard programing.

 

2) It's part of the DRM, which is using a dedicated core for encrypting/decrypting

 

3) It's a software check at startup because of the DRM requirements.

 

 

None of those things should make you go "Yeah, OK", even if you don't have the issue.

The devs most likely tested DA:I on a dual core system and noticed that it does not work very well, and thus they set quad core, also with a minimum GHz, as the minimum. Is why we have the system req we do now. Could they optimize the game to run on dual core? Maybe. Still does not change the fact they in advance told us the minimum req. And then complain that your PC that does not run the game well, because it does not even meet the minumum req, makes no sense. You knew it beforehand. 

[luna1124]

I am upset over this.. back in April when I pre-ordered the game, Bioware had no minimum requirements posted. I went by another sites requirements. so, I upgraded my OS and upgraded my graphics card..

I have dual core Intel @2.70GHz that has nothing wrong with it...

 

I could not play the game I waited months for. So.. I have purchased an upgrade CPU quad core with 4 threads... I should be able to install it Monday and play the game sometime next week. I'm sorry, but I could not afford at this time to get a new computer.. as stated above... so play another game.. man you are a cruel person...

[Pootmatoot]

The devs most likely tested DA:I on a dual core system and noticed that it does not work very well, and thus they set quad core, also with a minimum GHz, as the minimum. Is why we have the system req we do now. Could they optimize the game to run on dual core? Maybe. Still does not change the fact they in advance told us the minimum req. And then complain that your PC that does not run the game well, because it does not even meet the minumum req, makes no sense. You knew it beforehand. 

 

 

The game runs absolutely fine on my laptop - a dual core with pyperthreading - after the driver fix.

 

You're mistaking "number of cores" with "power of CPU". That's not how it works.

[Siddarth90]

The devs most likely tested DA:I on a dual core system and noticed that it does not work very well, and thus they set quad core, also with a minimum GHz, as the minimum. Is why we have the system req we do now. Could they optimize the game to run on dual core? Maybe. Still does not change the fact they in advance told us the minimum req. And then complain that your PC that does not run the game well, because it does not even meet the minumum req, makes no sense. You knew it beforehand. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Devs even bothered checking the game on dual core processors. It took them a while to diagnose the problem, and the fact that it's even happening to people with quad core systems shows how little the devs bothered checking how well the game works on different PC configs. And considering the PC game is just a port of the console version of the game with the controls remapped for the keyboard, I don't think they gave PC gamers much thought! Getting the PC build done must have last on their priority list by the looks of the number of bugs and technical problems in the PC version of the game