Working solution for Intel dual core CPUs!
If you're using a dual-core Intel system and pulling your hair out at the crash/freeze before the menu, forum member wolfman2k has found a solution. It's worked on at least 5 people's machines in th...
Forum Discussion
"As of system requirements, maybe it's the responsiblity of the publishers to take them seriously, and then the consumer will as well. Up until now (and even afterwards) minimum requirement just meant , "will not give customer support if you have that hardware." That is it. Knowing that, I think Bioware/EA would have aleviated a lot of strife if they just put in bold, "Game will only function on CPU's with more than four threads." Hell, it even seemed they didn't know what the game would run on and didn't even test it out and try, as they were surprised that i3's ran the game and thought only CPU's with four real cores would. Maybe publisher's system requirements would be taken more seriously if they added a hard-requirement option (absolutely necessary to run the game) and a soft-requirement (ideal requirements to run the game at lowest settings with a resonable framerate and no bugs.) As it is now, the system requirements aren't taken seriously because they aren't very accurate and tell us very little information we need to know other than how well will our PC probably run the game. "
That is crazy. You want them to add a "no really... this is actually required" requirement? Requirement means requirement. If you get lucky and the software works below those requirements we, as reasonable human beings, count ourselves lucky. You don't make the completely irrational leap of "well, I guess requirement will never mean requirement in this context since they didn't this time... at least on some of the requirements (obviously some of the requirements really are required)". The nature of computers (massive HW/SW permutation) means that if software developers want to write a succint list of requirements (not convoluted using technical jargon most consumers don't understand) there will be exceptions to the requirement list. I don't really think there is a way around that. Those exceptions are awesome when they work out... but when they don't work out for you that is your problem, not the developers. They warned you... clearly.
"I'm then extrapolating, knowing what I've read from the 83 paged thread that the same thing will be revealed with DA:I. Yes, it is only speculation, but not a conspiracy theory, as my statement was generally speaking of recent game releases and not any specific game release. "
Just reflect on what you are essentially saying here for a minute... "a handful of people posting over and over in a thread said such and such", I then tenuously connected these anecdotes to other anecdotes forming a big "web" of anecdotes. That is, more or less, the exact definition of a conspiracy theory.
😕mileysurprised:
@censurely wrote:That is crazy. You want them to add a "no really... this is actually required" requirement? Requirement means requirement. If you get lucky and the software works below those requirements you count yourself lucky. You don't make the completely irrational leap of "well, I guess requirement will never mean requirement in this context". The nature of computers (massive HW/SW permutation) means that if software developers want to write a succint list of requirements (not convoluted using technical jargon most consumers don't understand) there will be exceptions to that list. Those exceptions are awesome when they work out... but when they don't work out for you that is your problem, not the developers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that requirements almost never really mean requirements. It's not that sometimes they don't mean requirements, it is that is almost always true that the word "requirement" is stretched and distorted. For example, many games that required Quad-Cores, before now could not only run, but run on high settings 30fps with the best dual-cores. Nobody would take system requirements seriously after experiencing that. My proposal was made considering the knowledge that they don't have time or resources to test out the game on hardware for the "actual" requirement, and it honestly doesn't mean much to try. However, if certain things are absolutely necessary to run the game, they should list them out for the consumer's benefit, and thefore to their (the publisher's) own PR benefit. The best thing the publisher can do for its image is to be entirely honest. When the consumer comes back to the publisher and complains that their GPU doesn't have shader model 5.0 or a quad-core CPU and can't run the game, the publisher has more reputation and leverage when on their box it says, This game will not run without a GPU which supports shader model 5.0 or a Quad Core CPU. It is no more a mess or confusing than listing a specific CPU as a minimum requirement. How the hell does somebody know if their CPU is better than that CPU listed? If I go to CPU boss my Pentium G3258 has massively better total performance (considering all threads) than a Core 2 Quad. Should I assume my CPU should run the game better than a Core 2 Quad, if I were the layman? Of course I might. But if they listed, "this game absolutely requires a Quad-Core to run", I think - as a layman - I would understand that much better.
