bit-gamer.net

EA Sports Ignite engine won't work on current PCs

EA Sports Ignite engine won't work on current PCs

FIFA 14 will not be coming to the PC due to the platform's inability to run the Ignite engine.

The new Ignite engine that props up all of EA Sports' next generation titles will not run on the PC or the Wii U.

The lack of PC support was explained away by EA Sports executive vice-president Andrew Wilson saying that most players don't have computers that could run it.

According to Wilson, the release of FIFA 11 back in 2010 resulted in many players being unable to play the game because they did not have an adequately powerful computer at the time and the company feels this would be repeated if Ignite-powered titles were released on the PC today.

'Even though there were some PCs on the marketplace that could run that engine, the lion's share of PCs on the marketplace could not,' Wilson told Polygon. 'And the majority of the gamer base that was playing the game on PC did not have a PC spec that would work with that.'

Wilson further explains that the Ignite engine has been built for the closed Xbox One and PS4 hardware and not the open hardware of an average PC. He concedes that with a few adjustments, the Ignite engine might make the jump to PC in the future.

The current reported specifications of the PS4 and Xbox One suggest that each console is the equivalent of a moderately powerful PC as opposed to anything that will challenge a high-end gaming rig. Both consoles are listed as having 8GB of RAM and GPUs derived from the AMD Radeon 7000 series.

The decision not to make adjustments in order for the engine to run on a PC will be baffling to many considering that the game will have originally been programmed and initially tested on a PC.

The lack of Wii U support for the Ignite engine is less surprising with EA's previous declarations that they have nothing currently development for Nintendo's latest offering. EA developer DICE has also abandoned its efforts to get the Frostbite 3 engine, the engine powering a wide range of EAs titles, running on the Wii U after tests with its predecessor proved disappointing.

61 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
miller 19th June 2013, 11:30 Quote
I thought EA did not want to be hated anymore!
Their PR is truly psychotic :?
Quote:
The lack of PC support was explained away by EA Sports executive vice-president Andrew Wilson saying that most players don't have computers that could run it.

According to Wilson, the release of FIFA 11 back in 2010 resulted in many players being unable to play the game because they did not have an adequately powerful computer at the time and the company feels this would be repeated if Ignite-powered titles were released on the PC today.
damien c 19th June 2013, 11:35 Quote
Wow just wow, not that I really care since I don't play the Fifa and NHL type games but I know people who do and they are just going to laugh when they hear about this.

Well Done EA on making yourselves look more stupid and foolish.
Stanley Tweedle 19th June 2013, 11:35 Quote
So is this part of the new "go and buy a new console" agenda?
mi1ez 19th June 2013, 11:40 Quote
Stupid people buying £250 PCs and expecting them to game, ruining it for the rest of us. Not that I'll be missing out when it comes to EA sport games, but I know a few who'll be gutted!
Pieface 19th June 2013, 11:41 Quote
Probably hate the fact that for over half a year it can stay top price on console, but within a month on PC it's £20 maximum
Griffter 19th June 2013, 11:52 Quote
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha pc's are too weak. hahahahahhaha stop! stop! im going to pee! stop!
hahahahahaha
liratheal 19th June 2013, 11:59 Quote
Sounds like a big case of "we couldn't be ****ed optimising the engine for a PC, so screw it."
ziza 19th June 2013, 12:03 Quote
I do not have a TOP computer like some projects that we can see in the projects section, but my specs are superior than the specs of these new generation consoles. EA claims new consoles as power PCs???? Do they know what a power PC is?

Definitely an approach to sell new consoles, after 1/2 years I would like to know if EA has the same opinion...
Moreover their stupid store as far as I know is not as used as steam, so I do not know if this is an approach to kill PC gaming and on-line stores.
Dave Lister 19th June 2013, 12:14 Quote
Is that not the point of printing the minimum specifications on the game's box ? do people not bother reading them now or something ?
Bloody EA slowly but surely killing off gaming !
alecamused 19th June 2013, 12:16 Quote
So what kind of hardware will be in these next gen consoles that people talk about? Wasn't it basically an amd x86 based cpu
Quote:
In raw processing terms, these four Jaguar cores have slightly less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K. It’s the same story on a core-by-core basis. Less than one quarter of the performance.
source

and a radeon based graphics card that was in 77xx region?

