Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy

[Mastertech]

Popular Technology.net (http://www.populartechnology.net/)

As a PC Gamer you expect to upgrade, you expect that at some point your hardware will not run the latest games acceptably. Battlefield 2 does not even give you that option. It attempts to make all non DirectX 9 compatible video cards obsolete. Which means all GeForce 4 and older video cards will not run Battlefield 2. You cannot even start up the menu. Neither Electronic Arts nor the game's developer DICE have any plans to fix this. Even though the GeForce 4 line of video cards has enough horsepower to render the game it is not compatible with Pixel Shader 1.4. Emulation to Pixel Shader 1.3 would easily make the game playable on these cards but redundant texture checks make this difficult to implement.

The response from Electronic Arts on the Issue was:

"We've been talking to Benjamin Smith on the development team about this. There are no plans to implement GeForce 4 support in a patch. The engine was not built to run acceptably (performance or appearance-wise) on the GeForce 4 series of cards."

Then why does it run on slower cards such as the ATi Radeon 8500? The performance of this card is no better then the GeForce 4 line except for the inclusion of Pixel Shader 1.4 support. (read more (http://www.populartechnology.net/))

Editor: An unofficial GeForce 4 patch is available through sources I can't link for those readers who want to attempt to run this title on their older hardware.

[Evil Avatar]

Good post. Nice submission. Thanks, Mastertech.

[Mastertech]

You are welcome. I know of a few people who already preordered the game only to find out they cannot run it.

[bapenguin]

Ya know....i hate to side with EA...but it's there own stupid perogitive if they want to do this and alienate that many consumers. In a sense, it's kinda good they don't play to the LCD in this factor...of course i'm sure it was just one of their "cost cutting" measures.

[Orphiuchus]

More asshat behavior from EA.

[Commissar Rob]

Ouch. Well, that pretty much is why I've ended up spending more time on consoles then PCs...old technology, doesn't run new games well (WoW...I'm looking at you) and all...but I've never had a company sucker punch me for it.

Good ol' EA...

[Savok]

Wasn't there some crazy patch that let you play Doom 3 on a Geforce2? Really, if that can be done, Geforce4 can't be that hard to provide support for.

[holysin]

If you have a geforce 4, it's time to upgrade

[Mastertech]

There is an unofficial patch linked in the article.

[Bone]

If you patch this game to run on your GeForce 4 you are the most masochistic person I know. Suck it up and admit you need to spend 100 bucks on a mid-range card so you can play the next generation of games. This is why you play PC games, because you love the constant battle to keep a worthy rig.

[Goronmon]

I may get flamed for this, but I am gonna side with EA on this one. Sure, its not cool that you can't play the game on a super old card. But seriously, what kind of experience can you expect on a system running a GeForce 4 or older?

And when it gets down to it, I'd rather have them spend time on fixing the current issues with the game than spend time getting the game to run on a system that hasn't been upgrade in 4+ years? Plus, they know someone will create a workaround anyways.

Considering you can get a card that runs the game very well for around $150, its hard to sympathize with those that are complaining about this.

[Orphiuchus]

The game will work FINE on a gf4 if you bottom everything out, and a lot of people simply dont have 100 bucks for a new card.


And I would like to note that a 9800 pro still runs 200 bucks at most stores.(Just noticed the other day, and I only payed 300 way back in september of 2003!)

[Mastertech]

But seriously, what kind of experience can you expect on a system running a GeForce 4 or older?
An even faster one then the supported Radeon 8500. <- This is the point.

[Shifteh]

But seriously, what kind of experience can you expect on a system running a GeForce 4 or older?

A better experiance than with a Radeon 8500?

[Morratut]

I agree with Bone and Bapenguin on this. If you have a Geforce 4 now then you need to upgrade. Hell i upgraded from my Ti4600 to a 9800Pro only for £130 which was last year. I bet they are only £100 now.

I can't believe how some people would expect BF2 to run on a very old card.I know i wouldn't expect it.

EA has had balls to put in high minimum requirements and i don't hate em for doing so.:)

[zipR]

It doesn't run on my Monster Voodoo SLI setup either. FOR SHAME!!!! ;)

[Mastertech]

I can't believe how some people would expect BF2 to run on a very old card.I know i wouldn't expect it.
How hard is this to understand? The game supports a slower card the Radeon 8500 but not the GF4 line?