Here is what Origin lists as the Requirement in relation to CPU:
Minimum:
Processor (AMD): Quad core @ 2.5 GHz
Processor (Intel): Quad core @ 2.0 GHz
If you want to rely on strict definitions on some things why don't we do it across the board. Here is what Requirement means.re·quire·ment
noun \-ˈkwī(-ə)r-mənt\
: something that is needed or that must be done
: something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done
I'll concede the technical definition of "conspiracy theory" (it wasn't the perfect term, but semantics aside I'm sure you get what I mean) if you will concede the technical defniition of "requirement". Given what the word actually means a rational person would assume themselves fortunate if they manage to run the game below the requirement. Period. Every single time. If you're a really reasonable person (and responsible consumer) you err on the side of caution and assume the list is presented in earnest every single time. If you've gambled and gotten lucky 99.9% of the time in the past that does not mean your should expect to win the next time you gamble. If you win 10 hands of blackjack in a row you don't, justifiably, get pissed at the dealer when you lose on the 11th hand. :*(
@censurely wrote:
I'll concede the technical definition of "conspiracy theory" (it wasn't the perfect term, but semantics aside I'm sure you get what I mean) if you will concede the technical defniition of "requirement".-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never disagreed with the definition of "requirement." My entire argument is that publishers are misusing the term for things that are not requirements. When a dual-core can run a game at high settings 30fps 1080p for a game that supposedly requires a quad-core then the word "requirement" loses its meaning. You can't blame consumers for assuming that requirement means something else in this context when publishers are the ones who choose to apply that label incorrectly. It is understandable why developers don't look for the real requirements though, it is a waste of resources and time. It makes more sense for them to just say what they know will absolutely not work for a game, and then say what they recommend for minimum graphical fidelity and for some higher graphical fidelity. That would give the consumer more information to make a decision, and will better the publishers image. That was my entire argument, which you keep side-tracking over semantics.
@censurely wrote:Every single time. If you're a really reasonable person (and responsible consumer) you err on the side of caution and assume the list is presented in earnest every single time. If you've gambled and gotten lucky 99.9% of the time in the past that does not mean your should expect to win the next time you gamble. If you win 10 hands of blackjack in a row you don't, justifiably, get pissed at the dealer when you lose on the 11th hand. :*(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, but if the sun rises every day for 99 days, I am going to assume it will rise the 100th day. That is called inductive reasoning and is perfectly rational.
"It makes more sense for them to just say what they know will absolutely not work for a game, and then say what they recommend for minimum graphical fidelity and for some higher graphical fidelity. That would give the consumer more information to make a decision, and will better the publishers image. That was my entire argument, which you keep side-tracking over semantics."
That just isn't always feasible... there are probably thousands of particular hw and sw purmutations of hardware that just won't work with their software. In the particular case of 4 logic cores... the vast majority of folks don't know the difference between 4 logic cores / threads and CPU cores (pasted on the side of their computer). They decided it was safer to just say it required 4 cores (of reasonable frequency) and the folks with less can 1) gamble or 2) wait a day or two and find out for sure. (we've been ignoring #2 here... obviously if folks just waited a few days they would have a much clearer idea of if the game will work with their older system from the folks that knowingly choose to gamble)."Sorry, but if the sun rises every day for 99 days, I am going to assume it will rise the 100th day. That is called inductive reasoning and is perfectly rational. "
That is a false analogy. You are unwilling to accept that there is an element of gamble happening when you buy a game below minimum requirements. No amount of stubbornes will changes that fundamental fact. You know that people buy games that don't work on their computer because they don't meet minimums. You know this as a fact. You're aware that it's possible that it won't work in your case (or you are beign willfully ignorant). You are gambling. Period. If you gamble 99 times in a row and win that doesn't mean you can reasonably expect to win 100 times.
If you are observing natural phenomenon in a vaccuum obviously the circumstances are entirely different.
