Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy Part 2

[Mastertech]

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

Following the feedback received from the initial article: Battlefield 2: The Video Card Controversy, it appears this issue is far from clear and understood. Battlefield 2 requires new hardware in order to even startup, while in the past games have required new hardware in order to run smoothly at higher detail and resolution levels. Besides the fact that the minimum supported hardware, a Radeon 8500 is slower then the non-supported GeForce 4 Ti. With the upcoming release of Battlefield Modern Combat on the Xbox making this all the more laughable. Battlefield Modern Combat will be the Battlefield 2 Xbox port. The Xbox uses a tweaked version of the GeForce 3 running PS 1.3 and is programmed for in DirectX. This is clearly showing that DICE can make the Battlefield 2 engine run on GeForce 3/4 Ti hardware.

Upgrading
Many users attempted to respond by telling people to upgrade their video cards. Claiming the issue was no big deal and an upgrade was only $50. These people obviously do not grasp the situation nor understand the economics behind this ignorant response. GeForce 4 Ti owners, especially 4600 and 4800 owners paid over $375-$400 for their cards back in 2003. At the time this was the top of the line card. It played Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam on the highest detail levels. Battlefield Vietnam was released only last year. GeForce 3/4 Ti owners completely understand that newer games will not be able to be played at the highest detail levels but being unable to even start the game is unacceptable.

AGP will be replaced with PCIe entirely. The latest GeForce 7800 is PCIe only and SLI can only be found on PCIe. When these owners upgrade they would obviously be going for a PCIe video card, requiring a new Mainboard, CPU and Memory. If they looked to run the game on the recommended hardware, this so-called "upgrade" is now pushing $1000. Not a $50 "fix" that would actually give them worse performance in other games. (read more (http://www.populartechnology.net/))

[Morratut]

Oh my god :eek:

You cannot compare consoles to PC's.This statement below...

'With the upcoming release of Battlefield Modern Combat on the Xbox making this all the more laughable. Battlefield Modern Combat will be the Battlefield 2 Xbox port. The Xbox uses a tweaked version of the GeForce 3 running PS 1.3 and is programmed for in DirectX. This is clearly showing that DICE can make the Battlefield 2 engine run on GeForce 3/4 Ti hardware.'

...makes the whole article a laughable.Isn't Modern Combat a different game anyways?

I thought we heard the last of this a few weeks back :D

[Mastertech]

The Xbox is a PC.

[Morratut]

So just because the Xbox has a nvidia graphics processor and a intel processor it makes it a pc?

[Mastertech]

The Xbox has, an Intel P3 733 CPU, an nVidia nforce mainboard with an integrated Geforce 3 and a Western Digital HD running a light version of Windows 2000 and directX. So yes it is a PC.

[bapenguin]

The Xbox has, an Intel P3 733 CPU, an nVidia nforce mainboard with an integrated Geforce 3 and a Western Digital HD running a light version of Windows 2000 and directX. So yes it is a PC.

Wrong. It has PC parts. It's still a closed system. Therefore you have one configuration to program for, and know exactly what your target system is. NOT the same thing....god this has been beaten to DEATH.

[Borys]

Looks like someone's bitter having a piece of shit PC.

BF2 is a blast when your idiot teammates aren't running over your own mines.

[HumpYourWay]

XBox is basically a PC. It consists of PC Hardware and PC Software. All put into an ugly ass chassis.
And bapenguin has no fucking clue about anything!!!

But hey the real point here is: BF2 and old cards like Geforce4 Ti. Come on you got to be kidding. Who wants to play BF2 on such an old card anyway.
Why do people make such a big deal out of that! If I would still own my Geforce4 in order to play the current games I would hide in shame!!!

[bapenguin]

XBox is basically a PC. It consists of PC Hardware and PC Software. All put into an ugly ass chassis.
And bapenguin has no fucking clue about anything!!!

Right.......I guess you got me there huh? :rolleyes:

[Mastertech]

Being a closed system doesn't make it any less of a PC.

[Goronmon]

Being a closed system doesn't make it any less of a PC.
Of course it does. Try loading Windows XP on it. AIM. Try using any web browser known to man. Try writing a report.

It doesn't work. Why not? Its not a PC.

[Ernst_Jager]

I think it is the closest any console has been to a PC. With a mod chip you can install Linux or other multiple types of software that really blur the line between PC and Console.

[Mastertech]

Load the same Xbox version OS on your box and you couldn't do any of that either. It doesn't mean it is not a PC. I'm surprised at how many people Microsoft has fooled.

[MasterKwan]

Well, a Yugo is a car and a Mercedes is a car, they both have pretty much the same components but, I wouldn't say a Yugo is a Mercedes. An Xbox shares many parts with a PC but, isn't one. Can it be programmed by the typical user? Nope, can it be upgraded? Nope.

As an excuse, saying it works on the Xbox means it should work on my outdated POS video card doesn't hold water. It means it MIGHT be able to work with my old video card but, to Dice it makes no economic sense to support old crap.

What's with the internet these days? Used to be a haven of porn and lawlessness now, all I hear about is cry baby things like "my video card isn't supported waaa!".

[Mastertech]

Xbox uses Direct X and has a GF3
PC uses Direct X and can have a GF3

[H.Bogard]

its about time developers stopped downscaling their games for lower end hardware.....i say more power to them! about friggin time cheapass pc gamers upgraded!

oh and the xbox can be called a low end pc....but it still isnt as multipurpose as the pcs are

[MasterKwan]

MasterTech, put your money where your mouth is, show us an Unmodded Xbox running vanilla XP. Wait, you mean the hardware DRM prevents you from running unsigned apps like XP? Well that might be a problem.

This is a typical internet arguement, two stupid people insisting they're right, about a pointless issue that doesn't really relate to the original post. God, I hate myself.

[Mastertech]

The Xbox could be just as multipurpose with a different OS loaded. The hardware is the same. If I installed software onto a PC and make it into a cash register, is the box still not a PC and still not as versatile?

[Mastertech]

MasterTech, put your money where your mouth is, show us an Unmodded Xbox running vanilla XP. Wait, you mean the hardware DRM prevents you from running unsigned apps like XP? Well that might be a problem.
No kidding, why do you think they went through all the trouble to take stock USB ports and convert them into proprietary ports too? All these measures were added to make it difficult to turn the Xbox into what it is an ordinary PC.

[XenonCJ]

Right.......I guess you got me there huh? :rolleyes:Yeah actually he did, you are wrong. Mod a PC to play XBox games, is it still a PC? Yes. What is a XBox? A PC modified to play Xbox games. BEEP u lose.

[Morratut]

Anyways back on topic.

I'm with H.Bogard on this subject. I'm also glad the developer didn't downsize their game to run on cards which don't meet their minimum spec. Upgrade your very old GF3 and 4, simple.

[NonSoft]

I really don't understand what the issue is here. Its not as if they are selling the game and claiming 'This game works with Geforce4 cards'. If you want to play the game upgrade, if that isn't an option you don't play the game. Its quite simple.

[RMan]

When these owners upgrade they would obviously be going for a PCIe video card, requiring a new Mainboard, CPU and Memory.
Umm, I seriously doubt that the people that will settle for no less than a 7800 and can pay for it are still running GeForce 4 or less. I understand the complaint, but this is just a silly scenario.

[Wyrm]

You shouldnt have to pay 500 dollars to play a 50 dollar game, simple as that.

Especially one that is, as of right now, broken in so many ways.

[NonSoft]

You shouldnt have to pay 500 dollars to play a 50 dollar game, simple as that.

Especially one that is, as of right now, broken in so many ways.

Thats a silly statement, there has to be a breaking point. Developers can't continue to support ancient (relatively) hardware forever. I also love how people constantly toss out the 500 dollar figure, when upgrading your video card can be done much cheaper, unless of course you want to go top of the line or quite close to it.

Lets not forget nobody is forcing people to do this. Its a game, not life or death. If you can't afford to upgrade there is nothing wrong with that, but its ridiculous to make it sound as though you are being forced to upgrade your computer just so you can play.

[Mastertech]

What is ridiculous is people who don't bother to read anything.

[Melvin556]

or people who don't learn to spell

[Cupelix]

I think what makes this so strange is that cards older than a GF4 are supported. My 9500 Pro runs the game pretty damn well. I'm not a video card buff by any stretch of the imagination - I don't know what all the terms mean, or what particular cards have what features, but at some basic level it surprises me that my older card has the necessary features that a GF4 apparently lacks.

[HumpYourWay]

You shouldnt have to pay 500 dollars to play a 50 dollar game, simple as that.

Especially one that is, as of right now, broken in so many ways.

And the big price for dumbest post in this thread goes to Wyrm! Congratulations...

[holysin]

Popular Technology.net (http://www.populartechnology.net/)
With the upcoming release of Battlefield Modern Combat on the Xbox making this all the more laughable. Battlefield Modern Combat will be the Battlefield 2 Xbox port. The Xbox uses a tweaked version of the GeForce 3 running PS 1.3 and is programmed for in DirectX. This is clearly showing that DICE can make the Battlefield 2 engine run on GeForce 3/4 Ti hardware.


Actually, Modern Combat is a different game, NOT a direct port. They're using the BF2 title just to kind of ride on the success of the PC bf2.


Upgrading
Many users attempted to respond by telling people to upgrade their video cards. Claiming the issue was no big deal and an upgrade was only $50. These people obviously do not grasp the situation nor understand the economics behind this ignorant response. GeForce 4 Ti owners, especially 4600 and 4800 owners paid over $375-$400 for their cards back in 2003. At the time this was the top of the line card.
... this so-called "upgrade" is now pushing $1000. Not a $50 "fix" that would actually give them worse performance in other games....



Welcome to computer gaming. Did you expect a 400 dollar card to last forever?

Here's a 68 dollar fix for you:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121542

6200, supports shader model 2.0 and 3.0, will probably run most games faster than your old 400 dollar card.

[MasterKwan]

Maybe we need a good conspiracy to liven this up. Clearly nvidia paid Dice to drop support for the old nvidia cards to drive new card sales.

