PDA

View Full Version : crying shame



kogo
22nd Jun 2005, 15:56
Just let me add my 2 cents worth. I bought 4 computer games in the last month. Checking the boxes for requirements. All work on my computer. But the star wars game needs a certain graphics card that no one seems to have on their computer and cost $150 to add. Don't the makers of star wars think this is a problem??? Why not just make a kids game to work like all others? And if you want to make a game that requires a $150 graphics card then it better be printed with big letters on the front of the box that one is needed.
I also feel that the makers of this game should try to see if this game can be played without the graphics card and to post this info. If this game is not a marketing nightmare for eidos it should be.


This message was co written by my disappointed
9 year old son

DMA57361
22nd Jun 2005, 23:18
$150!?! I can get a Geforce 5-series for as little as £30 here. I believe that's like $50-$60. If you only want it for the one game buy back a generation or two. I mean, even the proper Geforce 4's (not the MX's) have 1.1 shaders.

The 1.1 shader is old technology (by computer standards). I mean the most recent generation of graphics cards are onto the 3.0 sharders! Your computer probably has a cheap on-board graphics solution or one of the cheap cut-down Geforce MX's, they tend to be all you get if you buy a resonably cheap PC. And quite frankly they're rubbish for playing games. Fine for pretty much everything else - but games need that bit extra.

Btw, I use ebuyer.com for all my computer needs, they have a US site so give them a look if you're actually looking to buy a graphics card. I've not looked at prices but there's no need to fork out $150!

thoni
28th Jun 2005, 13:40
I completely agree that Eidos is out on a limb here. A kids game should not require latest hardware and operating systems. Although many new computers currently comes stocked with XP I would think that must kids < 10 years run older hardware and OS.

So how about releasing a patch that allows our kids to run the obviously wonderful Star Wars game on Windows ME, Eidos?!?

Jumpin_Jebus
7th Jul 2005, 21:10
The reason Lego Star Wars was not designed to run on Windows ME is because Microsoft doesn't support Windows ME anymore. They only support Windows 2000 and XP. Not much point in making sacrifices in the game's quality to support at outdated and obsolete operating system. Same goes for other companies games. We all know it's a big pain in the consumer's rear end, but game publishers and developers will always follow the trends of the computer industry. Keep in mind folks...the power and technology of computers doubles every 18 months...and it's only going to get worse. If you don't want to constantly upgrade your PC every 18-24 months...buy a game console. Those last for about 5 years before being replaced with a next generation console.

As for the Pixel Shader issue. Pixel Shader is not a new technology. In fact it's been around for nearly 4 years now. Over 85% of the video cards on today's market supports Pixel Shader 1.1 and higher (2.0 and 3.0). Most new games coming out are going to use it.

Pixel Shader is not Eidos' attempt to take over the world of computer gaming and give countless children nightmares because they can't play their game. Pixel Shader is a commonplace technology that has been in the main stream for a long time. The only reason the game industry waited this long to start making games which require Pixel Shader support, is because 2 and 3 years ago few video cards could support it. This is not the case now.

Anyways, sorry for the rant.

...end communication...

~Jebus

cquirke
10th Jul 2005, 20:29
As for the Pixel Shader issue. Pixel Shader is not a new technology. Over 85% of the video cards on today's market supports Pixel Shader 1.1 and higher (2.0 and 3.0). Most new games coming out are going to use it.

There's a difference in requiring hot tech for a game that's pitched at buyers likely to have game-orientated PCs, and one pitched at younger kids. When the oldest child in the family is, say, 10 years old, the chances are there won't be a games-orientated PC in the house. Instead, folks will have bought the PC for general purposes, and they'll expect kid's games to work.

Think about it - here's a family with a 2 year old PC. Pentium III? 1GHz? No problem, this is a 1.7GHz Celeron. 2G HD space? That's OK, E: has 50G free. Pixel Shading 1.1 - what the hell's that? Still, as the PC's generally well within spec, should be OK - after all, they say "GeForce 3" and we've got a GeForce 4. MX440.

I see the game's punting nVidia so heavily, that one wonders if those dudes had a bit too much say in the dev process.

As to "Over 85% of the video cards on today's market supports Pixel Shader 1.1", who the hell says everyone buying this game has a brand new PC? Get in touch with the real world, where folks do use the same PC for a few years.

intrepid_soul
11th Jul 2005, 18:59
As to "Over 85% of the video cards on today's market supports Pixel Shader 1.1", who the hell says everyone buying this game has a brand new PC? Get in touch with the real world, where folks do use the same PC for a few years.

I agree with that statement, who says everyone has a new PC? The truth is most "new" PC's do not come with a graphics card that does support this game unless you specifically upgrade it. The trouble here lies in the manufacturer not educating properly. Go to anyone's web site that sells a computer, do their little customize it deal, and check next to video card option. There should be a question mark or soemthing that users can click on to see why they want to pay attention here. Most places DO NOT have this. So why would someone upgrade? It costs more money and there is no description why this money is worth it.

That being said, the great thing about a computer is the computer you bought 2 years ago, may have a substandard graphics card, but if you spend some money and upgrade it, your system could be cutting edge in minutes. I never recommend bleeding edge technology its not economical, plus in the computer industry in 6 months things change so you are no longer on the forefront. I never know what's going on with my hardware until I want to play a game I can't run, and then when I upgrade I go for the next size up So if my graphics card needs 64 I would get 128 so I don't have to upgrade for a few more years.

Darth Madrik
15th Jul 2005, 10:22
The PS2 Version of Lego Star Wars works ok, most of the time. :thumbsup:

ibda12u
16th Jul 2005, 19:26
a Nvidia FX model card should run you around $50. The MX version of cards, no matter how new are simply old technology, repackaged. They are missing the pixel shader chip. This way they can be sold cheaper, and it's more economical for OEM's (dell, hp, ibm, e-machine etc..) to buy and put into their pc's.

That's why there is such a huge amount of the MX cards out there. This game is great for kids, but a video card upgrade is great for your pc :), it'll take some stress off your older CPU. (no offense just most spare or kids pc's are older CPU's)

Mike_B
17th Jul 2005, 09:15
They should stop selling those mx series or atleast change their advertising. They're not gaming cards. I mean the geforce 4 mx is basicly an overclocked geforce 2. Stay away from those and for that matter if you plan on buying a new card this post of GoranAgar can be useful too:


ATI and Nvidia trying something "new".

ATI calls it HyperMemory and NVidia calls it TurboCache. You will recognize those cards by the abbrevation HM and TC in the name.

These cards don't come with their own memory. They use the system memory and that puts them down at the bottom right there with the other Intel integrated graphic crap.

Do not buy any cards with HM or TC in the name.