PCs that aren't powerful enough is a pretty lame excuse for whatever real reason they might have..
SAimNE 19th June 2013, 12:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecamused
So what kind of hardware will be in these next gen consoles that people talk about? Wasn't it basically an amd x86 based cpu
Quote:
In raw processing terms, these four Jaguar cores have slightly less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K. It’s the same story on a core-by-core basis. Less than one quarter of the performance.
source

and a radeon based graphics card that was in 77xx region?

PCs that aren't powerful enough is a pretty lame excuse for whatever real reason they might have..
wasnt the apu in the ps4 and one an 8 core jaguar... not a 4 core? that is actually a decent amount of graphics power, but yeah next to a mid range gaming pc it's pretty much just an ok budget build
exceededgoku 19th June 2013, 12:24 Quote
It's like they want to shoot themselves in the foot constantly.

I don't think my PC will worry (8 core, 32GB RAM, Sapphire 6GB 7970, 6xRAID0 SSD on Areca 1882ix (with 4GB cache).
Phil Rhodes 19th June 2013, 12:26 Quote
Oh no.

No Electronic Arts sports change-the-number-every-year games.

What are we going to do. Sob. Wail. Gnash.
Bindibadgi 19th June 2013, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
I thought EA did not want to be hated anymore!
Their PR is truly psychotic :?

Why psychotic? For once EA are not exactly to blame, its unfortunately the target audience trying to put it on their old laptops or Pentium 4 desktops. While we understand it here, it is our duty to educate more gamers in the real way of PC gaming so it doesn't adversely affect business decisions like this. I don't think there's harm in being a realist and asking "Please buy the console version if your PC is too crap and you don't wish to upgrade".

I'd love gaming websites to get more involved with PC hardware, rather than the token review of a graphics card now and then.
Corky42 19th June 2013, 13:05 Quote
I understand what he is saying, but it does seem like a cop out to me.

As 'Dave Lister' said
Quote:
Is that not the point of printing the minimum specifications on the game's box ? do people not bother reading them now or something ?
Unfortunately you only have to read any games support forum to see people being told they don't meet the minimum requirements

I also understand the tight integration of the RAM, CPU, and GPU in next gen consoles work in a different way from PC's, But the cop out comes from not admitting the real reason and instead blaming PC hardware.

IMHO the real reason is that it's not financially viable to spend time both in optimizing it and supporting it on the PC. Either that or EA staff find it a bit to complicated.
Bindibadgi 19th June 2013, 13:12 Quote
Unfortunately many people don't read the minimum spec, or they simply don't understand it. Their feeling is that they paid x amount of money x months/years ago and therefore it should play the game.

You say cop-out, they say it's a business decision based on their evidence of marketing and support calls. Their developer either doesn't have the cash or the time to meet the deadline to spend building just a very low-end version of the game for all these PCs - of which would sacrifice the high-end version of the game that you want anyway!

My point is that we should be educating all these people so WE can get a better experience. Moaning about companies won't affect their statistics, which are the only measurable outcome for them.
Maki role 19th June 2013, 13:15 Quote
Why do so many people on here simply forget that they are not representative of the majority of the market at all. We are computer enthusiasts, of course we have rigs that can handle this. However, most people will not. It's perfectly reasonable business to say "Hey the market share isn't large enough at present, we'll postpone arrangements there".

I can't imagine the Fifa market on PC is anything like that for consoles, it's just not a game franchise that I would figure many PC gamers being into. That reduced market share and then on top of that the reduced number of potential purchasers thanks to hardware limitations sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

I mean many of my friends game on effectively potatoes, they would no way be able to play an XBone or PS4 game; some of them have FPS drops in LoL and DOTA.
holbob 19th June 2013, 13:24 Quote
Ah, for the days of setting the res at 640x480 and it all looking **** but running ok! Can't that be done anymore?
Lenderz 19th June 2013, 13:27 Quote
Seems fair enough to me, the way the consoles are a fixed platform with a large amount of ram and a known spec makes optimisation a lot simpler on console, you only need to take a glance at the steam hardware survey to realise the majority of people don't have a spec thats much higher than the Xbone let alone PS4. Bear in mind without a lot of the PC middleware that makes everything tick the consoles can get a lot more horsepower out of the same hardware. The guys who made Metro said that the hardware in the new consoles performs about twice as well as the same hardware in a PC in a recent Digital Foundry interview.