[XxSATANxX]

Here's a 68 dollar fix for you:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121542

6200, supports shader model 2.0 and 3.0, will probably run most games faster than your old 400 dollar card.


Holy Shit! An actual ANSWER! A SOLUTION! Thank you!

This might be a first for me here at EA. I have the Ti4600 card which my local guy gave me 30 bucks for so I picked this up for another $45.

Yea I FLIP FLOP now. Hear that upgrade ya cheap asses!!!

[RMan]

Yea I FLIP FLOP now. Hear that upgrade ya cheap asses!!!
BTW, I just got a 6600 from newegg that I've been very happy with, it was only $110 and has a heatsink rather than a fan, so is quiet (which I like). Personally, I'd throw the extra money down on it since the 6200 is a slightly hacked chip that has a considerably slower fill rate and does not support floating point blending like the 6600+, which is a big feature for newer titles. Also, if you haven't bought from newegg, well, you'll like them I think, they rock.

[Inspector Fowler]

Owning a gaming computer is like hot-rodding. You can spend all the damn money you want, but after a while stuff still gets worn out. If you want to get the oohs and aahs from the other "hot rodders" you will always be spending money. Always, always, always. Just deal with it. Spending $400 on a video card and expecting it to last anything MORE than 2-3 years is just silly, guys.

[Goronmon]

What is rediculous is people who don't bother to read anything.
Its not a problem with reading, its a problem with the statements you are making.

You somehow equate developing for a PC to developing for a closed-box system (a console in this case.) Its just plain stupid (yes, stupid) to say that since Dice could get BF2 working on old hardware in a console that they should do it for old hardware in a PC.

If you expect to game on the PC, you are naive to think your hardware will last forever, unless you don't expect games to advance in any way.

$150 is not an unreasonable amount of money for a card that'll play BF2 very well, especially since you are replacing a card that is at least 2 years old.

[netcraazzy]

Cry me a river folks. Your 3 generations old video card technology from 3 years ago can't run the latest and greatest FPS game and you are surprised?! I have a ti4200 card that I use in a 2nd computer and while I was a little disappointed that the card couldn't run the game by no means was I surprised, and certainly not bitter.

Let's entertain your complaints for a moment though. Suppose DICE did take the time to code a render path specifically for the geforce4 hardware, why stop there? Hell I'm sure lots of people paid $300 for their geforce 3 cards and are still using them. What about Geforce2MX video cards? There are about a bazillion of those out there! What about my Voodoo2 card god damnit, the Glide API was the shit, I want my voodoo support!

Ok, now that I've gone down that slippery slope the point is they had to draw the line somewhere. That does not mean that it was not possible to implement support for older hardware but there is a point of diminishing returns. It's a shame that the Geforce4 hardware has finally been relegated to the big obsolete hardware bin, it had a hell of a good run. It's just one game folks, not the end of your lives. I'm sure the game will be around for quite a long time and nobody is forcing you to play it now or ever.

[RMan]

Suppose DICE did take the time to code a render path specifically for the geforce4 hardware, why stop there?
I think the main point is if they've already developed a renderer for the XBox version, and it's not a completely seperate code base, then they've already made one that would work with GeForce3/4 and should release it (a reasonable complaint). If they had not developed that renderer, then yea, I'd say it wouldn't be worth it, there's a substantial difference between shader model 2 and 1.3.

[Goronmon]

Many users attempted to respond by telling people to upgrade their video cards. Claiming the issue was no big deal and an upgrade was only $50. These people obviously do not grasp the situation nor understand the economics behind this ignorant response.
I think this is the statement that got you in trouble.

If anything, its ignorant to expect developers to support all hardware from the time the first computer was built.

[51|RandoM]

I think the main point is if they've already developed a renderer for the XBox version, and it's not a completely seperate code base, then they've already made one that would work with GeForce3/4 and should release it (a reasonable complaint). If they had not developed that renderer, then yea, I'd say it wouldn't be worth it, there's a substantial difference between shader model 2 and 1.3.

The xbox battlefield game is not even remotely battlefield 2. An x-box is not a pc, even if it is comprised of commodity pc hardware.

You might as well say that since kotor and jade empire run on x-box, that icewind dale and baldur's gate pc rpgs should too.

The writer of the article is trying to flame the fires of controversy, where there isn't even any smoke. Upgrading your video card to something that plays bf2 is cheap and easy for anybody who isn't running a proprietary blackbox/laptop.

EA didn't want to code that shader path, END OF STORY, seems like to me. Guess what? They didn't want to make a mac or linux version either. Boohoo, they don't support my cga card.

[petedog]

This is my 2 cents how the XBox is not the same as a PC. Have you ever played Halo for the PC? I have an Athlon 2800+, 1GB DDR 333 RAM, Radeon 9600Pro, and 2x80GB HDDs striped to RAID 0. Even with brand new DirectX and all updated drivers I could not get Halo to run smoothly at anything even close to what it looks like on an XBox, and that is with a PC that is at least 3x more powerful, according to specs, than the XBox.

