Should 2k make a patch that lets people who don't have cards with 3.0, play on 2.0?
Yes
No
Should 2k make a patch that lets people who don't have cards with 3.0, play on 2.0?
I vote no.
I spent my hard earned cash on my 3.0 card. 2K owes you nothing.
You're right, but they owe it to themselves to support as many gamers as possible to make more money for Bioshock 2.Originally Posted by Gorgak
I don't care about the shiny - I'm in it for the story. Help me 2K! You're my only hope.
People that vote 'No' here aren't just saying that they don't need the patch. They're actually going out and saying, "We do not want 2K to support their game." That's pretty funny, they actually want something bad.
Or they are saying that they want that development effort spent on other new content...
Well what if 2k released the 2.0 support with the new content? That would work.Or they are saying that they want that development effort spent on other new content...
I think it'd be a good idea, but it won't happen.
Vote no for the following reasons:
1. Shader Model 3.0 has been a feature available in consumer video cards since mid 2004. It has been available in low and mid-range cards since late 2004. The fact that ATI's x800 series does not support Shader 3.0 was a design choice (some would say flaw) on their part and has no bearing on the techs maturity in the markeplace.
2. A video card that supports Shader Model 3.0 and is compatible with BioShock can be obtained for $100 USD and even lower. This is only twice the cost of the game itself and is extremely low given the average price of PC hardware.
3. Shader Model 3.0 video cards that will work with BioShock are available in AGP, PCI-Express, and even standard PCI flavors. That's to say, no further hardware upgrade (other than the video card itself) is necessary to meet Shader 3.0 compliance for BioShock.
4. 2K/Irrational games have been very clear in BioShocks requirement of a Shader Model 3.0 video card. When the PC system requirements were released some time ago, it was stated explicitly that a DirectX 9.0c compliant video card is required to run the game. The essence of being DirectX 9.0c compliant entails supporting Shader Model 3.0 in hardware. Furthermore, the video cards cited in the minimum system requirements (x1300 and GeForce 6600) are both Shader Model 3.0 compliant. These exact same requirements are printed on the box in plain site of the buyer.
5. BioShock is not the first game to move to Shader Model 3.0 support exclusively. Other examples of premiere titles include Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Rainbow 6 Vegas. This will become even more prevalent as time goes on. Personally, I don't think a 3 year lag between the time a technology is first introduced and when it is utilized exclusively is unreasonable from a consumer standpoint.
they need to do something to make it speedy, even on my mac book pro with 2 gigs of ram duel 2 core 2.4 and 8600 m 256 card it runs like 10 fps. Dual core support would be good
Excellent post
2. Not everyone lives in America. Things are more expensive elsewhere. The cards that are $100 (£50) run slower than their SM2 counterparts. The x1600 barely runs as fast as an x800, nevermind those who have the x850.
4. I already knew this for a fair few months, but we're still allowed to say that Irrational made the wrong decision for PC users.
5. The things that SC
How about a more appropriate poll? Should graphics chipset companies release patches supporting Shader 3.0 if possible? I understand that my Intel COULD, if they bothered to patch it.
? As far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with drivers as it has to be on there already. Its not something you can activate or update your card with.
I find it interesting that 2K goes out of their way to point out that you MUST HAVE AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO ACTIVATE THIS GAME.
Why couldn't they do the same thing and go out of their way to say: THIS GAME WILL NOT WORK ON 800 SERIES ATI CARDS.
Is just a little professionalism to much to ask?
really?
so it doesnt support dual core ??
Understood, but I'm sure the x800 or x850 weren't (and may still not be) the cheapest cards either. I also agree that some of the Shader Model 3.0 compliant cards that will run BioShock are slower in Shader Model 2.0 games than the x800 series. However, I think a false assumption is being made that 2K can automatically convert the game, graphics mostly intact and at the same performance level, to Shader Model 3.0 relatively quickly and easily. There are optimizations to be had by using Shader Model 3.0 as opposed to 2.0. I believe that a transition to 2.0 just simply isn't that cut and dry. Added to which, we simply don't how a Shader 2.0 version of BioShock would look/perform compared to the Shader 3.0 version currently available.
