Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Beta players with low benchmark scoresFollow

#1 Jul 14 2010 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Not asking people to break NDA here,

Just wondering how the game plays with people who meet the min requires for PC and got low scores in the benchmark. What kinda of frame rate?

Again, not asking for NDA breaking. Just trying to get an idea how playable the game is for people with low end model PCs.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#3 Jul 14 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
78 posts
They have Buddy pass instead of trials :P

And FFXI had a trial not too long ago, so there is always hope it might happen here too (with time).

Maybe they think it it better if you have a friend playing that will help you through the start, so you don't run away as soon as you log in.

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 2:15pm by aeryne
#4 Jul 14 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Even if you don't care about the NDA or if you feel that it's been going on long enough, it's still there and you can't go around violating it or talking about violating it, certainly not on these forums. Until SE lifts the NDA, then any leaked information about the beta will not be tolerated.
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

#5 Jul 14 2010 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
**
800 posts
dyvidd wrote:
Not asking people to break NDA here,

Just wondering how the game plays with people who meet the min requires for PC and got low scores in the benchmark. What kinda of frame rate?

Again, not asking for NDA breaking. Just trying to get an idea how playable the game is for people with low end model PCs.


The retail version is going to have much more control over the graphical quality than the beta. Asking for graphical stability now is useless because it will change come Sept. 22nd. A score of 2000 might not be able to run the beta, but will probably run the retail version just fine on low settings.

Short answer, we all have to wait and see.

Edit: This is exactly why the NDA exists. All it takes is one person to make a YouTube video with cruddy beta frame rate and people get a negative impression on the game even though it won't be anything like that come retail. One guy in my FFXI linkshell said he wasn't going to buy FFXIV because "combat looks too robotic".

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 1:26pm by Hydragyrum
#6 Jul 14 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
There is a lot of driver updates that will come from nVidia/ATI when the game officially releases, there are tons of problems as it is. No concrete FPS can really be given. The only thing that is certain is that Benchmark/Character Creation is capped at 60 frames per second, and the entire game is capped at 30 frames per second.

I believe the entire game will run at 60 frames per second on release. Playstation 3 can handle 60 frames per second just fine. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and a couple other games run at 60 frames per second with absolutely no problems or slow downs. Though this runs in 720p native. Ninja Gaiden and Ridge Racer 7 run at 1080p@60fps on the Playstation 3.

My setup is Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT, 4GB DDR2-533MHz Ram, 1TB WD Caviar Black 7200 rpm 32MB Cache, MSi Hawk 5770 HD Radeon 1GB DDR5 video card.

I can run the benchmark at about 30 FPS average. I would assume that I could run the game on this old computer at 15-20 FPS with 0 slow downs since the cut scene doesn't lag for me.

But it's going to vary. If the cut scene lags for you at all... which it doesn't for me; it's time to upgrade your computer. There's nothing you can do about it because it's GPU dependent. CPU is not causing that lag.

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 2:54pm by Excenmille
#7 Jul 14 2010 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Given that it's still the beta, the server stability isn't optimal, nor has the game itself been optimized, so keeping that into consideration, I know that certain systems that scored about 3000ish on Low and 2000ish on High can run the game on near max settings and it looks great, though the performance gets pretty rough. At this point it would be hard for anyone to tell you exactly how a low-scoring system will perform in retail-- unfortunately I don't know how the same said system would handle lower settings. Probably much better, but 720p is obviously going to look a lot less sharp.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#8 Jul 14 2010 at 1:36 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
IDK how the beta will run but the thing you have to remember its that different parts will run better or worse depending on the parts used. That beind said a beta tester with a Intel processor and ATI graphics card and a tester with a AMD procerros and Nvidia graphics card get the same score of 2100. But the game runs better on the intel system because it favors Intel processors or the game runs better on the amd machine because it favors Nvidia cards. Who knows and a lot can change from now to retail, the only way your going to know how well your machine runs is when you have it installed on your pc and are playing the game.
#9 Jul 14 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Vlorsutes, Lord of Stuff wrote:
Even if you don't care about the NDA or if you feel that it's been going on long enough, it's still there and you can't go around violating it or talking about violating it, certainly not on these forums. Until SE lifts the NDA, then any leaked information about the beta will not be tolerated.


I wanna see someone get B& from Alla for breaking the NDA; that'd be funny as ****.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#10 Jul 14 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
There are reports on BG of people playing at a steady 10-15 fps with benchmarks of 800-1000, and reports of people scoring 4500-6000 that are getting similar framerates.