I'd say about 20-25% of gamers with steam installed actually do have hardware which is better than the consoles. Which is the minority of the market, its probably not worth the effort for EA at this stage, frankly if they thought they'd make money doing it they'd do it. EA of all people put money before all else, and I don't see why they wouldn't, they've probably looked at Origins data, and Steams and concluded after a cost benefit analysis that its not worth it at this time.

Being emotional about this isn't going to make them change their minds, I'm sure in another 2-3 years the shoe will be on the other foot again and the console gamers will have 6-7 more years before they get another hardware refresh.
Corky42 19th June 2013, 13:27 Quote
@Bindibadgi, wasn't my post saying just that :|
That people don't read the min requirements and that its a financial decision,
maybe i done it in more words than that, but that was what i was getting at :D
loftie 19th June 2013, 13:33 Quote
So what they're saying is that people buying EA Sports games are dumber than those buying every other game they sell? The lions share of PCs cant run Crysis, BF3, BF4, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, probably SimCity, Need 4 Speed, CnC, Dead Space etc, yet they still have those on PC.

I'd rather they say they just cba putting it on PC, or if there's a valid reason, say that.

Gauging PC capability based on running LoL isn't a good idea, I know people running a 570 who have massive frame drops. Can't say about DoTA though.
Woodspoon 19th June 2013, 13:47 Quote
Just sounds like the first excuse of many to me for peddling badly ported across console games.
konstantine 19th June 2013, 13:57 Quote
If it's coded to work on the upcoming consoles, then it should have no problems running on a PC. I think this is Microsoft desperately trying to push their failure of a console into the gaming market.
Almightyrastus 19th June 2013, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lister
Is that not the point of printing the minimum specifications on the game's box ? do people not bother reading them now or something ?
Bloody EA slowly but surely killing off gaming !

As has been said, the problem is that people just don't read that sort of thing any more. There seems to be a point of pride in the general public about not understanding computer terms like it makes them the 'cool' kids and not the nerds and geeks and that won't change unless the change is forced on them. Maybe if a few people brought back a game to the retailer and said that it won't run on their PC and were just told point blank that their PC is too old or too slow to run it and no they can't have a refund because they registered the game already they might learn a little life lesson.
Bindibadgi 19th June 2013, 14:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
@Bindibadgi, wasn't my post saying just that :|
That people don't read the min requirements and that its a financial decision,
maybe i done it in more words than that, but that was what i was getting at :D

Yea, they should read the min specs I agree! :P The 'affordable option' is simply a 360 or PS3!
Quote:
Originally Posted by konstantine
If it's coded to work on the upcoming consoles, then it should have no problems running on a PC. I think this is Microsoft desperately trying to push their failure of a console into the gaming market.

That's not the point. The point is they are saying most of their market's 'gaming PC' is below this spec, and the cost to change+test/size of market/time to market relevance is not worth the business for them.
mars-bar-man 19th June 2013, 14:32 Quote
Hmmm, honestly wouldn't buy a sports game (exclude racing from that though) on PC, purely because I feel the main aim of them is as a 'party game'. I have owned a few of the FIFA games and playing them on my own is the most dull experience, have a few mates round and it's an awful lot of fun.

If EA had come out with "We're not going to release this on PC as there's a larger market for these games on console", I'd be fine, but please, don't give us a bullshit and blanket message saying PC's won't run it.
konstantine 19th June 2013, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

That's not the point. The point is they are saying most of their market's 'gaming PC' is below this spec, and the cost to change+test/size of market/time to market relevance is not worth the business for them.

That's obviously horse-sh*t. It's Microsoft trying to create more appeal for their upcoming console by have popular games made exclusive for their Xbone
CrazyJoe 19th June 2013, 14:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by konstantine
That's obviously horse-sh*t. It's Microsoft trying to create more appeal for their upcoming console by have popular games made exclusive for their Xbone

What's this got to do with Microsoft?
Bindibadgi 19th June 2013, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mars-bar-man
If EA had come out with "We're not going to release this on PC as there's a larger market for these games on console", I'd be fine, but please, don't give us a bullshit and blanket message saying PC's won't run it.

Let's read the quote again:
Quote:
Even though there were some PCs on the marketplace that could run that engine, the lion's share of PCs on the marketplace could not,' Wilson told Polygon. 'And the majority of the gamer base that was playing the game on PC did not have a PC spec that would work with that.'

Some PCs could run it, the majority of the people that bought a previous title COULD NOT RUN IT. This is not a blanket comment on PC gaming.