Absolutely. We're all just sharing opinions here.
Honestly, I wish there was a way that those who can't play the game (because they don't meet the specifications or otherwise) could do so. However, 2K made a decision somewhere during the development process to only support Shader Model 3.0 cards. Being a large company, I'm sure that they weighed the negatives and positives of that decision carefully.
That said, nothing I or anybody else can say here will "ruin it" for you guys. As I said above, 2K made the decision to only support Shader 3.0 and it'll surely take more than a few individuals to sway them in one direction or the other. I think anybody who really wants Shader 2.0 support for the game should contact 2K directly and plead your case. If enough people do that, or refuse to buy the game because of lack of Shader 2.0 support, then that may force 2K's hand in the matter.
What sort of target audience was 2K aiming for? I'm pretty sure a good portion of Joe Public Mainstream won't be able to run the game. I checked and there are still new PCs sold that have integrated graphics that do not support shader model 3.0.
That doesn't apply to me, my computer was high-end when I bought it a couple of years ago, but back then I thought 256mb graphics card meant 256mb graphics card and that's all you had to worry about.But I see plenty of systems being sold today that are claimed to be "excellent for gaming" in advertisments but actually have pretty terrible integrated graphics. Even if an integrated graphics card actually does have SM 3.0, chances are that the performance is so terrible that the system can't properlly run any SM 3.0 games anyway!
I've been looking into buying a decent shader model 3.0 graphics card... most of the cheap ones have worse game performance than an X800, and to get one that has the same or better performance I'd need to spend £200. That's $400.
I could buy a whole new frigging COMPUTER for that.
Of course, it would be a rubbish one with integrated graphics that probably wouldn't run Bioshock, but you see my point - it seems absurd that a game requires one high-end component that costs as much as a whole low-end desktop PC.
And if I wanted the graphics card to be a bit more future proofed and to support directX 10, well that's £300. Which is $600. I'm thinking maybe I'll just buy a new high-end computer off ebay. Can get pretty good directx 10 compatible systems for £500, might as well splash out on that and have something that'll last me a year or two then spend a fortune upgrading individual components of my machine and have it be out-of-date in six months.
I would really appreciate it if 2K put in SM2.0 so that I can buy the game now, I am really not that fussed about fancy graphics, I just want good gameplay.
It does. andrew77uk is wrong regarding that.
That is because then they would have to write EVERY card that has 2.0 or not at all down on the backcase idiot. That's why they write 3.0 is required. Its as easy as that if you don't understand that its not their problem but yours. If you went out and bought it then you are the stupid one not trying the demo first
neildittmar
"The essence of being DirectX 9.0c compliant entails supporting Shader Model 3.0 in hardware"
Where do you get all yoiur info, specificly this?
There are many cards that support dx9c that do Not support shader 3.0.
Voted yes, I am not selfious enough to leave a large majority of games behind, because a programmer won't sit down and spend 20 hours or so writing a shader 2.0 routine which clearly would work here.
It's not good bussiness poor business to exclude thousands of customer because of not paying a programmer for 20 hours worth of work or becasue some selfous fans pretend they know what they are talking about and want to feel superior.
It wouldn't work. They wanted to set a new standard considering the graphics quality something that can't be done with 2.0
So yeah why should they make something that pleases you? They are not obliged to do so they MAY do so but choose not to. Geez.... Are you also going to whine because Porche makes cars that you can't pay while only a smaller part of people on the world can?
