56 replies to this topic

[Inappropriate849]

I've been playing PC games since 386 days as well, and I used to upgrade my PC every 2-3 years. Then I just tired of shoveling money down that never-ending moneyhole, and bought a PS3. So now I play only PC games that my computer runs well, and are not available for PS3 (lately D3, T:A and Blood Bowl).

Yes, I upgraded my GPU for Diablo 3. But there needs to be other games than just MWO for me to even start justifying buying a new CPU (which necessitates new mobo and memory). There's nothing in the horizon on PC that I feel the urge to play that's not also available on PS3, with the exception of Mechwarrior Tactics, which I'm sure has more reasonable specs. And I'm sure I'm not the only one: anyone who has read the news lately knows that most people have more pressing destinations for their money than luxury goods such as MWO.

The points remain: F2P games require a vast playerbase from which to draw revenue from, and that requires reaching those with modest systems. And there's something fundamentally wrong with the engine or its implementation if people who can max out BF3 can't play MWO.

edit: I run all games at my monitor's native resolution 1680x1050. I tried MWO with 1280x[whatever it is] a couple of patches ago, didn't help much.

Edited by CaptainSodom, 14 November 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[Mercules]

CaptainSodom, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

The points remain: F2P games require a vast playerbase from which to draw revenue from, and that requires reaching those with modest systems. And there's something fundamentally wrong with the engine or its implementation if people who can max out BF3 can't play MWO.

I think the person unwilling to spend money to play the game would be, you know, unwilling to spend money to play the game. So really, where is all this revenue from people who won't spend money to play coming from?

[Clay Pigeon]

CaptainSodom, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

edit: I run all games at my monitor's native resolution 1680x1050. I tried MWO with 1280x[whatever it is] a couple of patches ago, didn't help much.

Going down to 1024x768 might help, but lowering resolution helps more if you are limited by your graphics card than by your cpu. The new game engines really benefit from quad cores. Not just CryEngine 3, but Frostbite 2, and so will Unreal Engine 4.

[OpCentar]

Clay Pigeon, on 14 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Are you running at 1024x768? Because that's what min specs are usually for.

I'm not, but hell I would (in a window)if it meant decent FPS improvement.

Mercules, on 14 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Minimum System Requirements is just that. What is lacking is understanding of what that means. This means the game will open up and play, not that you will be able to play it well, but it will run.... barely. That is why most games have minimum and Recommended Always consider the Recommended to be what you need to actually play the game.

I dare anyone to put up a video showing their min req PC running at 1024x768 with default settings set to low and try to justify that configuration.

It will devolve into a slideshow every time a enemy mech approaches within 200m of the player. That's not playable, nor runnable, it's ALT+F4>uninstall level of performance.

And one player+unknown number of his buddies lost. Now count the number of players lost and take 1% of them that would probably buy stuff for hard currency, that's how much they are losing just because nobody wants to change a few lines on the min req specs.

[WardenWolf]

To the OP:

Have you tried removing the cache folder, or simply reinstalling the game lately? If not, I would highly recommend that. Improvements have been made in recent patches, and your video card at least is just fine (I was playing on a GTX 460 when I got into closed beta). The limit is your dual-core CPU, but I think you might be able to see better than what you are reporting.

Another option, which shouldn't cost a ton, would be to just upgrade the CPU to a quad-core of the right series for your board. You can probably get one used somewhere for not a lot of money.

[Odins Fist]

CaptainSodom, on 14 November 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

Intel E6500, GeForce GTX560, 8GB RAM.

.
Your CPU is the weak link in that chain....

[Stickjock]

CaptainSodom, on 14 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I've been playing PC games since 386 days as well ... snip...

Well... THIS was my first PC...



That's right... can you say TRS-80?? lol (and yeah, still have my original Atari laying around too)... still... having upgraded and eventually replaced many computers over the years, some people just don't understand that there does indeed come a time when you HAVE to upgrade/replace... still have a ton of "old" games that just don't play anymore on my Quad Core system... even have a good Commodore emulator just for laughs and some ROMS of games I played "back in the day"...

But again, times change, tech evolves and the software that companies use to develope our games change as well... it's just a matter of "how far back" are the Devs expected to support?? I mean... I could argue that MW:O should be playable on my Commodore 128 I've got sitting here all day long or I won't spend a dime on it, but really... I'd just get laughed at...

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Like others are saying, gotta be the cpu. I play on a laptop with a GTX 560m which is weaker than the desktop 560, but I have the i7 quad core to go with it and I play on high settings with a decent fps.

Noob question here, how do you all know what fps you're getting while you play? Is there a hotkey or setting I'm not seeing that will display it?

[Lin Shai]

Rizzelbizzeg, on 14 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Noob question here, how do you all know what fps you're getting while you play? Is there a hotkey or setting I'm not seeing that will display it?

Yup - F9

Displays FPS in upper left corner (and now also your coordinates on the map)

Edited by Lin Shai, 14 November 2012 - 03:02 PM.