As far as the argument that since you can load Linux on it, then it is a PC, look at Slashdot, people with mod anything to get Linux on it, iPods, etc. and most of them I would not call a PC under the normal understanding.

And the idiot that wrote that these people would have to spend $1000 should be shot. I mean why stop there, why not say they need to buy a new maxed out VoodooPC, meaning like $5k.

[Bone]

This article is misinformed and harmful to this whole debate. Now a bunch of people with three year old cards are thinking they have a leg to stand on again. (Didn't we go over this already?)

For one, as some have pointed out, BF: Modern Combat is NOT the same game as BF2. Once you see this game you will realize that making BF2 look like this would be a step backwards. The PC title is technically superior and so seeing BF:MC on the Xbox does NOT clearly show "that DICE can make the Battlefield 2 engine run on GeForce 3/4 Ti hardware". That's just a stupid, stupid assumption.

I don't need to spell out the second point, there is a multi-page thread on this site that more than covers it. None of us may like the price of PC gaming, but don't pretend you don't know the rules of this game we play. You gamble every time you buy something "top of the line". Remember RDRAM? I'm not being elitist when I say "if you don't like it, stick with console gaming". I'm hardly made of money, I just make a decision every year or two how I'm going to spend what I do have. So far I'm still a PC gamer.

[RMan]

The xbox battlefield game is not even remotely battlefield 2... You might as well say that since kotor and jade empire run on x-box, that icewind dale and baldur's gate pc rpgs should too.
I said if Xbox version is not a seperate codebase, and your second analogy is exactally opposite of what I said. It would be like saying if kotor and Jade Empire were running on the PC that they should support GeForce 3/4, and the PC kotor does.

[holysin]

the Xbox BF2: Modern Combat is NOT a direct port from the PC version. The graphics are completly different, with different models, textures and map layout.
Also, it's going to be released for the PS2 as well. Do you really think they'd implement pixel shaders on the Xbox version while the ps2 version won't have it? EA likes their multi-platform games to look and feel like the same thing no matter where you're playing it.

[bKangy]

It's nice to see so many people supporting the reason that so many PC gamers turn to consoles, and will continue to do so in the next gen.

"Old hardware?! OMGLOL get out of my market! "

[holysin]

It's nice to see so many people supporting the reason that so many PC gamers turn to consoles, and will continue to do so in the next gen.

"Old hardware?! OMGLOL get out of my market! "

so long, and thanks for all the fish.

[bapenguin]

Yeah actually he did, you are wrong. Mod a PC to play XBox games, is it still a PC? Yes. What is a XBox? A PC modified to play Xbox games. BEEP u lose.

By this logic, every console ever is a PC. Beep...you're an idiot.

[Bone]

It's nice to see so many people supporting the reason that so many PC gamers turn to consoles, and will continue to do so in the next gen.

"Old hardware?! OMGLOL get out of my market! "

Your insight is about as fresh as this argument was in 1996 when Voodoo cards came out and nobody wanted to spend money for accelerated video. PC gaming will continue to not die a gruesome death, thanks for playing.

[Noman]

I think what makes this so strange is that cards older than a GF4 are supported. My 9500 Pro runs the game pretty damn well. I'm not a video card buff by any stretch of the imagination - I don't know what all the terms mean, or what particular cards have what features, but at some basic level it surprises me that my older card has the necessary features that a GF4 apparently lacks.

Your 9500Pro is one generation ahead of GF4. Not only it's newer, it is a lot more capable compared to GF4.

The main complaint so far has been levelled against 8500 which did come around the same time as GF4.

In any case, it's an idiotic argument. It always is, when someone complains about missing a piece of hardware which costs the same as the price of a game which requires the hardware to begin with. The same people have no problems buying every single $40-50 game coming out but they can't buy $50 worth of hardware (Radeon 9600, which is a lot superiour compared to their GF3 and GF4s in all games).

I guess, if you could just download a graphic card over bittorrent, there'd be a lot less complaints.

[Goronmon]

I guess, if you could just download a graphic card over bittorrent, there'd be a lot less complaints.
I'd laugh, but its actually true :(

[XenonCJ]

This is my 2 cents how the XBox is not the same as a PC. Have you ever played Halo for the PC? I have an Athlon 2800+, 1GB DDR 333 RAM, Radeon 9600Pro, and 2x80GB HDDs striped to RAID 0. Even with brand new DirectX and all updated drivers I could not get Halo to run smoothly at anything even close to what it looks like on an XBox, and that is with a PC that is at least 3x more powerful, according to specs, than the XBox.

As far as the argument that since you can load Linux on it, then it is a PC, look at Slashdot, people with mod anything to get Linux on it, iPods, etc. and most of them I would not call a PC under the normal understanding.

And the idiot that wrote that these people would have to spend $1000 should be shot. I mean why stop there, why not say they need to buy a new maxed out VoodooPC, meaning like $5k.Runs just fine on my machine: 2.53Ghz P4 - 1GB RAM, Geforce 5900. Looks and plays better than the xbox version (minus co-op which is totally gay)

[XenonCJ]

By this logic, every console ever is a PC. Beep...you're an idiot.Heh, wrong. A PS2 for example shares very few parts with a hypothetical PC that you would load WindowsXP on. An XBox on the other hand, has ALL the parts, almost all INTERCHANGABLE, that you'd see in any Dell, HP, or whatever desktop PC. So, laf, try again - d00d.

[Wyrm]

Of course there's a breaking point. BF2 is not that breaking point. Doom 3 and Half Life 2 were able to run on POS machines because they were well coded. I dont applaud a company who teamed up with another company in order to shake down the customers mutually.

It's really really fucking simple. EA said "We're going to make this game suck so much out of computers that some graphics cards wont even be able to start it up!" Nvidia said "That's awesome, we'll capitalize on that by teaming up with you so that they want to buy our cards in order to run your stupid game!" EA said "Do we get money?" Nvidia said "Yes." And thus a deal was forged.

If they want to make a game that sets a benchmark for the next generation of PC systems, why dont they release a game that isnt fucking broken?

[Wyrm]

Thats a silly statement, there has to be a breaking point. Developers can't continue to support ancient (relatively) hardware forever. I also love how people constantly toss out the 500 dollar figure, when upgrading your video card can be done much cheaper, unless of course you want to go top of the line or quite close to it.

Lets not forget nobody is forcing people to do this. Its a game, not life or death. If you can't afford to upgrade there is nothing wrong with that, but its ridiculous to make it sound as though you are being forced to upgrade your computer just so you can play.

Just so you know, I HAVE a computer that fills the recommended and beyond specs, and the game still crashes all the time because it was poorly coded.

If you want to play the game with no lag at a reasonable resolution, you'll need a ~1.5 gighz processor, a gig of ram, and a video card that supports the latest pixel shaders (which is 100+ at the very least to be decent).

That could easily run you up MORE than 500 bucks if you havent spent money on your system lately.

I do not feel forced to upgrade, but what about die hard battlefield players that upgraded their rigs just for 1942 several years ago? When they are just getting muscled out, why bother upgrading to support EA and Nvidia's stupid business agreement?

[Wyrm]

And the big price for dumbest post in this thread goes to Wyrm! Congratulations...

Thank you for your contribution to the forum. I do hope to see more of you in the future.

[bapenguin]

Heh, wrong. A PS2 for example shares very few parts with a hypothetical PC that you would load WindowsXP on. An XBox on the other hand, has ALL the parts, almost all INTERCHANGABLE, that you'd see in any Dell, HP, or whatever desktop PC. So, laf, try again - d00d.

An XBox has all the parts of an IBM PC..true...but a PS2 has a motherboard, a processor, a graphics processor...all parts of a PC like an Apple, an IBM, etc.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

An XBox has all the parts of an IBM PC..true...but a PS2 has a motherboard, a processor, a graphics processor...all parts of a PC like an Apple, an IBM, etc.

Huh? There's hardly anything in the PS2 that's interchangable with an Apple or an IBM system.

[Voodoo]

I am with the "Xbox isn't a PC crowd".

BTW, there is COOP in Battlefield 2. Its a bit more "manual" than a simple click, but you can setup COOP sessions with as many bots as you like as well as the map sizes.

The simple way of doing it is to start a single player session and have someone join to your IP address via the browser. It is that simple. Now adding bots beyond the initial 16 and changing the map sizes is a bit more involved. But it isn't something a well done Google search won't solve for you.

[dr_wily]

its all about finding the best price/performance ratio.
guides like the VGA chart at tomshardware work wonders..
i haven't had to buy a card over 150$ in basically ever..

last card bought: radeon 9700 pro for about 120$ 1.5 years ago

[Goronmon]

When it really comes down to it, you aren't "entitled" to be able to play BF2, you don't have to buy it. If you don't want to upgrade your system to play it, fine, but don't complain about it.

If it really bugs you, the best thing to do is just not spend the money, that'll send the message to developers that they can't just throw down high-end requirements and expect people to go along with it.

[NonSoft]

Of course there's a breaking point. BF2 is not that breaking point.

Wrong. BF2 is the breaking point, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.



It's really really fucking simple. EA said "We're going to make this game suck so much out of computers that some graphics cards wont even be able to start it up!" Nvidia said "That's awesome, we'll capitalize on that by teaming up with you so that they want to buy our cards in order to run your stupid game!" EA said "Do we get money?" Nvidia said "Yes." And thus a deal was forged.
If they want to make a game that sets a benchmark for the next generation of PC systems, why dont they release a game that isnt fucking broken?

I'm sure that is the exact conversation they had. While I don't doubt that both companies have done shady things to make money I really don't think this is one of them. I think it is a simple case of not wanting to go the extra step to support an obsolete piece of hardware. Everyone acts as though they have half a clue as to how much work goes into creating an entirely new render path. Doing this creates a possible delay for the product as well as taking focus from other elements of the game that need attention.

PC developers have enough variables to deal with considering all the possible system combinations with just new hardware alone, much less hardware that is 3 or 4 years old. Lets face it, for better or worse that is the way the PC market works, upgrade atleast once every couple of years or get left behind... your choice.