At this point, it is a bit too soon to tell.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#11 Jul 14 2010 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
I remember SE saying around E3 that the graphics in Alpha/Beta was toned down. So nobody really knows how their machine will react with all settings turned on. Sure you can adjust them on the panel, but that doesn't mean the game will run any smoother regardless. We'll just have to wait and see the reports as they come in. I'm a firm believer that a 2000 benchmark PC will play the game very poorly. If you can't benchmark at least 4000, upgrade or wait for the PS3.
#12 Jul 14 2010 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I'm a firm believer that a 2000 benchmark PC will play the game very poorly. If you can't benchmark at least 4000, upgrade or wait for the PS3.
Well that is a foolish thing to say, the game is still in beta with 2.5 months before release. A lot can change between now and then.
#13 Jul 14 2010 at 4:50 PM Rating: Default
***
1,218 posts
dyvidd wrote:
Not asking people to break NDA here,

Just wondering how the game plays with people who meet the min requires for PC and got low scores in the benchmark. What kinda of frame rate?

Again, not asking for NDA breaking. Just trying to get an idea how playable the game is for people with low end model PCs.


People who are in beta aren't even allowed to say that they're in beta without breaking the NDA, so how would they be able to discuss their frame rates without breaking NDA? There's no way for some one to answer your question without breaking NDA> In fact, since optimization of the client typically is one of the largest areas of improvement during a beta, this is exactly the kind of information that is most likely to break the spirit of the NDA. It's exactly the sort of thing S-E doesn't want you to know about until they feel like they've had every opportunity to tweak performance.
#14 Jul 14 2010 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Well that is a foolish thing to say, the game is still in beta with 2.5 months before release. A lot can change between now and then.


I seriously pray that I'm wrong. I just understand how a benchmark of 2000 will handle the game without turning off all graphic settings. Plus what about zone heavy content such as Campaign. Considering this game is all about fighting more than a single mob, chances are lag/low frames will become a serious problem. On top of all that, SE hasn't emulated or produced a single PC game well in all their years of trying. I don't know about you, but that concerns me.
#15 Jul 14 2010 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
People who are in beta aren't even allowed to say that they're in beta without breaking the NDA, so how would they be able to discuss their frame rates without breaking NDA? There's no way for some one to answer your question without breaking NDA> In fact, since optimization of the client typically is one of the largest areas of improvement during a beta, this is exactly the kind of information that is most likely to break the spirit of the NDA. It's exactly the sort of thing S-E doesn't want you to know about until they feel like they've had every opportunity to tweak performance.


Personally all of my extensive knowledge of the beta comes from SE approved displays and demos. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#16 Jul 14 2010 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
SE hasn't emulated or produced a single PC game well in all their years of trying. I don't know about you, but that concerns me.
Well they are going to have to or this game is going to bomb. Look at how many jobless Americans there are right now. On top of that just about every one I know is working a straight 40hr week. There are more people who can not afford to upgrade or buy a new system. Then there are people who can afford to. This being said if they can get the game to run well on a 2yr old system then the game is doomed. FFXI did not sell well on the PS2 or 360!
#17 Jul 14 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Speaking on my own behalf as someone who doesn't upgrade frequently, and just recently upgraded my system, it's nice to know I have a game to look forward that will fully utilize the system I'm running.

I like backwards compatibility as much as the next guy, but people who manufacture computer parts for a living can't sell their product if there's no reason to buy it, and if you never need to upgrade your computer to run a new game, then they become jobless too.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#18 Jul 14 2010 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
*
214 posts
My friend has the Alienware m11x and scored a 1300 on the benchmark.

He's in the beta and says it runs fine. The graphics aren't a problem, however when there are many players around it starts to get a bit choppy. Any commands sent to the server have a slight lag on them, but that's true for everyone in the beta he says currently. It's playable, he says, but if he decides to continue to play the game seriously he's going to save up for a better machine.

____________________________

#19 Jul 14 2010 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
People should keep in mind that any beta consists of stress tests. Unbearable lag is exactly what devs want to see in a beta test. For someone to ***** about bad FPS on the first day of a high poulation beta test is not very smart. Anyone that would take that info to heart is even less intelligent.
#20 Jul 14 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I like backwards compatibility as much as the next guy, but people who manufacture computer parts for a living can't sell their product if there's no reason to buy it, and if you never need to upgrade your computer to run a new game, then they become jobless too.


I like the smell of a brand new shinny PC as much as the next guy. But there is nothing wrong with making eye candy for those people who can afford new systems and still make the game playable for people with old systems. If not your only hurting your own bottom line $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
#21 Jul 14 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
It all depends too, your pc might run the game fine overall but when you find yourself in a battle with your team and your pc is slowing it can affect the outcome due to the way the battle system is built with no auto attack.

It's like walking through rolanberry and standing in jeuno/whitegate.... can be quite a difference that could go from acceptable to unbelievable.
#22 Jul 14 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
It all depends too, your pc might run the game fine overall but when you find yourself in a battle with your team and your pc is slowing it can affect the outcome due to the way the battle system is built with no auto attack.

It's like walking through rolanberry and standing in jeuno/whitegate.... can be quite a difference that could go from acceptable to unbelievable
Well if that were the case then yes you would need a new PC. But I highly doubt that your going to get lag in battle unless is a besieged or a campaign type battle.
#23 Jul 15 2010 at 12:52 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Well they are going to have to or this game is going to bomb. Look at how many jobless Americans there are right now. On top of that just about every one I know is working a straight 40hr week. There are more people who can not afford to upgrade or buy a new system. Then there are people who can afford to. This being said if they can get the game to run well on a 2yr old system then the game is doomed. FFXI did not sell well on the PS2 or 360!


That's not a fair assessment at all. The PS2 launch of FFXI was sold via the add-on of the HDD. For those that are keeping score at home, no add-on in the history of consoles has ever been considered a success. On top of that, the only proven benefit of the PS2 HDD was to reduce load times. FFXI was almost the only game to really use it beyond shortening load times. The Xbox 360 version was late in FFXI's life cycle and it wasn't a very good port either. It made much more sense to play on the PC because of #1 it looked better and #2 the Windower hacks.

Now fast forward to 2010 and let's compare notes. FFXIV isn't the low tech PS2 port that FFXI was. FFXIV was built from the ground up to take advantage of PC hardware, however SE isn't quite as code with coding on the PC. We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The PS3 is much more powerful in contrast to the PC platform price wise compared to the PS2 was at FFXI's launch. (I refuse to compare 2k gaming rigs over-clocked and tweaked just to prove a point) If anything, it's more feasible to pay $300 bucks than to dump $1500-2000 on a new system people don't really need. (IE.. purchased recently updated PC's run everything else just fine so no, I'm not going to accept the "PC's do more than play games card") I realize that as the years pass the PS3 version will continue to feel dated, that's not what I'm arguing here. All I'm suggesting is that unless your PC is a dinosaur(lower than Quad-core), it's not worth it to spend money upgrading unless you have the money to waste. For all those people myself included that Benchmarked in the 2k range, the PS3 version will out perform your system for a fraction of the cost. Now with that being the case and the economy in ruins, it's safe to say the PS3 will most definitely without a shadow of a doubt sell more copies than the PS2/360 ever did of FFXI.



Edited, Jul 15th 2010 1:54am by ShadowedgeFFXI
#24 Jul 15 2010 at 2:05 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Quote:

People who are in beta aren't even allowed to say that they're in beta without breaking the NDA, so how would they be able to discuss their frame rates without breaking NDA?


They wouldn't. But if the told a friend, and their friend reported here, then the friend wouldn't be violating the terms of the NDA. Though, it does violate the spirit of it.

Quote:
Even if you don't care about the NDA or if you feel that it's been going on long enough, it's still there and you can't go around violating it or talking about violating it, certainly not on these forums. Until SE lifts the NDA, then any leaked information about the beta will not be tolerated.


Really wish you guys (admin) would hold SE as accountable to their word as you hold your patrons to theirs. Oh, I get WHY it doesn't happen. Just wish it would anyway.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#25 Jul 15 2010 at 2:51 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
I was getting a 2300 out of my benchmark with only a PDC and a 9800GT. Turned off Aero and scored above 2400. :D
Saving money to buy a new rig for FFXIV though.. If I can get around 4k on low res, I think I'd be happy enough.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#26 Jul 15 2010 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
I've heard very compelling rumors that the game runs acceptably on a system that benched in the 1100 range.
____________________________


#27 Jul 15 2010 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Well one reason I started this thread was to give people a more clear idea on the graphics demand. If anyone hasn't notice almost 80% of the front page thread are people scared they won't be able to play FFXIV with their current PC. I wanted a more biased opinion from some people who are playing about the graphics and options. Maybe the game is playable with a benchmark score of 1500 and some people don't really need to spend all their money on a new PC. I still caution people to hold off on buying any new PC till Sep and the official required specs are out, was just wanting to give peace of mind to people on the board not to freak out because of low benchmark scores.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#28 Jul 15 2010 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
105 posts
Quote:
I've heard very compelling rumors that the game runs acceptably on a system that benched in the 1100 range.


false
#29 Jul 15 2010 at 8:33 AM Rating: Decent
*
242 posts
Quote:
false


Just saying it's false doesn't make it so.

