x800 is worthless now?

[xcellerate]

I try to play the Lost Planet demo and I get this error message:
"unsupported pixel shader version 2.0"

Does that mean my poor little x800 is so old the new games wont even let me get to the title screen?

*tear*

 

[Sidewinder]

yes,buy a 6800GTS.

 

[Gunner]

Well that's two generations old now. SO yes is it old. But why would you want to play Lost planet, it blows anyway haha...

 

[giant384]

lost planet requires a card with ps 3.0

 

[StardogChampion]

I try to play the Lost Planet demo and I get this error message:
"unsupported pixel shader version 2.0"

Does that mean my poor little x800 is so old the new games wont even let me get to the title screen?

*tear*

Yep. You can't play Splinter Cell: Double Agent either.

Even though neither game looks much better than Chaos Theory anyway. SM2.0 and SM3.0 barely look different.

 

[Asus]

Yeah, you'll want to get a card that supports SM3.0. Although I would not get a 6800GT. It does support SM3.0 but it is basically the same speed as your card. Get something faster. =p
I had a 6800GT at one time and later when the fan went bad I actually traded it in for a X800XT PE at the store (no extra cost) and it was a lot faster even though it did not support SM3.0. Nothing was crucial for SM3.0 back then.

Even Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was first released with only the SM3.0 path but later was patched to included SM2.0. Guess developers are working too hard with new graphics tech to support the older stuff. It didn't used to be like that though. BF2 was the big one I remember that started dropping old card support, not making a path for GF4 cards. I mean it used to be you could play stuff with a GF2 even if it looked poor.

8800GTS 320MB?
X1950Pro (AGP)

 

[VirusType2]

It's kind of bullshit. The ****ing game should play. That x800 is NOT but 2 years old. In a way though, just don't buy the game. That will show them.

BTW get a decent DX10 (Pixel shader 4.0 card.)

It's kind of nice though, if you think about it - By the time I have hardware that plays the new games, they are down to $15 and $20.

 

[Link]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that they have already figured that peoples whos computers won't run it, won't buy the game.

But who knows?

 

[VirusType2]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that they have already figured that peoples whos computers won't run it, won't buy the game.

But who knows?

You are missing the point. Not sure why they make games incompatible with95% of the computers in use today. So, almost nobody will buy it. My point is that maybe they will/should start making games more compatible so they can sell more copies. But who knows?

Even Oblivion added a patch to make the game more compatible with less powerful GPU's.

 

[Gunner]

You are missing the point. Not sure why they make games incompatible with95% of the computers in use today. So, almost nobody will buy it. My point is that maybe they will/should start making games more compatible so they can sell more copies. But who knows?

Even Oblivion added a patch to make the game more compatible with less powerful GPU's.

Because eventually those 95% of people will be on Vista with DX10 video cards. Gotta start somewhere.

 

[giant384]

You are missing the point. Not sure why they make games incompatible with95% of the computers in use today. So, almost nobody will buy it. My point is that maybe they will/should start making games more compatible so they can sell more copies. But who knows?

Even Oblivion added a patch to make the game more compatible with less powerful GPU's.

95% is alittle extreme dont you think?
game developers aren't going to drop the market that doesn't use dx10.
If you want the latest and greatest effects then you have to pay for it.

 

[nutcrackr]

this is not the first game, tom clancy double agent, rainbow 6 vegas and possibly a few others do not support ps 2.0.

btw isn't oldoblivion user made software?

 

[VirusType2]

^I wasn't refering to Oldblivion, I was refering to the first Oblivion official patch.

95% is alittle extreme dont you think?

Actually I was being kind. I'd actually say that 99.9% of people who own a PC today don't have computers that can play games like Lost Planet.

You can do some searching if you want, I'm sure the evidence would support my claim, though remember that it is only made from hear-say by companies like VALVe, and not any research I have conducted.

 

[giant384]

^I wasn't refering to Oldblivion, I was refering to the first Oblivion official patch.



Actually I was being kind. I'd actually say that 99.9% of people who own a PC today don't have computers that can play games like Lost Planet.

You can do some searching if you want, I'm sure the evidence would support my claim, though remember that it is only made from hear-say by companies like VALVe, and not any research I have conducted.

you cant give a point from one source that doesnt give alot of info and not everyone does those hardware surveys.

 

[PvtRyan]

Cards which default to DirectX 9 Shader Model 3 Path on Source (485341 of 1165181 Total Users (41.65% of Total) )

So 41.65% does have a card that supports SM3.0

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

 

[VirusType2]

you cant give a point from one source that doesnt give alot of info and not everyone does those hardware surveys.

At least I mentioned my source even though I thought I implied that I was making a rough estimated guess.

And I was speaking of all the HOME PC's in use today in the world basically. Those figures from VAVLe are from people that are playing Steam Powered games, so the figures are heavily biased towards gamer computers too, so the balance tips much further I think it's safe to assume.

So 41.65% does have a card that supports SM3.0

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Yep, that's what I was talking about. Now figure how many people have the processor that is supported by Lost Planet. The minimum is a Pentium 4 HT. That knocks me out of the picture, as one of the millions who have a single thread general processing Celeron.

Then comes ram - must have enough ram. Min req.

Then comes Internet connection - you would be surprised to know how many people don't have internet access.

Anyway, it's a big waste of time arguing about unknowns. I just like being right.