[XenonCJ]

An XBox has all the parts of an IBM PC..true...but a PS2 has a motherboard, a processor, a graphics processor...all parts of a PC like an Apple, an IBM, etc.

1. I think most people don't consider "Apples", "PCs".
2. I highly doubt ANY parts of a PS2 are directly interchangeable with an Apple or Wintel machine. Unlike the XBox where like 99% of the parts are interchangeable with the Wintel world...
3. Saying an XBox isn't a PC, is like saying a PC running "Windows XP MediaCenter Edition" isn't a PC. (you'd say, "NO, it's a DVR d00d!!!")

Have I won this argument yet? (I know that's impossible on the internet)

[Goronmon]

3. Saying an XBox isn't a PC, is like saying a PC running "Windows XP MediaCenter Edition" isn't a PC. (you'd say, "NO, it's a DVR d00d!!!")
Notice how you had to mention PC in order to differentiate it from anything else. Thats where that analogy fails.

[NonSoft]

Are people really still arguing over whether or not the xbox is a pc?

[Goronmon]

Are people really still arguing over whether or not the xbox is a pc?
Yeah, sure, why not, i ahve nothing better to do ;)

[XenonCJ]

Yeah, sure, why not, i ahve nothing better to do ;)same here lol.........

[XenonCJ]

Notice how you had to mention PC in order to differentiate it from anything else. Thats where that analogy fails.I guess it comes down to "what is commonly accepted\defined as a "PC"?

I would put forth this definition:

A "PC" must at a minimum have these componets:
A MicroSoft OS
2 or less Intel or AMD CPUs
Hard Drive
RAM
Motherboard
Graphics Card
Monitor
CD or DVDROM

I believe the XBox can easily fit into this definition with ease, no?

[Goronmon]

What ability the ability to run software besides games?

I think thats more important aspect than whether or not the CPU is made by Intel/AMD.

Edit: Or even stuff as simple as a keyboard and mouse?

Edit: And say you put linux on it, is it no longer a PC then?

[51|RandoM]

It's nice to see so many people supporting the reason that so many PC gamers turn to consoles, and will continue to do so in the next gen.

"Old hardware?! OMGLOL get out of my market! "

Good luck running ps3 titles on your ps2.
Good luck running xbox360 titles on your xbox.
Good luck running revolution titles on your gamecube.

Both platforms require upgrades at some point.

[XenonCJ]

What ability the ability to run software besides games?

I think thats more important aspect than whether or not the CPU is made by Intel/AMD.

Edit: Or even stuff as simple as a keyboard and mouse?

Edit: And say you put linux on it, is it no longer a PC then?But that's just it, the XBox could run other things, like MS-Office, if Microsoft chose to do so, it could also support a Keyboard and Mouse. Why? Because it's a PC running a modified version of Windows XP.

No, a Linux box is no longer a PC. In my experiance, people have "PCs", "Linux Boxes", or "Apples". If someone says they have a "PC", it's generally understood that means Windows with an Intel CPU.

[Mastertech]

Exactly anyone with half a clue about hardware knows the Xbox is nothing more then a glorified PC. The problem is all the Xbox fanboys are too embarrassed to admit they have been had. They fall for nice packaging any day.

BF2 for the Xbox will have a PS 1.3 rendering path, thus proof that BF2 can run on the GF3/4 cards period.

[ElPresidente]

Can't believe people are still having this argument.

First off the Xbox does not have a GF3 inside it, it was a special priority chip designed for the Xbox.

Yes the Xbox is made up predominantly of legacy hardware but no that doesn't make it a PC? Sure if you want to go down the path of getting inside and it and messing with the various bits and piece by way of modification then you can make it function like one but the end product of an Xbox is different to the end product of a PC.

For all practical purposes they are two different machines aimed at different markets. So deal.

Anyway on the subject of the bitching and whinging about BF2. Deal with it. As has been pointed out the GF4 is an old card and people can't expect it to be supported forever. Yeah it sucks, but that is PC gaming.

[Mastertech]

No the graphics processor in the Xbox is a GeForce 3.

[ElPresidente]

Find me a GeForce 3 that shares the same hardware specifications as the Xbox GPU. Yes they are based off the same core but the specific GPU used in the Xbox was custom built with the Xbox in mind. It maybe equivalent but it isn't a GeForce 3, you can't buy a GeForce 3 card with those specifications.

[see colon]

No the graphics processor in the Xbox is a GeForce 3.
actualy, it's closer to a GF4 in many ways. it has a second vertex shader, for example, and is clocked at GF4ti 4200 speeds.

if the xbox is a PC because it uses an intel CPU and nVidia graphics chip will it be a mac when apple starts shipping intel powered boxes with nvidia graphics chips next year? the xbox might have PC-like components, but it's not a PC. it's an ugly-ass black box that makes too much noise when you turn it on, makes my entertainment center look tacky, and has horrible color accuracy (black is dark grey, white is light grey), hooks up nativly to a TV, and lacks any real support for general purpose input devices.

[NonSoft]

An xbox is not a PC. It doesn't matter how similiar the hardware is, the fact of the matter is that it is not a PC.