Oh and the Voodoo SLI comment is just ignorant.

[Orphiuchus]

A lot of people have developed this "I'm different so I must be smart" attitude about EA, and actually started supporting their bullshit. Thats the only reason people could have trouble with that.

[SliceHiX]

Okay, I really want to play BF2, but here are my specs. AMD Athlon XP 1700 1.47 GHz, 1 gig DDR, BFG Asylum 4200 Ti SE with 128 DDR. Yeah, I know it would be nice to upgrade and all, especially my video card and then my processor. But, I really don't have the cash. Supposing I can raise about $150 I think I'll go for a 6600 GT...think that's a good choice? And by the way, will I need to get like a 450 - 500 w power supply to support a 6600 GT? And any recommendations on what brand of 6600 GT I should go? I love BFG, but their 6600 GT is like 50 - 60 more (which is understandable for the quality, but I just don't have the $$$). I'm open to any and all suggestions...also maybe through in processor suggestions for later on down the road! Thanks!

[Librum]

The fact that they would support one older card and not another is, admittedly, unusual. This isn't about having old hardware and upgrading, it's that they've chosen to support one brand of older hardware instead of another. All I can think is that it must have been some sort of development issue where the ATI line was easier to support? I will say that I'm all in favor of them focusing on making the games work better on more recent cards than worrying about older hardware support, but it does make one wonder why they would pick and choose.

[BabyJesus]

They are probably killing off a large part of their market by not supporting the GF4 line, good move EA/DICE. Way to limit sales.

Seems EA is trying to piss EVERYONE off.

[baz]

They aren't really choosing Ati over nVidia, they are drawing the line at shader model 1.4. It might seem an arbitrary line to some, but its what they chose, and they aren't making a secret of it.

If you want to play Battlefield 2 on a ti4200, then EA are really doing you a favour here. Stick with BF and desert combat until you can afford the upgrade.

[XxSATANxX]

Hey I know my Ti4600 is an old card. But it's a REALLY GOOD old card.

Ran Doom 3 1024x 768 No problem
Ran HL2 at 1600 x 1200 No Problem
Ran Fry Cry 1024 x 768 No Problem/ Had to turn off the fish!
LOMAC Huge terrain engine/ No problem 1024 x 768 /Had to turn off Heat blur

I understand my TNT 2 voodoo steup might not do BF2 justice but My 4600 card plays
almost everything well. I do plan to upgrade soon. I'm getting a 6800 for FEAR. My answer to EA is FUCK you and FUCK your game. I'll be happy to pick it up for 4.99 out of the bargin bin.

I did not expect BF2 to run very well. It probably would have pushed me to upgrade
but to be boxed out completly shows how you run your company. My answer I'll vote with my wallet.

NO SALE

[Beelzebud]

Someone remind me why EA is not just a greedy conglomerate that really doesn't care about their games or the poeple who play them?

I'm glad I didn't give them my money.

[Morratut]

They opted for shader model 1.4 instead of 1.3. EA/Dice didn't want to go any lower.
Well said baz. If you have a 8500 or a Ti4200 or Ti4600 GF4 then play BF1942/DC. Much better fps ;)

I have to upgrade my PC before i play BF2. It doesn't suprise me.It's the way of PC gaming :rolleyes:

[Deadend]

It's because DICE is lazy. Simple as that. They didn't feel like trying to emulate the same effects.

Oh, and quit saying how the the Geforce4 is good enough to handle the game, because, it'ts not about that. It's about the shaders, and Geforce4 can't do it, simply CAN'T. The 8500 can because ATI spent the extra $1 to make sure it could work with it.

Oh and funny thing, when you boot up the game, you see a Nvidia logo... yeah, I guess they are biased towards ATI, yep...

[Shifteh]

To be perfectly frank, the game isn't worth buying a new graphics card for. Save your money for something more worthwhile.

[Orphiuchus]

Okay, I really want to play BF2, but here are my specs. AMD Athlon XP 1700 1.47 GHz, 1 gig DDR, BFG Asylum 4200 Ti SE with 128 DDR. Yeah, I know it would be nice to upgrade and all, especially my video card and then my processor. But, I really don't have the cash. Supposing I can raise about $150 I think I'll go for a 6600 GT...think that's a good choice? And by the way, will I need to get like a 450 - 500 w power supply to support a 6600 GT? And any recommendations on what brand of 6600 GT I should go? I love BFG, but their 6600 GT is like 50 - 60 more (which is understandable for the quality, but I just don't have the $$$). I'm open to any and all suggestions...also maybe through in processor suggestions for later on down the road! Thanks!