Again I'll reiterate. Stop hating, start educating. These people clearly need HELP. When they get help, business' get better statistics and WE GET BETTER GAMES.
mars-bar-man 19th June 2013, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Let's read the quote again:



Some PCs could run it, the majority of the people that bought a previous title COULD NOT RUN IT. This is not a blanket comment on PC gaming.

Again I'll reiterate. Stop hating, start educating. These people clearly need HELP. When they get help, business' get better statistics and WE GET BETTER GAMES.

Ahhh my bad, I read it incorrectly.
bdigital 19th June 2013, 14:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by exceededgoku
It's like they want to shoot themselves in the foot constantly.

I don't think my PC will worry (8 core, 32GB RAM, Sapphire 6GB 7970, 6xRAID0 SSD on Areca 1882ix (with 4GB cache).

You have a 6gb 7970? I didnt know they existed? Or is it a typo?
erratum1 19th June 2013, 15:06 Quote
I'll be interested to see how pc's run the next gen of games.

Even though the textures/lighting was tweaked a bit higher for the pc version we have just been playing 360/ps3 games.

With this more powerful hardware they can imagine much bigger better games, I think it's a waste of time comparing specs the old hardware of the ps3 can still turn out a game like 'The last of us'.

I could be totally wrong but feel those with 3 monitors will be putting 2 on ebay, lol.
schmidtbag 19th June 2013, 15:52 Quote
I don't get it, EA published Crysis and that was way ahead of its time, and it was a success. I don't see why they couldn't do the same with FIFA, especially considering the consoles use x86 hardware so it shouldn't take too much effort to do PC optimizations. But whatever, if they're really that lazy to put that extra effort then that just gives me 1 more reason to not buy their products.
SirFur 19th June 2013, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
So what they're saying is that people buying EA Sports games are dumber than those buying every other game they sell? The lions share of PCs cant run Crysis, BF3, BF4, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, probably SimCity, Need 4 Speed, CnC, Dead Space etc, yet they still have those on PC.

I'd rather they say they just cba putting it on PC, or if there's a valid reason, say that.

Gauging PC capability based on running LoL isn't a good idea, I know people running a 570 who have massive frame drops. Can't say about DoTA though.

Agreed! Well put. I disagree entirely with Bindibadgi about this being a 'sensible' decision. I just think EA are lazy and cba and screwing PC gamers as usual. Yes, I understand that the target market has very few PCs that can run the game. Yes, I also know of many people I know irl who think they can Crysis 3 on a £200 PC they bought 3 years ago. However, the point is simple. Why did they release these games on PC? When Crysis 1 first was released how many PC could run it at max settings? But, HOW successful was Crysis 1? It was a major breakthrough. Same thing could be said of Farcry, but different publisher so meh.

New games drive innovation and drive the ever changing PC market. (BTW, I agree most people who'd play Crysis 3 would be people like us or at least people who have an interest in getting a decently capable PC, so its not an entirely fair comparison). In all however, this is quite silly. They just cba to do it at the moment, and once they feel they get time/money (key word milk) after its been on the consoles, they'll then transfer it across the PC to get hold of the last few sales (as they state in their intentions). I just think they know this game isn't going to be a big hit major title, and so they are just maximising profits. instead of 'wasting effort' on the PC.....


EDIT: I think some of the problem is that its a 'football sports' game. Graphics aren't really 'meant' to be a big thing in such games unlike in FPS. So its not regarded as a 'high demand game'. You're supposed to play 'football' with a good controller and have a nice game mechanic. The game isn't 'meant' to be graphically demanding like other games, and so people just assume 'it should work'. This issue is hardly made a big factor in advertising unlike the up and coming FPS/multiplayer games. This prolly explains why so many people who bought the game couldn't run it....
jrs77 19th June 2013, 16:20 Quote
As was said before. The majority of people don't have machines like us enthusiasts.

The majority of people buy a prebuilt rig or laptop for some €500 (something like this HP Pavilion P6-2425EG) and use it for 5 years until they buy a new one, just like they would buy a console for €400 and use it for these 5 years.
Funnily enough they spend some €200-500 every other year for a new smartphone at the same time.