@censurely wrote:That just isn't always feasible... there are probably thousands of particular hw and sw purmutations of hardware that just won't work with their software. In the particular case of 4 logic cores... the vast majority of folks don't know the difference between 4 logic cores / threads and CPU cores (pasted on the side of their computer). They decided it was safer to just say it required 4 cores (of reasonable frequency) and the folks with less can 1) gamble or 2) wait a day or two and find out for sure. (we've been ignoring #2 here... obviously if folks just waited a few days they would have a much clearer idea of if the game will work with their older system from the folks that knowingly choose to gamble).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------What? They don't have to list every CPU or GPU that won't work. They just need mention what that CPU or GPU needs to work. There are not thousands of GPU/CPU features, and certainly fewer that would be "requirements." I am personally in group #2, but there had to have been somebody in group #1 for group #2 to work. My whole argument is how the publisher and consumer can communicate better and alleviate such conflicts. I don't think it is impossible or even hard to put on the box, "This game will not run with fewer than four cores." Then the more technically minded can choose to gamble with four-threaded dual-cores, or whatever. The layman would be safe if this was on the box though.
Well, if we're going to be realistic there will always be a lot of people in group 1. There will always be folks that will buy the game, ignore all the clearly marked warnings (however well they are formulated), and then come to the forums to complain when they shockingly have problems. If you chose to be in group 1 that is your choice.
There will always be a better warming that could be put on any box. It says Quad Core required (both AMD and Intel). That should be good enough (particularly if you choose to stay in group 2 rather than choosing to be in group 1 and gamble).
@censurely wrote:"Sorry, but if the sun rises every day for 99 days, I am going to assume it will rise the 100th day. That is called inductive reasoning and is perfectly rational. "
That is a false analogy. You are unwilling to accept that there is an elementy of gamble happening when you buy a game below minimum requirements. No amount of stubbornes will changes that fundamental fact. You know that people buy games that don't work on their computer because they don't meet minimums. You know this as a fact. You're aware that it's possible that it won't work in your case (or you are beign willfully ignorant). You are gambling. Period.
If you are observing natural phenomenon in a vaccuum obviously the circumstances are entirely different.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not stating there is no element of gamble. I'm saying that the chances are so miniscule, if one uses inductive reasoning, that there might as well have been no element. And no, the analogy isn't poor. It does what it intends, to explain that not all reasoning is deductive, and it is not irrational to assume that DA:I might be just like Shadows of Mordor, Fifa 15, or now like Far Cry 4 or CoD:AW. No analogy is perfect, however.
@censurely wrote:Well, if we're going to be realistic there will always be a lot of people in group 1. There will always be folks that will buy the game, ignore all the clearly marked warnings (however well they are formulated), and then come to the forums to complain when they shockingly have problems. If you chose to be in group 1 that is your choice.
There will always be a better warming that could be put on any box. It says Quad Core required (both AMD and Intel). That should be good enough (particularly if you choose to stay in group 2 rather than choosing to be in group 1 and gamble).-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly, there will be more people to complain. But they have very little leverage and power in their complaints in that situation. Again, I already explained why "Quad Core required" means almost nothing. There have been a dozen games released this year with the exact same message, and all of them worked on dual-cores.
"No analogy is perfect, however."
What you were doing is equating the chances of the sun not rising to the chances of a video game not working below minimum requirements. There is a huge spectrum of reasonable analogies and then there is... well... that. You, probably knowingly, understand the prejudice folks would have towards the chances of the sun not rising. A sampling group of 4 games does not thousands of years of human experience make. If the sun rose 4 days in a row, and I knew it had not risen in the past on some occasions, I would not necessarily expect it to rise on the 5th (assuming I had my current level of understanding about everything else). That is inductive reasoning applied properly in a what I think is a much better calibrated analogy (although it remains absurd because you decided to go there for some reason).
@censurely wrote:"No analogy is perfect, however."