With that much ram I dont think you have much hope of playing the game very well, I would go with ram then play it with the patch before I get a new video card.

[netcraazzy]

With that much ram I dont think you have much hope of playing the game very well, I would go with ram then play it with the patch before I get a new video card.

I think you confused his system and video card ram. His system has 1gig of ram, that's as much as most top of the line game system have so he's GTG there.

Okay, I really want to play BF2, but here are my specs. AMD Athlon XP 1700 1.47 GHz, 1 gig DDR, BFG Asylum 4200 Ti SE with 128 DDR. Yeah, I know it would be nice to upgrade and all, especially my video card and then my processor. But, I really don't have the cash. Supposing I can raise about $150 I think I'll go for a 6600 GT...think that's a good choice? And by the way, will I need to get like a 450 - 500 w power supply to support a 6600 GT? And any recommendations on what brand of 6600 GT I should go? I love BFG, but their 6600 GT is like 50 - 60 more (which is understandable for the quality, but I just don't have the $$$). I'm open to any and all suggestions...also maybe through in processor suggestions for later on down the road! Thanks!

Honestly it boils down to how CPU bound BF2 is. That athlon processor has seen better days, you probably need to do both graphics card and processor before you can play BF2 at a frame rate where you feel your money was well spent. Also, keep in mind that you most likely have an AGP slot on your current motherboard, if you upgrade just the video card it'll be AGP but the newer motherboards are going to all be PCI-E so when you do upgrade your motherboard your new video card wouldn't be compatible.

[Steve_Erhardt]

An unfortunate situation, to be sure.

However, the line had to be drawn somewhere. Anybody recall the 90's? There was a neat series back then called "Wing Commander", and when that came out everybody upgraded. Period. No bitching about it (well, actually there was, but it was more angst than vitriol back then), you just did it if you wanted to play the game (and could afford to, of course).

/sarcasm

Now, Battlefield is no Wing Commander; not even close. But we always whine and cry about upping the ante on this, that, or the other thing, and it just isn't gonna happen without upping the ante on the hardware end as well. If you think YOU can make it happen, I'm sure any developer would love to have you on their team.

If you're part of the crowd stuck with a card that won't run BF2, there's plenty of alternatives (Joint Operations, for example... IMO an unjustly overlooked game) you might want to consider until you can afford to upgrade. I'm not being condescending here. Half of my PCs won't run it for that reason. Plus I don't have the game yet, but whatever. ;)

But in the end, what's done is done. No GF4 or lower. We can argue what they could have and should have, done, all day long but it won't change anything. =(

[Bone]

And I would like to note that a 9800 pro still runs 200 bucks at most stores.(Just noticed the other day, and I only payed 300 way back in september of 2003!)
You are getting ripped off at those stores. You should be able to find a 9800 Pro (which I am using to run this game beautifully) for 90-130 bucks online. Newegg.com or Pricewatch.com are a good start. eBay may even go as low as 80. It's a worthwhile investment.

[Orphiuchus]

This is not about people needing to upgrade, this is about EA and DICE restricting the use of a card that works just fine for no apparent reason. Shader model 1.3 will get the job done, and judging from how fast the community released a patch for just that this goes beond simple lazyness on the part of EA and DICE.

[Orphiuchus]

You are getting ripped off at those stores. You should be able to find a 9800 Pro (which I am using to run this game beautifully) for 90-130 bucks online. Newegg.com or Pricewatch.com are a good start. eBay may even go as low as 80. It's a worthwhile investment.

Yea, I say in my post that I already have one, so I dont really need to shop around for another. Thats just what they were charging in circuit city the other day when I got my car sterio installed.

[Talanvor]

Meh, it's an EA game. I'm avoiding them until EA stops being giant fuckwits.

[if76]

The question is will allowing people with older cards to play make everyone else's experience a little worse? If people's games are running really slow, I don't want them on my team I can tell you. I board enough copters and planes piloted by jackasses. Will their laggy performance result in players warping around my screen?

Then there's the stereotype that someone with an older card isn't a high-end user. I don't want to play with people playing on a 56k connection that are probably running AOL in the background along with tons of spyware.

[Bone]

This is not about people needing to upgrade, this is about EA and DICE restricting the use of a card that works just fine for no apparent reason. Shader model 1.3 will get the job done, and judging from how fast the community released a patch for just that this goes beond simple lazyness on the part of EA and DICE.

I disagree, not that EA and DICE may be lazy, but that EA and DICE should not have drawn the line at a certain shader model. This is why you have art designers, they determine a "look" for the game, and in this case you need a certain shader model level to see the game is it was meant to be displayed.

I heard so many comments that BF2 "looks more like Half-Life 1", and those comments could only have come from people who are playing it with the settings so low (and possibly on GF4s) that they aren't seeing any of the detail the artists came up with. More power to them, I'm not one to say you shouldn't try to play a game with low specs, but understand that game developers have a vision for their game too, and don't have a sense of entitlement when your computer isn't up to the specs of that vision.

[if76]

Also how is this an example of EA and DICE being greedy? If the patch is as easy to implement as you say wouldn't banning Geforce 4 be losing them possible sales and possible $? Clearly this is EA/DICE valuing a better gaming experience over money.

[Blue]

I'm not much of a PC gamer save for the occasional MMO. I just recently put a new card in my machine and I'm half-thinking of picking BF2 up. My vid card is a Radeon 9550. Any idea if it'll run the game? I have enough memory in the PC to meet the recommended amount, just not sure about the card itself. Don't wanna pick up a 50 dollar coaster. And, while I'm at it, what about HL2? Haven't gotten around to it yet and I'm thinking today may be game-spree day.

[Planetbuster]

This game runs like warmed over crap for me online. The online demo ran just fine so I feel I was suckered into buying a game that was working then, when I get the retail It sucks dog balls online......

You shouldnt have to have a freaking T1 to run a game, they dont offer those at affordable home prices.

EA, go die please..........

[LilEvilFish]

Ever since BF2 came out, I've been playing BF1942 and DC a lot more since there are no idiots clogging up the servers. Well done EA :D

On topic, I'm running a radeon 9600 256mb, it runs BF2 (demo) fine and is now retailing for about £90 which is about 65 dollars? But I've never been a fan of upgrading just for one game.. except maybe supreme commander or toca race driver 3.. ok i'll stop.

[Mastertech]

If the patch is as easy to implement as you say wouldn't banning Geforce 4 be losing them possible sales and possible $?
nVidia will be making money though with everyone upgrading. In this respect EA/DICE could have gambled on this and still show themselves making plenty of money.

[Savok]

Less idiots in DC?

Damn it, why did they nerf the stinger in the last patch.

[Bone]

This game runs like warmed over crap for me online. The online demo ran just fine so I feel I was suckered into buying a game that was working then, when I get the retail It sucks dog balls online......

You shouldnt have to have a freaking T1 to run a game, they dont offer those at affordable home prices.
I think you just need to find good servers. A lot of people don't run their servers on good internet connections and you suffer as a result.

Our own 64 player demo server transitioned to a 64 player full version server with no change in lag. The full game, to me, plays no different than the demo did.

[outontheporch]

An unfortunate situation, to be sure.

However, the line had to be drawn somewhere. Anybody recall the 90's? There was a neat series back then called "Wing Commander", and when that came out everybody upgraded. Period. No bitching about it (well, actually there was, but it was more angst than vitriol back then), you just did it if you wanted to play the game (and could afford to, of course).

/sarcasm

Now, Battlefield is no Wing Commander; not even close. But we always whine and cry about upping the ante on this, that, or the other thing, and it just isn't gonna happen without upping the ante on the hardware end as well. If you think YOU can make it happen, I'm sure any developer would love to have you on their team.

If you're part of the crowd stuck with a card that won't run BF2, there's plenty of alternatives (Joint Operations, for example... IMO an unjustly overlooked game) you might want to consider until you can afford to upgrade. I'm not being condescending here. Half of my PCs won't run it for that reason. Plus I don't have the game yet, but whatever. ;)

But in the end, what's done is done. No GF4 or lower. We can argue what they could have and should have, done, all day long but it won't change anything. =(


half your PC's??? sounds pretty condecending to me, considering most of us have trouble affording upgrades to our ONE pc.