[Matthew Craig]

Just wanted to clarify for anyone saying that optimizations are not part of our focus that is wrong. As has been mentioned we're committed to having the game run well on hardware released in the last 5 years (thereabouts) that meets the minimum requirements. We're working hard currently to bring performance back up across the board and are just as anxious as you to see the changes get out on production.

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Lin Shai, on 14 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yup - F9

Displays FPS in upper left corner (and now also your coordinates on the map)

Cheers!

[Inappropriate849]

Great to see a dev response, encouraging words!

I'll try clearing my cache dir to see if it helps.

Mercules, on 14 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I think the person unwilling to spend money to play the game would be, you know, unwilling to spend money to play the game. So really, where is all this revenue from people who won't spend money to play coming from?

There is a "slight" difference between spending a few hundred euros to upgrade a computer, to spending a few tens of euros on a game.

If that doesn't resonate enough, the whole concept behind F2P is microtransactions - it's a well-studied fact that people are willing to spend money in microtransactions more readily than the same amount in one chunk. That's one reason why you see 0-day DLC to full-priced games; many people would not pay 80 EUR on a new game, but some of those are willing to spend 60+20 EUR (go figure). Microtransactions take this concept to its logical conclusion, some very successfully. The beauty of F2P games with microtransactions is that you can capture revenue from people based on their willingness and ability to spend on a game: witness different levels of Founder packages for a prime example.

Since there is an opportunity cost involved (do I spend my gaming funds on upgrading my computer or buying new games?) it's once again in Piranha's (and our!) interest to create a game that is as accessible to a wide range of systems. So here's the clincher: Piranha doesn't get any of the funds that go towards upgrading a rig, so it's better for them that people don't need to do so in the first place!

But this is turning into econ 101 so I'll stop before I need to start charging for this

[Ownyu]

2 more months and I'll have enough to updgrade my pc once again, a 3.6ghz core 2 duo just doesn't cut it with this game. But that is going to be a problem for the game (it not running decent on duel cores), because that alone will keep a whole lot of possible players from coming in to play, not this 3rd person bull they are talking about implimenting.

[CocoaJin]

Decreasing resoultion to 1280 is it? Helped me a lot. I havean E8400 and GTX260. I had to turn off shadows and shaders(i believe) and set everything else to low.

I run all maps fine except for Forest Colony. Frankly, I think this map has something wrong with it, because the snow version runs like a champ. I run maps as high as 45FPS, with most spikes remaining above 25FPS. Forest Colony craps out to 15FPS or less worth the worst spikes, runs consistently at about 25FPS. Certain mechs, mainly Jenners, cause Forest Colony to spike more frequently.

At some point I'll upgrade, but with my wife just starting to get back to work, 2yrs or more of financial loses and debts due to her illness and our mortgage...that upgrade is going to have to wait. God, I hope it happens before she gets pregnant and is ready to pop.

Edited by CocoaJin, 14 November 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[Codejack]

I am running what I would consider the minimum specs for reasonable play:

Intel i3 G620 2.66GHz
4GB DDR3 RAM
ATI HD5750

This will give you playable framerates in most situations so far, excusing the odd bug, memory leak, lag, etc.

As for legacy, my first computer:



ZORK!

[vettie]

deforce, on 14 November 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

im sure this is a bug, but here goes. at very high max settings i get about 40fps and during some larger battles ill drop to 20ish fps. so i do have a decent comptuer that can run the game.... heres the kicker i set my settings to HIGH when i was previously at VERY HIGH and my FPS from the start was 15 and would bottom out at 7fps. NO this was NOT THE 4FPS bug, i restarted my client multiple times and did nothing. went back to VERY HIGH and was back to 40+ FPS then tried HIGH again and dropped to less than 15FPS. Not sure if this issue is specific to some hardware i own or not.

So you may want to try actually going at a higher setting and it MAY improve your frame rate.... i did not test med/low or any other settings.

Similar here. I have not yet upgraded my GPU. i have lower end card (AMD 7350) but I get decent. not great FPS. Someone suggested I change from medium settings to LOW. I did and it was no different or sometimes worse.

I deleted the game and reinstalled to make sure there were no "hanging' files in the settings. Same thing. So i just leave it on medium and get BETTER FPS than on low...

I gotta new card on my list (prolly a week or 2) and we will see if it makes a diff. My CPU is an AMD FX8120 (8 core 3.1 or 3.2ghz) with 8 gb ram. Limited budget, so just a few things at a time.

[Grayzzur]

On a whim, I dropped my resolution all the way to 1024x768, set the detail to Low, and turned off AA. My poor old E8500 cpu managed to run 30-40FPS on Forest Colony Snow most of the time, dropping only to around 20 in parts instead of averaging 15-20 as before on higher resolutions. This is with a Radeon HD6970. So, everyone else with older CPU's, turn that resolution down. I'm now running 1280x720, as it's the lowest HD resolution available. I've cranked up some of the GPU-specific detail items and kept down the ones I think are CPU dependent.

The game does appear to be much more playable. Still can't wait for this year's Christmas upgrade parts (Ivy Bridge time).