Anyway, there is no need to get feisty. :upstare: I was merely being cynical about the state of things. They should make games that can still be played with yesterdays computers, ugly graphics or not.


ATi and Nvidia push these developers to use every bit of the latest technology. It's all about money, and it's all inside stuff that is hardly known about. They want you to buy their new hardware as often as they can create it.

 

[-Psy-]

Even though neither game looks much better than Chaos Theory anyway. SM2.0 and SM3.0 barely look different.

Well when I upgraded my PC to one that had a card which supports SM3, the difference in Source games was phenomenal.

 

[StardogChampion]

this is not the first game, tom clancy double agent, rainbow 6 vegas and possibly a few others do not support ps 2.0.

Mostly because Ubisoft don't care about the PC market anymore, and make their games for the 360 first.

 

[Asus]

I don't think SM3.0 itself offers any major upgrades to IQ. Mainly developers who use SM3.0 can decide to do more with their shaders than SM2.0 without as big of a hit.

 

[DreamThrall]

And I was speaking of all the HOME PC's in use today in the world basically. Those figures from VAVLe are from people that are playing Steam Powered games, so the figures are heavily biased towards gamer computers too, so the balance tips much further I think it's safe to assume.

It doesn't matter what most HOME PCs have, that's not going to be the same market that would be buying these games. I would think that as a whole, people that responded to a Steam hardware survey are much more likely to buy any video game than just people that own a PC.

And as far as steam being biased toward "gaming systems"...

-Almost 80% have LESS than 1GB of ram
-Only 1.45% have multi-GPU (ie SLI or crossfire) systems
-8% have 512 MB VRAM, 42% have 256MB, 33% have 128MB
-42% run their desktop at 1024 x 768
-High end video cards are in fractions of percentages, while mid and lower end cards (6600, 5200, 9600, 9800, 7600, x800, etc) make up higher percentages

you get the idea.

Looks to me like steam is more biased toward your "average joe" low to mid-grade hardware setup.

 

[Gunner]

It doesn't matter what most HOME PCs have, that's not going to be the same market that would be buying these games. I would think that as a whole, people that responded to a Steam hardware survey are much more likely to buy any video game than just people that own a PC.

Exactly. Logic prevails once again.

 

[VirusType2]

It doesn't matter what most HOME PCs have, that's not going to be the same market that would be buying these games. I would think that as a whole, people that responded to a Steam hardware survey are much more likely to buy any video game than just people that own a PC.

And as far as steam being biased toward "gaming systems"...

-Almost 80% have LESS than 1GB of ram
-Only 1.45% have multi-GPU (ie SLI or crossfire) systems
-8% have 512 MB VRAM, 42% have 256MB, 33% have 128MB
-42% run their desktop at 1024 x 768
-High end video cards are in fractions of percentages, while mid and lower end cards (6600, 5200, 9600, 9800, 7600, x800, etc) make up higher percentages

you get the idea.

Looks to me like steam is more biased toward your "average joe" low to mid-grade hardware setup.

You made my point for me. These are people that are playing video games, and yet still, the majority of them have average PC's - the amount of people with the top end hardware (the type that would be required to run new games) are the minority. Half-Life2 wins because it was a game that could run (albeit sometimes with problems) on just about any PC with a graphics card - the day it was released!

i was playing it pretty well with a CeleronD 2.66 Ghz, 512MB, and a 9200 128MB PCI graphics card. the game could run in DX 8.1 (with support for DX9) and SM 1.1.

Lost planet on the other hand. ... A PCI card? YOu must be kidding me. I know it's been a couple of years, but if you scale users hardware to a today's equivalent - it's the same result. The game isn't backwards compatible.




On another note, Valve did an awesome thing by conducting that survey. They are trying to make games that most people can play, so they can sell more units.

I understand Lost Planet is a special case, and it is a port of a powerful console, but I was merely stating that games should try to be more compatible with aging hardware. I don't think it would set the project back too far to add options in the graphics settings to reduce polygons and such.

For example, a rock in Oblivion might use 16,000 polygons, but could look perfectly OK with only 1,600. And this one rock is used 1,500 times throught the world of Oblivion. Now do a similar effect to other objects in the game, and the entire world of oblivion is much more easy to render.

You have a substantial decrease in GPU requirements, but it's the same game, and plays the same. Users who got only 10 frames per second can finally enjoy the game at somewhere close to 30fps or even higher. I know when I would look at certain plants, my framerate just plumeted from a 'relatively' stable 25-40fps to like 9, for example. This is unacceptable.

Therefore, with this polygon reduction, many lower end PC's can much more easily render the graphics.. did I already say that? I don't think you disagree that it is a good idea, so what are we arguing about?

I bought a $250 SM3.0 card a year after Oblivion came out and still get a barely playable framerate of about 19fps in the outdoor environments.

 

[DreamThrall]

EDIT ugh nm...

 

[VirusType2]

What brother, I'm sorry.

You know what? that Polygon reduction mod for Oblivion exists. Some guy made it so he could play the game. isn't that sad? It just goes to show how easily it could be done by the game creators, if an inexperienced guy with 3d max can do it.

You wanna know the reason why they don't do stuff like that anymore? Add polygon reductions? Well, of course I'm only speculating, but with all the data, particularly screenshots floating around the internet, I think Bethesda, and others, don't want to see their games represented by screenshots where the graphics aren't gimped by low graphics settings. I mean, this makes their game look lesser, and they want it to look nice so people buy it.

I don't know. Just a wild guess.