But anyways, crap like this makes me glad that I pirate EA games.

Any word on that patch that lets you play on geforce4's?

[Bone]

But anyways, crap like this makes me glad that I pirate EA games.

Hey, dude, we're getting the BANNED back together...

[kathode]

Has anyone here actually used the GF4 patch? Apparently not because then you would know that this supposed "quick and easy" fix that the fans have put out there makes the game look like absolute garbage. Developers have a right to dictate that you can't play the game on something that's going to make it look like shit. Emulating another pixel shader version is not an easy task. As much as I hate to defend EA, this is a totally reasonable decision on their part. And I own a GeForce4 at home.

[TheBrainKills]

What kind of video card do you need to buy for the interface? DX10?
While the demo doesn't look too bad I can only run it at 800x600 because they don't support widescreen 720p out of the box. Does the retail version support 720p widescreen?
I only do my gaming on 50" DLP, and if a game can't support it well I won't be buying it.

[Borys]

This kind of articles always piss me off.

Every once in a while comes a game that requires people to upgrade and everytime a % of those people bitch and moan how PC gaming sucks and everything should just run on their 4 year old PCs (hey, it works for consoles!).

If you can't put up with upgrading your ancient PC switch to console gaming and DON'T bitch about it, seems like PC gaming isn't for you (it isn't for everyone that's for sure).

Bottom line: I will follow PC gaming as long as I have the cash , once the cash ends I go console only.

[Rommel]

Except that these products are not that old. Support for them seems mandatory to me. I agree that it is better for a company to make games for the proper hardware (As so to make better looking games, not worried about young Billy and is iPC) and not lie on these system recommendations. Completely disallowing something that is still so new by comparison seems rediculous to me, on the other hand. Of course, all this does is hurt EA.

[Bone]

The GeForce 4 was introduced in 2002. By PC gaming standards, that IS ancient.

[Steve_Erhardt]

half your PC's??? sounds pretty condecending to me, considering most of us have trouble affording upgrades to our ONE pc.
What's your upgrade path? Are you considering only the absolute top of the line equipment here? That's just insane, IMO, unless you're rich or have doting parents with money to burn. :p

I have anywhere from 4-5 PCs going at one time (4-6 if you want to count my work laptop, but that's not really mine, per se), NONE of them are anywhere near bleeding edge. Some are demonstrably better than others, of course, but they all play pretty much everything I enjoy at acceptable levels of performance. I spread the money around to try and keep the older stuff running competitively rather than dump it all into one "mega-machine" that will only stay "mega" for a few months because I enjoy having my friends (specifically, the segment without PCs, or without PCs that will run the games we like to play) over to play on the LAN.

So no, I'm truly NOT being condescending. It's taken me years worth of scrounging and saving and hand-me-downing parts/components to put that many machines into working order so there's absolutely ZERO conceit behind that statement.

My BEST box: 2.4GHz Intel, 512MB, 80Gig HD, GeForce 6800 GT OC 256MB

My LEAST box: 1.4GHz Intel 512MB, 80Gig HD, GeForce 3 64MB

There's 3 boxes that run the gamut between the best one and the least one (and one of them perpetually flips out at random, so it's a crapshoot as to whether it can be considered reliable enough to be counted). As you can see, it's not like I'm running the latest and greatest from Alienware or anything.

*shrug*

[Finster]

EA has had balls to put in high minimum requirements and i don't hate em for doing so.

No. Balls is writing a kickass engine, and THEN bumping up hardware requirements. I submit any Id game developed since Quake. I can handle high system requirements if the engine is awesome. BF2 is no Doom 3, my friends.

[Mister Pie]

If this were something like Half Life 3 I think more people would be silent and just upgrade, but instead this is BF2. Sure, it might be an entertaining game, but is it worth upgrading your computer for when your current card (old, admittedly) is able to run other games decently? It might be good, but is it THAT good? Good enough to slap down an extra 200 for a a Radeon 9800? I don't think it'd make any sense to get a Radeon 8500 for cheaper since that would be more of a lateral upgrade. That's probably the question a lot of people with older PCs are wondering about.

I own a Radeon 9800 by the way, so this doesn't affect me personally. Still...

[kokyunage]

I submit any Id game developed since Quake. I can handle high system requirements if the engine is awesome. BF2 is no Doom 3, my friends.