What you were doing is equating the chances of the sun not rising to the chances of a video game not working below minimum requirements. There is a huge spectrum of reasonable analogies and then there is... well... that. You, probably knowingly, understand the prejudice folks would have towards the chances of the sun not rising. A sampling group of 4 games does not thousands of years of human experience make. If the sun rose 4 days in a row, and I knew it had not risen in the past on some occasions, I would not necessarily expect it to rise on the 5th (assuming I had my current level of understanding about everything else). That is inductive reasoning applied properly in a what I think is a much better calibrated analogy (although it remains absurd because you decided to go there for some reason).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I wasn't. From the start my intentions were to illustrate the power of inductive logic and why it is a rational thought process without any deductive logic required. Ancient people knew nothing about the sun, but could still assume it would rise again. Those four games were just a few recent releases I listed. I can list many others. And if you consider the transition from single-cores to dual-cores the same is true. Not until now has core number been a requirement to run a game. Give an example of a game in which the core-count prevented the game from running at all.
"There have been a dozen games released this year with the exact same message, and all of them worked on dual-cores. "
Well.. then you get in to how you choose define "worked". I'm sure your definition of "worked" is not really the same as everyone else. Does the game start? Probably? Is it playable? Maybe, depends on a lot of variables that won't necessarily fit on a sticker on the back of a box.Ancient people used inductive logic to decide if the sun would rise based on thousands of years of collective experience. That is a very different scenario from doing something you know hasn't worked in the past (again, it gets a little fuzzy around the word "worked" because that definition could vary wildly in this context). You know that folks have had trouble with games (often not even able to run or install them) because they didn't meet certain minimum requireemnts. You know, for example, that almost 100% of the time when you don't meet the HDD minimum requirement the game probably won't work.
The difference is that core count hasn't been hugely significant in the past (again, how you define "worked" plays a role in how much significance you put here). There was no reason to assume this would never change. It still seems to me that if you are a reasonable person you err on the side of caution. Wait a day... heck, wait a week to be sure. There are always some hardware problems that no amount of proper beta testing and vetting will unearth so why not?! It would have been nice to see Bioware post something more specific in this very specific case but now at least now the bell is rung. Minimum Requirements sometimes means minimum requirement in regard to threads. The epiphany has arrived.
@censurely wrote:"There have been a dozen games released this year with the exact same message, and all of them worked on dual-cores. "
Well.. then you get in to how you choose define "worked". I'm sure your definition of "worked" is not really the same as everyone else. Does the game start? Probably? Is it playable? Maybe, depends on a lot of variables that won't necessarily fit on a sticker on the back of a box.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Pentium g3258 can play all games, 1080p, 30fps, at the very least medium settings (Watch Dogs being the most demanding, and the only game that must be medium) except Dragon Age Inquisition (for now.) So I think almost everybody would explain that as "worked." Here's a list of games which required Quad-Cores released this year, that I can play at medium or above with my G3258 and a r9 280x.Ryse requires: CPU: Dual core with HyperThreading technology or quad core CPU - Plays at high settings 1080p on my PC.
Watch Dogs requires: CPU: Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz - Can play at medium settings 1080p
Shadow of Mordor requires: CPU: Intel Core i5-750 - Can almost max this game 1080p
The Evil Within requires: CPU: Core-i7 or an equivalent 4+ core processor - Can play this game at High 1080p 45 FPS
Assasin's Creed Unity: CPU: @Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz - Can play this at high settings 1080p 30fps.
@Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare: Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93 GHz - I max this game 60fps.
Far Cry 4: Quad Core requirement - Video shows 30fps med-high settings on my CPU with a worse GPU.
Fifa 15: Quad Core requirement - Runs on two threaded CPU high settings with some stutter.
Lords of the Fallen: Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz - Runs on G3258 at similar settings, from what I've read.
Those are 9 games that I can think of with four-threaded requirements that not only work on my CPU model, but they work great.
@censurely wrote:Ancient people used inductive logic to decide if the sun would rise based on thousands of years of collective experience. That is a very different scenario from doing something you know hasn't worked in the past (again, it gets a little fuzzy around the word "worked" because that definition could vary wildly in this context). You know that folks have had trouble with games (often not even able to run or install them) because they didn't meet certain minimum requireemnts. You know, for example, that almost 100% of the time when you don't meet the HDD minimum requirement the game probably won't work.