They didn't write that 3.0 is required. If they did, very few people would complain, because they wouldn't have a $50 paperweight.That is because then they would have to write EVERY card that has 2.0 or not at all down on the backcase idiot. That's why they write 3.0 is required. Its as easy as that if you don't understand that its not their problem but yours. If you went out and bought it then you are the stupid one not trying the demo first
It wouldn't work. They wanted to set a new standard considering the graphics quality something that can't be done with 2.0
So yeah why should they make something that pleases you? They are not obliged to do so they MAY do so but choose not to. Geez.... Are you also going to whine because Porche makes cars that you can't pay while only a smaller part of people on the world can?
Many developers are able to achieve excellent quality by supporting SM3.0 and 4.0 while maintaing 2.0 support. Also I would like to see some evidence that the decision to abandon SM2.0 support had to do with quality concerns. Did the devs tell you this? A number of people have suggested the primary reason was because the development was focused on the Xbox360 which supports SM3.0 and they just couldn't be bothered to include SM2.0 support for the PC.
BTW, there is a petition for this here http://www.petitiononline.com/BioShock/petition.html
you people can't be serious, just buy a new bloody card, I mean why the hell would you still want to be stuck on something thats 2 generations old, and saying that an x850xt is still fast by today's standards is bull, i own one and overlord all ready runs like crap, so uhm no, shutup and spend some money
hell Bioshock look soooo much better on dx10, I just don't get why you wouldn't want to play it like that
Idiot look at the goddam posted specs that were minimal
See that? I made it even bold and red for you Its called reading before you buy or TRY THE GODDAM DEMO BEFORE YOU BUY! Holy ☺☺☺☺ I have never met more stubborn people than you. Please play your victim role elsewhereM-i-n-i-m-u-m System Requirements:
CPU: Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processor
System RAM: 1GB
Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).
Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
Hard disc space: 8GB free space
Sorry I am a hardware idiot here, but does Radeon 9800 support 2.0 or 3.0?
Did they tell you otherwise? No? so quit asking idotic question of which you know one possibly can't answer. Also stop whining like a little brat getting no cookie from his mother. By ☺☺☺☺ing reading what you need you goddamn knew this beforehand. I didn't hear people whine when splintercell needed 3.0 at least as well. And now that there is one game you like which requires it as well you are feeling left out.
Now Guess what... technology advances... Its too bad but it won't change. I don't hear people whine eithter because their processor is outdated they accept it something you could do too. Work for money and buy a new card instead of whining on these forums.
wtf? 9800 has 1,3 at max so no!
Hey people chill it! We are all here to get some improvments from the game, not to bicker.
Well what did you expect? People whine because their computer can't handle it while they could knew this BEFOREHAND and now they feel left out. Sjeez technology advances and they can't accept it. This is a USELES thread and I hope its get locked and thrown away
I voted NO as well.
My video card is 2 years old and supports SM 3.0. Get with the times basically :|
Bollocks. The Radeon 9800 pro is Shader Model 2.0.
whatever it won't help to run the game and that's my point. The 9800 serie was the serie BEFORE the x800 serie so with little thinking one could understand that it has no use buying the game for a card like that
Meh, there are people working in that
Good luck. Without support from the irrational developers I doubt you will ever get this running soomthly without any problems.Meh, there are people working in that
doubt this'll happen. people begged to Ubisoft for SM2 support in SCDA and R6V and did it happen? no.
I voted no and here's my quote from another thread that explains why.
"Also I think it's more a matter of the developers are tired of having to support SM 2.0 because people are too lazy to upgrade and would really like to rid the world of it considering that its been around since 2002 (if I remember correctly.) Sure the X800 series isn't too old but think about this, if they add shader model 2.0 support then guess what, they have to make it work on computers dating back to 2002. (And don't say they wouldn't because thats utter bull, I've seen my fair share of tons of ☺☺☺☺☺ing about FX 5200's etc not being fast enough for something that supports X800's. Take Oblivion for example.)"
Though I do feel a little sorry for the X800 series ppl. Blame ATI though, they really should have that about that beforehand...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote