Working solution for Intel dual core CPUs!

---

@censurely wrote:

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:

---

No it's not. Conspiracy theory doesn't mean extrapolating a conclusion from anecdotal evidence. It means this:

1. A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation.

@ censurely,

cheers, yeah, was going to go for the upgrade as the cpu is the weakest component in the system, but a little reassurence doesn't hurt.

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\

---

@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.