Not to mention Id Software works hard to make sure the game at least runs on older hardware. They wrote two rendering pipelines for Doom3 so both Nvidia and ATI cards had excellent performance. And yes, BF2 is no Doom3 in the looks department.

It does seem to be a better game though...

[Skookum]

Dunno about Half Life 2 and Doom 3 being more demanding than BF2, all I do know is that I played those games without any problem, and BF2 makes my X800 pro overheat unless I tweak my system to turn up the GPU fan full blast. Anyone have any idea why that is?

Meanwhile, the ranked servers are swamped right now, so EA is certainly not hurting by not providing support for older video cards. I have 4 friends who are currently saving their pennies and taking on extra shifts to buy new videocards for this game. I'm pretty sure EA just didn't want to make the investment in allowing older technology access to BF2. Instead, they're investing in console versions.

[Bone]

The Xbox (and PS2) versions are not the same game, so I don't think they need to make that kind of decision across the board. Besides... isn't the GPU on-board the Xbox basically a souped-up GF4?

[Mastertech]

A 'tweaked' version of the GF3. Which is going to make this even more laughable when they release BF2 on the XBOX

[51|RandoM]

Ok, here is the deal.

It isn't the performance of the card that is the cutoff---EA is being misleading here, shame on them---it is the feature set, specifically shader 1.4. They don't want to code another shader path, presumably the previous one. It is just coincidence that there are faster cards supporting the older shader that can't run the game, while slower cards, supporting the newer shader, can. Actually, this is finally a case where those dimwits in the video card forums were right about a tiny point of a feature set eventually being important.

One other thought, If you can't afford to buy a video card that will run bf2, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY BF2. Instead of buying 2 video games, buy 1 video card. You guys are like the people who claim you're starving but always eat your seed corn instead of planting it.

[51|RandoM]

BF2 is no Doom 3, my friends.


You're right, unlike every id 3d engine ever created, BF2's engine can actually handle outdoor spaces larger than a tennis court.

Hey, maybe that is why id games always take place in settings like mars, or hell, or just some platforms floating in space: No need to put in grass or trees, lol.

Seeing the trees shudder when I'm hovering near them in a bf2 helo makes me forget about even touching doom3 and the expansion---which are sitting on my hard drive---again.

[Bone]

Instead of buying 2 video games, buy 1 video card. You guys are like the people who claim you're starving but always eat your seed corn instead of planting it.

Quoted and sigged for infinite justice.

[ohnam]

Ok, here is the deal.

It isn't the performance of the card that is the cutoff---EA is being misleading here, shame on them---it is the feature set, specifically shader 1.4. They don't want to code another shader path, presumably the previous one. It is just coincidence that there are faster cards supporting the older shader that can't run the game, while slower cards, supporting the newer shader, can. Actually, this is finally a case where those dimwits in the video card forums were right about a tiny point of a feature set eventually being important.

One other thought, If you can't afford to buy a video card that will run bf2, YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO BUY BF2. Instead of buying 2 video games, buy 1 video card. You guys are like the people who claim you're starving but always eat your seed corn instead of planting it.
Amen brother! If you can't figure out the math on what you should do with your money and your computer, then you don't deserve a PC. Go back to your little consoles while the rest of play some real games.

[Rifter]

You know, I have an FX5200, and the game runs ok, with all settings turned down. (I also have a 3ghz proc to push it). It just takes forever to load. In all honesty, there wasn't much of a reason to upgrade, until now. Now, I really need to upgrade. I do feel that EA/DICE is scrweing the consumer... but this is BF2, and they know they can.

[Mav]

If you have a geforce 4, it's time to upgrade

Why? Unless you're the type that needs a ton of frames in every game, there are ALOT of current gen games that will run on a GeForce 4 series card, hell Half Life 2 and Doom 3 run at an acceptable level, for myself.

If you patch this game to run on your GeForce 4 you are the most masochistic person I know. Suck it up and admit you need to spend 100 bucks on a mid-range card so you can play the next generation of games. This is why you play PC games, because you love the constant battle to keep a worthy rig.

Uh, no? See above. And sure, I like upgrading for the fact of knowing I can do my own PC hardware work without need for assistance but I personally hate the "constant battle", it costs way too much money for what it's worth (and no, I don't play console games, I hate console games).