It is VERY compelling. Like, I trust it with absolutely certainty.
____________________________


#30 Jul 15 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
105 posts
Quote:
Just saying it's false doesn't make it so.

It is VERY compelling. Like, I trust it with absolutely certainty.


LOL, well i guess whoever told you has different standards to whats acceptable and what isnt, compared to me
#31 Jul 15 2010 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
Run acceptably:

The standards being 1) the game starts, 2) you can kill things, 3) you can complete quests, 4) you can join and participate in parties.

Don't be obnoxious.

____________________________


#32 Jul 15 2010 at 8:51 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Inralkil wrote:

At this point, it is a bit too soon to tell.


Well, when will it NOT be too soon? One month away? One week? You know, products like movies and other games are hyped and advertised well before their release. This is actually the time that SE should really be pushing the advertisements so that people know it's coming and know what to expect. And when I say people, I mean the millions of folks who don't come to our little slice of internet heaven to discuss every little individual computer part and how to tweak the best performance on a budget.

By now, most companies would be putting finishing touches on their product, not making the ******* frame rate stable. It's a little ridiculous and really just looks like SE has no clue what they are doing.

dyvidd wrote:

If anyone hasn't notice almost 80% of the front page thread are people scared they won't be able to play FFXIV with their current PC.


This needs to be emphasized and the admins really need to make sure that SE knows that this is the number one concern. I'd say this probably even surpasses Male Mi'quote if that's possible.

They can make the most epic game of all time, EVER, and it won't make any bit of difference if people can't even play it.
#33 Jul 15 2010 at 9:17 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,535 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I seriously pray that I'm wrong. I just understand how a benchmark of 2000 will handle the game without turning off all graphic settings.


You do realize that's why there are adjustable graphics settings, right?

It may seem strange, but some people really do care more about actually playing the game than about maxing out the pretties. Who are you to tell people they need to "upgrade or wait for the PS3" if their PC doesn't meet some arbitrary cutoff (that is significantly higher than the developer's own recommendation)?

IMO, people should wait until release to find out how well it runs on their current PC before making any upgrade decisions, ESPECIALLY if their current system is near or above the minimum recommended spec or if their breaking SE's recommended 1500 benchmark score...
#34 Jul 15 2010 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
I scored 77. No way in **** I'm gonna even bother. My focus is slowly buying parts on newegg and maybe eventually having a system that will run it by November/December.

If I had gotten the invite......I would feel bad for not being able to play it and bad that somebody else with a system that could run it didn't get the invite. If I had gotten the invite, I'm not sure why they would have sent me one since I was brutally honest about my specs.
____________________________
FFXIV
Deadpool Xrage (Ultros)
Eriston Xrage (Ultros)

FFXI
Eriston
Siren - 75Bst/75Whm/75Rng (Retired June 2010)


Gone surfin'
#35 Jul 15 2010 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
BastokFL wrote:


You do realize that's why there are adjustable graphics settings, right?

It may seem strange, but some people really do care more about actually playing the game than about maxing out the pretties. Who are you to tell people they need to "upgrade or wait for the PS3" if their PC doesn't meet some arbitrary cutoff (that is significantly higher than the developer's own recommendation)?

IMO, people should wait until release to find out how well it runs on their current PC before making any upgrade decisions, ESPECIALLY if their current system is near or above the minimum recommended spec or if their breaking SE's recommended 1500 benchmark score...


Well of course I do. If it were only a matter of playing the game with all settings turned off, I wouldn't put out this warning. As any PC game that has come before it, playing the game at minimum specs only hurts the overall playing experience. The lag/frame rate drops will drop exponentially if you score low on the benchmark with settings turned off or not. Sadly most of my PC game experience is at bare min specs so it's very clear to me. It's not about wanting to see all the eye candy, it's about stability and not lagging out bad you might as well quit the game. I upgraded from my PS2 to the PC just so I could handle events such as Dynamis without all the lag/framerate issues. That won't be possible for a low end PC at launch. Maybe in a few years, but not now. IF anyone enjoys settings so low the blue screen of death is right around the next wall, by all means, indulge yourselves.
#36 Jul 15 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
61 posts
The way I look at it, if I can play the game without randomly getting dropped from time to time too badly and such, I'll be fine with it. I'm sure it's true that low benchmark scores won't be able to support large raids and dynamis-style encounters, but I won't be doing anything like that for at least a few months until after the game comes out since I'll still be enjoying the early part of the game and will not yet have reached a higher level. I'm betting most people will be the same for at least the first few weeks after the game comes out.