Is the Hardware similiar? Yes.
Can you make it function similiar to a PC? Sure.
Is it a PC? No.

Definition


Main Entry: personal computer
Function: noun
: a general-purpose computer equipped with a microprocessor and designed to run especially commercial software (as a word processor or World Wide Web browser) for an individual user.


Is an Xbox general purpose? No. It is aimed at playing games(and watching DVDs I guess). With the right software it certainly could have more functionality bringing it close to a PC level in terms of number of features.

Its like saying that I'm a police officer just because I have the capability to be one. With the right training I could be a police officer, but at the moment I am not. An xbox with the right mods could be a PC I suppose, but as sold, it is not a PC.

[Mastertech]

Apple will become PCs (which they basically are already). The only reason the Xbox is not general purpose is because of the OS loaded, no other reason.

[ElPresidente]

Yet no one has made a viable Xbox emulator for the PC, the closest we've come is a buggy version of Turok.

Its a fairly pointless argument as a result... no matter what you want to call it the end function is different for both.

Its like saying that I'm a police officer just because I have the capability to be one. With the right training I could be a police officer, but at the moment I am not. An xbox with the right mods could be a PC I suppose, but as sold, it is not a PC.

I think the above quote is a wonderfully succinct summation of the matter at hand.

[Babbster]

To throw in a couple cents on the original topic, I think that GeForce 4 owners have a legitimate complaint. While it's true that developers have the right to support whatever they want when it comes to their games, the flip side is that powerful PC hardware bought today shouldn't be obsolete when it comes to playing a new, mainstream, "blockbuster" game in two years. As I see it, that's a road to the PC gaming doomsday that is predicted every time a new console comes out.

The folks who make gaming engines for licensing certainly seem to understand that. The Doom 3, Source and Unreal 2 engines, for example, include support for cards up to 4-5 years old. That allows for a much larger potential market while still allowing the features of new graphics technology to be utilized if the fancy new hardware is present.

Me, I have a GeForce4MX 420 - the crappiest card from a set of crappy cards (even when they were released - it came with the el cheapo PC I bought which was still an upgrade for me at the time). This past year, the three games I played a lot of have been City of Heroes (new last year), Pirates! (new last year) and The Sims 2 (new last year). I've been able to enjoy the hell out of all three - if, however, any of those three games would have required an upgrade there's every chance I would have just skipped them and (at least for Pirates! and Sims 2) waited for console versions. I'm just not willing to spend money on upgrading my PC. I'm obviously not a big-time PC gamer (I spend more time on my consoles) but my system represents a very large faction of the PC-owning populace - the populace that buys a computer for its "basic" functions and plays occasional games.

The folks that say these people (meaning, particularly, GeForce4 owners) don't have a "right" to play BF2 are certainly correct. That doesn't change the fact that they - especially those that played BF with what were, at the time, kick-ass cards - got a shitty deal. It also doesn't change the fact that this narrowing of the potential market for PC games can only hurt the market as a whole, whether the needed upgrade is cheap (like the previously mentioned $69 card) or not.

[ianagain]

Firstly, Battlefield: Modern Combat is an entirely seperate game from Battlefield 2; it shares a setting and gameplay elements, but is probably built more on the older Battlefield 1942 engine or another EA engine. If you arent convinced by screenshots and previews where EA says exactly this, you can look at the REAL console port of Battlefield 2, which will be coming out at the end of the year on the much more powerful Xbox 360.

Thus the XBox/PC analogy falls apart when you consider the development costs of to seperate games. The Xbox version has as many potential buyers as the PC BF2, yet the developers need only support ONE rendering path, ONE chip speed, and one size and speed of ram. OTOH, The PC version has to support rendering paths from two different companies (NVidia and ATI) over three generations (8500+, 9500+, X800+). Despite the limited shader capabilites of the XBox, the graphics team at EA that is forcing its older chipset to make it "work" will have the same resources as the EA team that has to span their support to over ten different chipsets, including the new chipsets that are around the corner. The amount of PC buyers who need support for their outdated cards is a very small but vocal minority, and EA isn't losing very many sales to them-- compared to the millions of Xbox owners.

This is part of the territory newbs: you play PC games, you have to upgrade. If you don't choose the winning horse, you might get screwed down the road. Ask the people who bought RDRAM, or late generation 3Dfx cards which didn't support 24-bit color. nVidia made a mistake in 2002 by choosing to develop a brute force model of their aging GeForce3 chipset (the GF4s) instead of working on new technology like ATI did (in the 8500 and 9500 series.) Although the GF4 beasts will still outmuscle the cards ATI released at the same time with the same graphics, the number of those games is growing smaller everyday.

[Mastertech]

Who got screwed buying RDRAM? It worked fine and still is working. You can also still buy it. Memory rarely carries over from platform to platform with PCs. Anyone upgrading to a newer more powerful processor expects to upgrade their RAM. So the RDRAM comparison is useless. I still have a PC with 1GB of RDRAM and it works fine. When that machine is upgraded the memory will be replaced so their is no loss and no one got screwed over. RDRAM performed as advertised. It seems gamers know very little about hardware, thus their inability to grasp this issue with BF2.