On another note. The power of the PS4 is comparable to a current €1000-rig. 2GHz 8 core Jaguar paired with a 7850ish GPU and 8GB GDDR5 doesn't sound like it, but you need to take into equasion, that you can code to the metal on consoles, optimizing heavily for the unified hardware.
The PS4 will be more powerful for gaming then the rig in my sig I'm afraid to tell you, and my rig did cost allready more money then the majority of people are willing to spend on a PC.

Objectivity is what is lacking in forums like this, and the reason why people in here don't understand stuff like consoles or Apple. 90% of the consumers don't inform themselves about hardware-specs and all that, but they expect things to work out-of-the-box and like shown in the advertisings. Apple never shows any hardware-specs in their advertisings for a reason, but only the capabilities of their products.

If a new game is advertised for, then usually there's nothing said about hardware-specs either, so people think that it'll work with their three year old €500 PC. The majority don't use forums to inform themselves about minimum requirements, as that's something that's not required for a console either.

EA can be bashed for alot of things, but in this case their analysis of the market is actually pretty much spot on.
Jehla 19th June 2013, 18:43 Quote
Quote:
most players don't have computers that could run it.
By definition don't all players have computers that can run it? Otherwise they wouldn't be players... (Pedantic I know)

So EA, the company with a digital store can't implement a "can I run it?" test, or heck just scan the PC before the purchase. It would be possibly the best excuse to make Fifa a DD origin exclusive.

Maybe there just isn't a large enough market and they don't want to say.
loftie 19th June 2013, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Objectivity is what is lacking in forums like this, and the reason why people in here don't understand stuff like consoles or Apple. 90% of the consumers don't inform themselves about hardware-specs and all that, but they expect things to work out-of-the-box and like shown in the advertisings. Apple never shows any hardware-specs in their advertisings for a reason, but only the capabilities of their products.

If a new game is advertised for, then usually there's nothing said about hardware-specs either, so people think that it'll work with their three year old €500 PC. The majority don't use forums to inform themselves about minimum requirements, as that's something that's not required for a console either.

EA can be bashed for alot of things, but in this case their analysis of the market is actually pretty much spot on.

The great thing about having a game on the PC is Settings. Take a game that your PC can't play at it's greatest, and lower the settings. Sure things look worse, but you start sliding towards playability.

Crysis wasn't released on a console, it was released on PCs even though pretty much no-one could run it at it's highest. Hell, my PC now won't run it on max. Will it run it? You bet it can, just not on max.

As I said in my previous posts, EA has loads of games that will not run on the vast majority of PCs. We are the minority having machines with gaming grade gear, and as you yourself pointed out, most people who want to get into PC gaming will go out, buy generic £500 PC with a subpar GFX card and think that it should be able to play games. But saying that when EA consider their sports games, too many people don't have a good enough PC to run them so they won't make it for PC, but then when they consider BF4, suddenly there are enough people out there with PCs to run their games.

So surely either

They're lying
Their new engine is so demanding that it makes BF4 look easy to run
They're too lazy to make it run
They plan on exiting the PC market altogether because there aren't enough PCs to run their
games

Personally I think they don't sell many EA Sports games on PC, because they tend to work better with a controller as SirFur said, so sell better on a console.
LordPyrinc 20th June 2013, 00:06 Quote
You can use a controller on a PC. I've been using controllers for years, mainly for emulated console games. I am more inclined to agree that the many sports games are more fun to play against another person rather than an AI. In that respect at least, I can see why EA would concentrate on the consoles instead of PCs for sports titles. No lag worries either if your both playing on the same physical console. It's easier to talk crap to each other too when you are in the same room, no need for online connection (unless you're playing X-Bone) or headsets.

As for EA spending less time on making PC games, I could care less. I think I've only bought two EA games in the last five years. BF3 is nice looking and fun to play, but there are other non-EA titles out there to fill the gap. This might even encourage more alternatives if EA does truly abandon the PC market. At least maybe now they'll stop gobbling up other PC developers and axing their staff.
forum_user 20th June 2013, 00:47 Quote
First they tried to stop supporting Steam. Now they're un-supporting PC's?
sub routine 20th June 2013, 10:16 Quote
Yawn. EA are trying to maximise profits from minimal input, who'd have thunk it.

Mo business less game. That's the industry right now though. Tired cash ins and samey looking fpss.
SirFur 20th June 2013, 13:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPyrinc

As for EA spending less time on making PC games, I could care less. I think I've only bought two EA games in the last five years. BF3 is nice looking and fun to play, but there are other non-EA titles out there to fill the gap. This might even encourage more alternatives if EA does truly abandon the PC market. At least maybe now they'll stop gobbling up other PC developers and axing their staff.