Then when that point comes I can upgrade to where I need it to handle all the characters on screen. :) Basically I'm thinking it'll be need-based upgrades for me. I'll see how it runs when I get it, and just go from there.
#37 Jul 15 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Eriston wrote:

If I had gotten the invite......I would feel bad for not being able to play it and bad that somebody else with a system that could run it didn't get the invite. If I had gotten the invite, I'm not sure why they would have sent me one since I was brutally honest about my specs.


This has probably happened quite a bit. I know that the only one of my little circle of friends that got an invite is the one guy who didn't have a snowball's chance in **** of running it and wasn't even interested in being a *serious* beta tester anyway. He's currently on vacation out of the country for two months and could care less. The rest of us with modern PCs and Ps3's and nothing but time just got skipped over.

*shrugs it is what it is - but it's still a little annoying.
#38 Jul 15 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Speaking on my own behalf as someone who doesn't upgrade frequently, and just recently upgraded my system, it's nice to know I have a game to look forward that will fully utilize the system I'm running.

I like backwards compatibility as much as the next guy, but people who manufacture computer parts for a living can't sell their product if there's no reason to buy it, and if you never need to upgrade your computer to run a new game, then they become jobless too.
You have a point about manufacturers needing reasons to buy their products, but a decent system that is only a 1 1/2 - 2 years old not being able to handle an MMO is a bit overboard. Where I work, our PC's are on 5 year depreciation schedules. 3-5 years is a pretty fair time frame for requiring a hardware upgrade. Not 18 freaking months.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#39 Jul 15 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
**
800 posts
Torrence wrote:
This has probably happened quite a bit. I know that the only one of my little circle of friends that got an invite is the one guy who didn't have a snowball's chance in **** of running it and wasn't even interested in being a *serious* beta tester anyway. He's currently on vacation out of the country for two months and could care less. The rest of us with modern PCs and Ps3's and nothing but time just got skipped over.

*shrugs it is what it is - but it's still a little annoying.


Murphy's law of Beta Testing.
#40 Jul 15 2010 at 12:00 PM Rating: Default
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I remember SE saying around E3 that the graphics in Alpha/Beta was toned down. So nobody really knows how their machine will react with all settings turned on. Sure you can adjust them on the panel, but that doesn't mean the game will run any smoother regardless. We'll just have to wait and see the reports as they come in. I'm a firm believer that a 2000 benchmark PC will play the game very poorly. If you can't benchmark at least 4000, upgrade or wait for the PS3.
You got defaulted for what happens to be true lol.

I just happen to know things that i cannot discuss.
#41 Jul 15 2010 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
Quote:
Well, when will it NOT be too soon? One month away? One week? You know, products like movies and other games are hyped and advertised well before their release. This is actually the time that SE should really be pushing the advertisements so that people know it's coming and know what to expect. And when I say people, I mean the millions of folks who don't come to our little slice of internet heaven to discuss every little individual computer part and how to tweak the best performance on a budget.

By now, most companies would be putting finishing touches on their product, not making the @#%^ing frame rate stable. It's a little ridiculous and really just looks like SE has no clue what they are doing.


If you want to complain, complain about their abbreviated beta schedule, not the lack of hype. If you have been following closely on more than just this forum, you would see that there was an issue on several nVidia cards that prevented players and npcs from appearing on screen. Several ATI cards had an issue where it would bounce between 30 and 5 fps on a regular basis. They have since patched those. Hence, it is too early to tell what hardware requirements are going to be necessary, because the poor programming means nobody can play the game well, regardless of hardware.

Also, can anyone point out any television commercials for any MMO at launch? Even WOW and Everquest didn't start their barrage of ads until well into a mature product. The largest launches since then have been AOC: 0 adds, WAR: 0 adds, and LOTR: I have a hazy recollection of maybe 1-2 tv spots. Most MMO advertising is done online through gaming sites and forums. With there already being several XIV sites out there, I'd say they aren't lacking behind other launches.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 14 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)