[51|RandoM]

Everybody who paid RDRAM premiums got screwed, imho.

The problem with RDRAM wasn't how or what it did, it was how much money you had to cough up for it. They screwed themselves with their idiotic licensing/pricing.

[Major Scud]

how about us users with laptops? 2 years ago I got a laptop with a geforce 4 ti 4200 go (top of the line then) and battlefield 2 wont run. Try upgrading that for under $100 ;)

[Mastertech]

That is a fallacy. When RDRAM was popular (early P4s) it was at most 10% more then DDR.

[stomper1080]

XBox is basically a PC. It consists of PC Hardware and PC Software. All put into an ugly ass chassis.
And bapenguin has no fucking clue about anything!!!

But hey the real point here is: BF2 and old cards like Geforce4 Ti. Come on you got to be kidding. Who wants to play BF2 on such an old card anyway.
Why do people make such a big deal out of that! If I would still own my Geforce4 in order to play the current games I would hide in shame!!!

Am I the only one getting sick of games advancing it graphics? I would happily have battlefield 2 with the same graphics as battlefield 1942! After all, its really the gameplay that I'm after

[Bone]

Stomper, I'd agree except playing in the realistic, dust-covered streets of Karkand just makes it feel so much more immersive.

[stomper1080]

Maybe ill just wait till Nintendo releases their new visual boy. Now thats what I call immersed.

[Wyrm]

Wrong. BF2 is the breaking point, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm sure that is the exact conversation they had. While I don't doubt that both companies have done shady things to make money I really don't think this is one of them. I think it is a simple case of not wanting to go the extra step to support an obsolete piece of hardware. Everyone acts as though they have half a clue as to how much work goes into creating an entirely new render path. Doing this creates a possible delay for the product as well as taking focus from other elements of the game that need attention.

PC developers have enough variables to deal with considering all the possible system combinations with just new hardware alone, much less hardware that is 3 or 4 years old. Lets face it, for better or worse that is the way the PC market works, upgrade atleast once every couple of years or get left behind... your choice.

Battlefield 2 DID get delayed. And yet the server browser remains broken, even with the patch, the patch broke the servers, and the game still crashes all the time. Obviously they spent a whole lot of time on something. Not too sure what it was. It certainly wasnt making a game that runs smoothly.

I upgrade my computer practically every 2 years to keep up because I like having the latest stuff. The reason I'm complaining is because not everyone has money to spend on this kind of stuff. My good friends all want to play battlefield, but they just dont have the kind of cash that would enable them to play. It makes me angry because they come over and play on my machine and have so much fun doing it. But, because they chose not to support one more generation of graphics cards, they all get left out and wont even buy the game.

Honestly, I do not think BF2 is a breaking point at all. I think that this next generation benchmark began with Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Depending on who you spoke to, either one of those was certainly worth an upgrade to your PC, I know it was for me.

[H.Bogard]

I think the main point is if they've already developed a renderer for the XBox version, and it's not a completely seperate code base, then they've already made one that would work with GeForce3/4 and should release it (a reasonable complaint). If they had not developed that renderer, then yea, I'd say it wouldn't be worth it, there's a substantial difference between shader model 2 and 1.3.

the pc battlefield 2 and the xbox battlefield are two different games

this case reminds me of the splinter cell chaos theory not supporting pixel shader 2.0....but in that case ubi was whored to nvidia...

Just so you know, I HAVE a computer that fills the recommended and beyond specs, and the game still crashes all the time because it was poorly coded.



stop visiting porno sites........clean your spyware....close the useless desktop managers running in the background
i run this game on a system thats BELOW minimum requirements...and it never crashed EVER...even on medium-high graphics settings
dont believe me? my specs :athlon xp 2000 processor (1.6 ghz ...recommended is 1.7) ram 512megs at 333mhz bus speed (it sucks) and last but not least....a radeon 9600 pro (which is a BELOW 100$ price card just so you know)
30fps and never below!

by the way....doom 3 and half life 2 run better on older cards because both had been in development for over 5 years...they`d seen the rise and fall of those generation of video cards

[stomper1080]

Honestly, I do not think BF2 is a breaking point at all. I think that this next generation benchmark began with Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Depending on who you spoke to, either one of those was certainly worth an upgrade to your PC, I know it was for me.

I agree with saying that BF2 isn't breakpoint, and because it isn't I think the makers did not have to increase the graphics so much that it is unplayable (does not start) on other older cards. At least with Half Life 2 and Doom 3, it was playable on older cards and worked quite well if you lowered the graphics options.

[Salat]

My God - I just waded through nine pages of this topic, and so far, the only thing of value is:

Beep...you're an idiot.

The assertion that "An XBox is really a PC is really a Mac because they all have silicon inside" - or just about any variant of that - has all the intellectual merit of the old, "My Dad can beat up your Dad" argument. Ultimately, who the fuck cares?

The real question is: What hardware combinations run BF2 well?

Anyone got BF2 smoking? If so - post your specs.