Working solution for Intel dual core CPUs!

---

@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. 

"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. 

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:

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-inquisition-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.