Agreed. Don't play any recent EA games, and I could care less about their future releases too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
First they tried to stop supporting Steam. Now they're un-supporting PC's?

Lol, good riddance if they do.

EDIT - thats prolly a bit harsh but meh!
forum_user 20th June 2013, 13:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFur
Lol, good riddance if they do.

EDIT - thats prolly a bit harsh but meh!

I reckon everyone should self publish through Steam on PC, then deal with the devil (publishers) for getting on consoles. Ideal world ...
KidMod-Southpaw 20th June 2013, 13:23 Quote
This really wees me off. Firstly because I'm everyday surrounded who slate me for having a PC because they've only tried to game heavily on an old laptop or 250 quid Ebay machine. And secondly because, well, what wold it matter anyway? The games would only be sh**** console ports like always.
miller 20th June 2013, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I reckon everyone should self publish through Steam on PC, then deal with the devil (publishers) for getting on consoles. Ideal world ...

Problem is that it's generally not a good idea to allow one company the monopoly on game distribution/activation etc, with no competition they can do what they want with pricing and how you play the games with DRM, no more cheap steam game offers because they control the game market and meh, we don't need to sell cheap games :(
forum_user 20th June 2013, 13:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Problem is that it's generally not a good idea to allow one company the monopoly on game distribution/activation etc, with no competition they can do what they want with pricing and how you play the games with DRM, no more cheap steam game offers because they control the game market and meh, we don't need to sell cheap games :(

The debate of whether Steam/Valve should have a monopoly is for another thread. Bring your view of evil corporate monopolies to this debate about EA's Ignite engine. It's not just one game that won't be appearing on PC according to this story, it's any game using the Ignite engine. Thus creating console exclusives ....
yazooo 20th June 2013, 14:32 Quote
I can't see fault in EA for this decision, don't know the numbers but their sports titles must be massively skewed to consoles. Seems to make sense to me and I can't think of any of my PC Gamer friends who it would impact.
loftie 20th June 2013, 19:32 Quote
Just gonna add that FIFA 14 is on Origin for Preorder for PC, so you may want to change the caption for the picture. And if they re did FIFA 14 to not use the ignite engine, what is it that Ignite is supposed to bring? All I've seen mentioned is that it adds better spectators...
Corky42 20th June 2013, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
what is it that Ignite is supposed to bring? All I've seen mentioned is that it adds better spectators...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignite_%28game_engine%29
Quote:
four times as many calculations per second than older EA Sports titles.[2] Animation detail is expected to improve "ten-fold"
Sloth 20th June 2013, 20:32 Quote
For once I actually see where EA are coming from. It's not exactly a secret that sports games bring in a decent amount of fans who are less than PC-savvy. The negative PR and bad experiences they get from these fans not understanding system requirements is not good for EA, or for the consumer.

It's a trade off. In order to keep these fans from getting upset the minority who are also PC enthusiasts, or at least understand and meet the requirements, are denied the game on PC. There's no forseeable win/win situation so they went with the least damaging option.

If you're one of those minorities, tough titties. As Bindi says, educate. This isn't a problem which is unique to EA, PC gaming as a whole has to accomodate for or at least be aware of the lowest common denominator of system specs. We all beneft when "PC gamer" and "PC enthusiast" come together.
forum_user 20th June 2013, 23:33 Quote
Do you guys think the SteamBox will help EA change their minds?
Sloth 20th June 2013, 23:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Do you guys think the SteamBox will help EA change their minds?
Depends largely on the hardware specs. The whole problem EA's having is that many users have underpowered PCs. A quick look at the latest Steam Survey makes this fairly apparent, as it gets more and more common the number of integrated or low end graphics systems gets higher and higher. If the SteamBox is successful its level of hardware will become a new baseline for developers to consider, if EA (or any other developer) can make their game run on that hardware then they can feel fairly confident that their PC release will be able to run on a large number of systems.
sotu1 21st June 2013, 00:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Stupid people buying £250 PCs and expecting them to game, ruining it for the rest of us.

I think it's a lot of this too. FIFA, Madden, NHL etc are mass market games. Mass market PCs can barely run Word. Mass market consumers expect a mass market game to look amazing. Stupid Mass.
sotu1 21st June 2013, 00:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Do you guys think the SteamBox will help EA change their minds?