As for others saying "well it's an old card, upgrade it, there are cheap cards out there!" First, anything more than $125-ish is too expensive for a simple video card, that's almost half a months rent right there. A place to live, or a video card to play one single game that requires it that I play? Not to mention what cheap Nvidia brand cards are there? The 5xxx series is generally alot less performance based than the 6xxx series, which I've yet to see a 6xxx Nvidia card go for under $175 (no, havent checked newegg or pricewatch lately). That 9800 may be like $130 now, but I'm not jumping ship to another video card manufacture just cause it's cheaper, for one single card specifically for one single game to be played out of the half a dozen games I play. It's just impractical.

Besides, I don't play EA games. I don't buy EA products, I don't rent any either. I don't support them in anyway shape or form. But thats just me.

[Bubby]

You shouldnt have to have a freaking T1 to run a game, they dont offer those at affordable home prices.
EA, go die please..........

Let's see here... My home DSL connection is 2mbit down and 1 mbit upstream. A T1 is 1.44mbit in both directions. My DSL costs me about $39/month. Why do you think you need a T1?

[mister_slim]

So, is there a patch so I can run this on a G3 iBook with 32MBs of video RAM?

Anyway, the upgrades (and Windows) are why I switched to console gaming. I have a laptop that does its job very reliably and consoles that do their job reliably. Sometimes it's good to step back and figure out exactly what is important and worth the money. I really regret not playing HL2 and WoW, but it's not worth the money to me.

[51|RandoM]

So, is there a patch so I can run this on a G3 iBook with 32MBs of video RAM?

Anyway, the upgrades (and Windows) are why I switched to console gaming. I have a laptop that does its job very reliably and consoles that do their job reliably. Sometimes it's good to step back and figure out exactly what is important and worth the money. I really regret not playing HL2 and WoW, but it's not worth the money to me.


If you can't run WoW on either platform, your hardware is ancient, be it mac or pc.

[Mastertech]

Why do you think you need a T1?
According to the system requirements a T1 connection is recommended for 64 player servers: http://www.planetbattlefield.com/bf2/game/system/

[Mister Pie]

What kind of video card could you get for the price of 2 games? A radeon 8500? There'd be like no performance increase from that.

[Savok]

Link (http://www.techbuy.com.au/products/49556/VIDEOCARDS_GEFORCE_PCI-EXPRESS_SERIES/ASUS/EN6200TC256-TD-64/Extreme_N6200TC256_TD_GeForce_6200TC_(Turbo_Cache) _256MB_PCI-Ex16_TV_DVI.asp)

Console games are $100AU here.

[Mister Pie]

Link (http://www.techbuy.com.au/products/49556/VIDEOCARDS_GEFORCE_PCI-EXPRESS_SERIES/ASUS/EN6200TC256-TD-64/Extreme_N6200TC256_TD_GeForce_6200TC_(Turbo_Cache) _256MB_PCI-Ex16_TV_DVI.asp)

Console games are $100AU here.

That's insane! (Your console game prices). Nice card too though it'd mean you'd have to have a slot for PCI express (which would probably imply that you already have a newer computer).

[baz]

Its just as bad in NZ, a lot of games come out at $129.00NZ. When you factor in the lower salaries gaming is much much more expensive in NZ (and I guess Australia) then it is in the US. Hopefully when (if?) I make my way back to NZ electronics are a bit less of a rip off and there is semi decent broadband.

[Savok]

http://topshop.com.au/?action=view&id=708245

RRP translates to... $76US, hah, and you guys complain about videogame prices.

And you bring up an intersting point, new videocards are easy but only if you have a more recent motherboard.

[ElectricMonk]

Everybody complaining about this is a fucktard. Neither dice or ea is lazy or evil for only supporting shader model 1.4+

[Heretic Machine]

I personally think they made a deal with nVidia to force people to upgrade their video cards... Maybe I'm a crack-pot, but it wouldn't be out of character for either company to do this.

[bawbag]

I spent about £30 ($50?) more than a year ago on a GeForce FX 5200, and BF2 runs like a charm with some eye-candy switched off.

Edit: Actually I should say as well, okay nobody likes to have to upgrade, but I had to do just that when a wave of games came around not supporting GF2 (Doom 3, Prince Of Persia, and some others I cant remember), did so on the cheap and I'm still clinging on.