The difference is that core count hasn't been hugely significant in the past (again, how you define "worked" plays a role in how much significance you put here). There was no reason to assume this would never change. It still seems to me that if you are a reasonable person you err on the side of caution. Wait a day... heck, wait a week to be sure. There are always some hardware problems that no amount of proper beta testing and vetting will unearth so why not?! It would have been nice to see Bioware post something more specific in this very specific case but now at least now the bell is rung. Minimum Requirements sometimes means minimum requirement in regard to threads. The epiphany has arrived.Exactly, they used inductive logic to assume the sun will rise again. Just as we use the inductive logic of how single-cores could still play games with dual-core requirements (with a performance hit) to assume dual-core games will be able to play quad-core required games (with a performance hit.) Again, you've failed to provide an example of a game that would not boot because of core-count. How can we know it didn't work in the past when it never happened in the past? HDD space is not the same thing as CPU core-count. If this problem was that the game required a DX10 supported GPU, I'm sure most people wouldn't be all worked up about it because they've experienced this in the past, but also because no new GPU's are made without supporting up to DX11. There are new Dual-Core models, however. But that is besides the point.
I agree core count hasn't been significant in the past, and that is why this is such a big issue. But I fail to see why this transition can't take place like the transition from single-core CPU to dual-core CPUs.
Here is a better analogy (I think) since it relates directly to disclaimers (which is what those minimum requirements essentially are).
The label on the side of my cup of coffee says "contents hot, may burn you". Are the contents hot by my definition? Maybe not. In fact... most of the time the contents don't seem hot to me. Lets say I've bought coffee many times and it was "tepid" by my definition 100 out of 100 times. I know other people have gotten coffee they consider to be hot... but what matters to me is my own experience and the experience of the people I want to listen to. I, therefore, used inductive reasoning to assume it would never be hot in the future for me. That label still exists though... which means that if I open that cup of coffee in an irresponsible manner and burn myself the company did its due dilligence. Period. The fact that i was burned was not that companies fault. My experience, and my inductive conclusions based on that experience, is entirely irrelevant. You've yet to explain why this sceario (which I attempted to explain through the gambling analogy) is fundamentally different. Your inductive reasoning used to selectively choose when you feel that the word requirement really means requirement is entirely irrelevent.
That's not to say I don't have a case if I end up with 3rd degree burns over 1/3 of my body (in that case a specific cup of coffe was made unreasonably hot and/or a policy is in place that made that coffee unreasonbly hot) but in a fundamental way the company did it's due diligence and, more importantly, my anecdotal perceptions are entirely irrelevent.
To bring us full circle... here I am looking at the back of a PC game and its list of requirements. I know X requirement is flexible (at least based on my inherently limited anecdotal experience). That doesn't actually change that it's a requirement. My inductive reasoning doesn't change the words on the box or what they actually mean. This company is communicating, clearly to me, that I shouldn't buy this game unless I meet this minimum. My person experience is irrelevent. They are telling me to hold on to my money until I meet those minimums. Do they want my money?! Of course.. but they would rather their customers have a good chance of being realtively happy with their product. I have actually always assumed that they inflate those minimums to play it safe... in my book that makes them responsible advocates on behalf of the consumer. Does that assumption change the substance of that disclaimer in any way?! No. If my CPU is 1mhz below those disclaimers I am taking my chances. I get that you, on a personal level, don't seem to think that is reasonable... I just disagree.
@censurely wrote:
Here is a better analogy (I think) since it relates directly to disclaimers (which is what those minimum requirements essentially are).
The label on the side of my cup of coffee says "contents hot, may burn you". Are the contents hot by my definition? Maybe not. In fact... most of the time the contents don't seem hot to me. Lets say I've bought coffee many times and it was "tepid" by my definition 100 out of 100 times. I know other people have gotten coffee they consider to be hot... but what matters to me is my own experience and the experience of the people I want to listen to. I, therefore, used inductive reasoning to assume it would never be hot in the future for me. That label still exists though... which means that if I open that cup of coffee in an irresponsible manner and burn myself the company did its due dilligence. Period. The fact that i was burned was not that companies fault. My experience, and my inductive conclusions based on that experience, is entirely irrelevant. You've yet to explain why this sceario (which I attempted to explain through the gambling analogy) is fundamentally different. Your inductive reasoning used to selectively choose when you feel that the word requirement really means requirement is entirely irrelevent.
That's not to say I don't have a case if I end up with 3rd degree burns over 1/3 of my body (in that case a specific cup of coffe was made unreasonably hot and/or a policy is in place that made that coffee unreasonbly hot) but in a fundamental way the company did it's due diligence and, more importantly, my anecdotal perceptions are entirely irrelevent.
To bring us full circle... here I am looking at the back of a PC game and its list of requirements. I know X requirement is flexible (at least based on my inherently limited anecdotal experience). That doesn't actually change that it's a requirement. My inductive reasoning doesn't change the words on the box or what they actually mean. This company is communicating, clearly to me, that I shouldn't buy this game unless I meet this minimum. My person experience is irrelevent. They are telling me to hold on to my money until I meet those minimums. Do they want my money?! Of course.. but they would rather their customers have a good chance of being realtively happy with their product. I have actually always assumed that they inflate those minimums to play it safe... in my book that makes them responsible advocates on behalf of the consumer. Does that assumption change the substance of that disclaimer in any way?! No. If my CPU is 1mhz below those disclaimers I am taking my chances. I get that you, on a personal level, don't seem to think that is reasonable... I just disagree.I don't disagree with anything in your post. What I am saying though is that it might benefit the company to do more than it's "due diligence" as there is no cost involved to do so, and a considerable benefit. In your coffee analogy the company knows that it is likely the case that the coffee won't be so hot it will burn somebody, but there is still the miniscule possibility, so to protect itself from lawsuits it labels the coffee as hot. Now, my concern isn't that the company is not trying to send a message about minimum requirements. I do think that it is in this case. My concern is that if the company could've made the message clearer and more explicit If on the box it said that the game will not run without a quad-core, just like games in the past said that they will not run unless the GPU had DX9 or DX 10 then I think EA/Bioware would have fewer people trying to argue that they should support the game. Furthermore, if it does come out that the game is able to run on a dual-core platform and it was a simple code injection away, then that creates an atmosphere of laziness to the consumer (such is the case now with Ubisoft and Far Cry 4), regardless of whether that is a legitimate judgement or not. Companies don't care about whether or not complaints are legitimate, but rather whether or not they exist in the first place, and how damaging they can be. I am arguing that it would've been in EA's/Bioware's interest, knowing very well that core-count never really was a hard-requirement to startup the game and also knowing very well that many consumers wouldn't mind running the game at low setting and framerates, to make it clear through their information that the game is not only performing poorly on dual-cores but it is also not performing at all on dual cores. Now I understand there was risk involved on the consumer's end, and I don't think the consumer is entirely blameless, but the producer has power to reduce such conflicts, and it makes sense - especially since the cost is minimal - to use such power. Some of the confusion, for example, was caused by a Bioware QA saying he was running the game quite well on a 2-threaded CPU and that people with 2-threaded CPU's should be fine. That turned out to be false, he was running two 2-threaded Xeons, not one. Information like that confuses people and causes a distrustful environment, regardless of whether the mistakes were legitimate.
MOD EDIT: To clear up some potential misinformation, here are the exact quotes referenced in this post.
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/515302-dragon-age-i
nquisition-pc-screenshots-system-requirements-and- ...
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/515302-dragon-age-inquisition-pc-screenshots-system-requirements-and- ... - Fred_vdp
Censurely is a fool. Don't waste your time, scuev. He'd rather point to abstractions and definitions rather than understand the history of material practice, specifically game marketing and program optimization. He might as well go to ferguson and claim that racial equality exists because the definition of democracy says so.