Honestly, I don't think Steambox will hit mass (sorry, going off on mass again) to sway any big developer to build specifically for the Steam box. It'll maybe add a few % on to the addressable PC market, but that's just addressable, not necessarily 'in the market for sports games'. For which they'd probably get a console anyway.
SirFur 21st June 2013, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
For once I actually see where EA are coming from. It's not exactly a secret that sports games bring in a decent amount of fans who are less than PC-savvy. The negative PR and bad experiences they get from these fans not understanding system requirements is not good for EA, or for the consumer.

It's a trade off. In order to keep these fans from getting upset the minority who are also PC enthusiasts, or at least understand and meet the requirements, are denied the game on PC. There's no forseeable win/win situation so they went with the least damaging option.

If you're one of those minorities, tough titties. As Bindi says, educate. This isn't a problem which is unique to EA, PC gaming as a whole has to accomodate for or at least be aware of the lowest common denominator of system specs. We all beneft when "PC gamer" and "PC enthusiast" come together.


Do you think 'educating' people is going to make a difference? The mass market of PC will always lag behind the latest and upcoming graphical engines. Does that mean we we may as well just give up on the PC market cos our games won't be supported? That's a completely nonsensical argument. The simple matter of the issue is that EA is unable to optimise its games properly, nor does it wish to spend the extra time and money. Simple. PC Gamer and PC Enthusiast will never come together. This has never been an issue before when publishers are releasing next gen games, so why now? The answer is obvious. I will refer you back to crysis again. How many games could run crysis when it came out at max? Compare that to how many now? The difference isn't that much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Depends largely on the hardware specs. The whole problem EA's having is that many users have underpowered PCs. A quick look at the latest Steam Survey makes this fairly apparent, as it gets more and more common the number of integrated or low end graphics systems gets higher and higher. If the SteamBox is successful its level of hardware will become a new baseline for developers to consider, if EA (or any other developer) can make their game run on that hardware then they can feel fairly confident that their PC release will be able to run on a large number of systems.

EA is not the only publisher who has this 'issue'. I don't see other developers saying they are going to stop developing games for the PC because not enough have the hardware. EA knows the people who run sports games will likely have less powerful PCs. That means more work required to optimise the game to run it well, whereas people who want to play BF4 will have spent a bit more thought or money into their PC so more will be able to easily run it. EA just doesn't want to optimise the game, despite numerous other publishers continuing to churn out great PC games. The answer is in the money, not in the lame excuse that the target market isn't there, they're just being too lazy.
sstteevveenn 21st June 2013, 15:12 Quote
SirFur you appear to have argued in favour of EA's decision, and then concluded against it. They are completely different groups of people playing sports games and playing pc fps games. It seems people who buy battlefield or crysis or whatever on the pc are better educated about system specs and game settings, and have more realistic expectations about performance. Intuitively I think you would expect this to be the case.

Releasing a demanding sports game for the pc would probably be a PR nightmare. So they'd be taking a massive hit to their reputation (such as it is) and dealing with all the suport nightmare and for what? So the one or two interested people with proper mid-high end graphics cards could play their game.

It seems to me like this decision is probably practically forced, at least if they want to make a cutting edge game (at least graphically and technologically, since I find it hard to imagine any sports game being truly cutting edge since you're pretty much tied down to the rules of the game!) for the majority of their players which are playing on consoles. Players who have been tied down to ancient hardware until now. Clearly they're going to want to show these players who are mindlessly throwing their cash at EA every year that they can do more than just update squad lists.
Sloth 21st June 2013, 17:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFur
Do you think 'educating' people is going to make a difference? The mass market of PC will always lag behind the latest and upcoming graphical engines. Does that mean we we may as well just give up on the PC market cos our games won't be supported? That's a completely nonsensical argument. The simple matter of the issue is that EA is unable to optimise its games properly, nor does it wish to spend the extra time and money. Simple. PC Gamer and PC Enthusiast will never come together. This has never been an issue before when publishers are releasing next gen games, so why now? The answer is obvious. I will refer you back to crysis again. How many games could run crysis when it came out at max? Compare that to how many now? The difference isn't that much.
I do think educating people will make a difference. Educate people that mass market PCs will not cut it for graphically intense modern games, that you can't just pop in the disc and have it run fine if you don't have the hardware for it.