I think maybe EA should be focused on fixing the server browser and related bugs, which might allow people who are able to run it to actually play a game.

[Savok]

Almost $55US at current exchange rates, not far off.

[Gel214th]

Maybe because the architecture of the 8500 is different to that of Nvidia? Whether slower or faster, the two pieces of hardware are not built the same. So unless you've done an analysis of their architecture you can't say why it works on one and not the other.

Pointing to rendering speed and saying one is faster than the other is grossly oversimplifying the matter.

[Savok]

Um, read the thread, it's the Pixel Shader version, we know this.

[Bone]

What kind of video card could you get for the price of 2 games? A radeon 8500? There'd be like no performance increase from that.

You can eBay a 9800 Pro as I suggested earlier, to get you through another year of games. Then you can save up because next year you will need a new PCI-E motherboard with a 64 bit CPU and a PCI-E video card. You guys complaining about upgrading now should just stick to consoles, the way the PC market is going. This Isn't For You.

[Mastertech]

It is not complaining about upgrading but forcing unreasonable upgrades when you still own capable hardware.

[Bone]

First, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Second, "capable hardware" is a pretty loose term. My mom's computer is capable of running Word. Your computer may not be capable of running BF2.

My point through this whole thread is that by choosing to be a PC gamer, being left behind technologically is par for the course. At some point you decide whether game X is worth it to you to upgrade. If not, you skip that game. I just don't see why everyone likes to cry so much about hardware that was new THREE YEARS ago that doesn't perform with a new game. That is hardly "capable hardware" in the PC gaming world. I expect to make a video card update every two years. I may not like it, but it's the price I pay to keep up with PC games.

[Mav]

You can eBay a 9800 Pro as I suggested earlier, to get you through another year of games. Then you can save up because next year you will need a new PCI-E motherboard with a 64 bit CPU and a PCI-E video card. You guys complaining about upgrading now should just stick to consoles, the way the PC market is going. This Isn't For You.

That 9800 may be like $XXX now, but I'm not jumping ship to another video card manufacture just cause it's cheaper, for one single card specifically for one single game to be played out of the half a dozen games I play. It's just impractical.

See, what I'm finding hilarious as all can be is, those of us who "complain" about upgrading, we know at some point you have to upgrade, otherwise it's just physically impossible to run some games or software. However, that does not stop us from voicing our opinion of not liking that.

Telling us to go play consoles solves nothing, I hate console games. I can't stand trying to play a FPS game with a god damn controller. I don't enjoy console games, I enjoy PC games. I've managed to run alot of current gen games, on some real low end-bargin bin hardware, and I excepted some games won't run. But that doesn't stop me from thinking "ok the video card is three years old, it should still work" 3 years is a very short time, hell I know families still playing old games like Crusader or Might & Magic on PC's that are like 8 years old or more. Ask them to upgrade and they'll tell you what most would "it's not even 10 years old"

Personally I think technology moves too fast. By the time you hunker down, and save up for a good AGP video card, everything has moved over to PCI-E which, apon release, will be even more expensive. Hell I look at processers, aside from the 64bit chips, the P4 at like 3.4-oc'd 3.8 is the fastest that's been on the market for almost 2 years now, you'd think since 2003 we'd have easily hit the 4 ghz mark without needing oc'ing right? Maybe video cards and mobos should move that slow, I can count more Nvidia and ATI 5xxx/6xxx or x800 variations released in that same time period than I have fingers on my hands (no finger counting jokes, please, it was rhetorical)

The worst part is, what's it all for? Better graphics and maybe some cool new physics, yay! :rolleyes: Better graphics didn't help Doom 3 suck any less, or Far Cry. Maybe for a change let's concentrate on *gasp* gameplay and innovation.

[ElPresidente]

People are posting in here like it is some god given right that they can play games. No it isn't. It is a luxury.

If you hate console games you have to resign yourself to the fact your game playing platform of choice is going to be an expensive one to maintain. Tough shit.

Deal with it. If you can't afford it, find a hobby you can afford. Or do as I did for one year when my PC was seriously outdated and could not run current games. Go back and pick up all those great games you missed.

No one is forcing you to play BF2, no one is forcing you to upgrade. But to bitch and moan that a 3 year old piece of hardware isn't supported by a new game is just childish.