Crysis was published by EA. It was a PC only release designed to push its graphics as far as possible, the target audience is a crowd more likely to understand system requirements and make sure they were met before purchasing. Indeed, the game became quite popular among PC enthusiasts, this very forum is an example of that.
Quote:
EA is not the only publisher who has this 'issue'. I don't see other developers saying they are going to stop developing games for the PC because not enough have the hardware. EA knows the people who run sports games will likely have less powerful PCs. That means more work required to optimise the game to run it well, whereas people who want to play BF4 will have spent a bit more thought or money into their PC so more will be able to easily run it. EA just doesn't want to optimise the game, despite numerous other publishers continuing to churn out great PC games. The answer is in the money, not in the lame excuse that the target market isn't there, they're just being too lazy.
You'll note that I specifically say this problem isn't unique to EA.

Optimization is not the be all and end all of the gaming world. There are limits to how much time and money a developer can throw at a game, and to how much money a game can afford to require before becoming unprofitable. We do not have access to the data EA has regarding PC specs for sports title players and do not know exactly how dire of system specs they're looking at, it's entirely reasonable that the costs required to make the engine work on lower spec PCs are higher than the income they can expect from increasing the number of consumers able to run the game.

It's even stated in the article:
Quote:
He concedes that with a few adjustments, the Ignite engine might make the jump to PC in the future.
Whenever it's financially viable to do so. Looking at Crysis again, it saw a port to consoles after its release, once the heavy optimization required to make it playable on lower spec consoles was less than the income they expected from the new market.
Elton 22nd June 2013, 07:17 Quote
Well at least now they won't ever be able to complain about poor PC sales.

I will say the rise of APUs is starting to buck that trend but many people still try to install blatantly GPU intensive games on their aging laptops or old C2D Intel Integrated Graphics computers.

Worse still are those who are convinced a PCI graphics card could help their dying machine. Educating people would actually be rather nice as everyone wins (Pc manufacturers and PC game developers) but that's nota realistic option.

It doesn't help that the PC market is still an incredibly confusing one (ask Nvidia or AMD to make a clear naming scheme..) and most mass market PCs take advantage of this to sell people the cheapest equipment at the highest prices. So gaming on the PC? Possible, but it isn't something that happens often or something that is mass market viable because of these costs.

And for those who pine for optimization. There's only a certain amount you can do before it's not financially sound (well it never is for EA..;) ) to spend more money to allow a certain percentage of people to play on a platform that isn't very popular for the previously stated reason.

In other words; we really screwed the pooch to ourselves by being elitists and the manufactureres really muddied the waters by making products confusing (to the layman!) and making the barrier to entry more effort filled than buying in a simple console.

I know it's not like that as much anymore, but seeing as the recent XPS series (which is a joke now) comes with an Ivybridge processor and a bottom rung GPU for $900 USD. It's safe to say that mass market off the shelf PCs are still deliberately misleading.
Corky42 22nd June 2013, 09:19 Quote
I wouldn't say deliberately misleading after all they are giving the customer what they asks for, and that is cheap PC's. It's kinda the same thing you see in the world of cars, yes there are people driving around in expensive fast cars but the vast majority of people have your run of the mill it get's me from A to B car.
Elton 22nd June 2013, 12:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I wouldn't say deliberately misleading after all they are giving the customer what they asks for, and that is cheap PC's. It's kinda the same thing you see in the world of cars, yes there are people driving around in expensive fast cars but the vast majority of people have your run of the mill it get's me from A to B car.

I challenge thee to what used to be the GT555m. :D

In all seriousness people are still convinced more GB's of VRAM = more performance.
longyny 22nd June 2013, 13:00 Quote
PC is freedom, and they just don't want their customers have freedom. Surely there were the main promoters behind M$ to include DRM, second-hand games control...

Luckly, customers aren't completely idiots like they think we are, and M$ has been forced to reverse their initial plans.

I only hope Linux will become a gaming platform once for all, and I will not need Windows anymore, neither.
rollo 22nd June 2013, 14:42 Quote
The ram thing 100%, I've seen people buy cheap cards cause it had 2gb of ram more is better yaa. Despite the fact the card does not have the grunt to use the ram.

The amount of sold cards in that area must be huge and they are all sold on lies. AMD and nvidia are both guilty of the more ram is better scenario at low end.

Even in the mid range most cards don't need 2gb of ram let alone 3-4gb that they are selling these days.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums