Will PS 2 succeed at launch?

[PredatorFour]

When planetside was released in 03 it struggled because of no widespread broadband connection and wasnt as popular as it shouldve been. It was ahead of its time.

The concern is; is this next incarnation ahead of its time also ??

Alot of people it seems are struggling to get in because of the system requirements. They`ve set the bar high and it looks great on good systems, but how much of the playerbase will have them good systems to make it run/look good? How many years before the majority of the playerbase will have these systems as standard?

Is this going to be a similiar outcome to what happened with the original? /discuss

[Sledgecrushr]

I think there is a chance that this game could influence the entire pc industry in a good way. Ps2 in my opinion is already that good.

[Syphus]

When planetside was released in 03 it struggled because of no widespread broadband connection and wasnt as popular as it shouldve been. It was ahead of its time.

The concern is; is this next incarnation ahead of its time also ??

Alot of people it seems are struggling to get in because of the system requirements. They`ve set the bar high and it looks great on good systems, but how much of the playerbase will have them good systems to make it run/look good? How many years before the majority of the playerbase will have these systems as standard?

Is this going to be a similiar outcome to what happened with the original? /discuss

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

There you go, so no I don't think that's really an issue.

[SpottyGekko]

At high gfx settings the game looks absolutely amazing :D

At lower settings it just looks very good :)

I'd guess that PS2 will be totally playable on average PC's that are used to play current games. That was not so much the case with PS1.

But poor internet access was a much bigger factor when PS1 launched imho. Nowadays the average MMO gamer has a very good internet connection with vastly more bandwidth available than in 2003.

[Drakkonan]

I'd like to say yes, but it's looking more and more like a soft launch (if it hasn't already reached that status), which means bad things for release. Everyone who's even heard of the game has had a chance to play it and already formed their opinions despite the game being unfinished. Its only saving grace is that it's free-to-play.

I'd like to see them close beta for a month or two. Start advertising, and then release the game.

[Falrond]

With proper advertising, it could absolutely get off to a great launch =)
Having it on steam really helps this alot, which as far as I have heard it will be?

I have a half year old 1000$ laptop, and I can run it on low settings with between 30-50 fps, dipping to 20-30 in the big battles. So many people on the PC platform which this game aims at should be able to play this game =)

[Dagron]

My PC is ancient, i have to set everything to low and i still love it. People want their game to be beautiful, but it's not a deal breaker for most. Yes we want Auraxis to look good, but we're not here for the view, we're here to fight a war.

[Tatwi]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

There you go, so no I don't think that's really an issue.

So the fact that 56% of Steam gamers have a dual core or single core system that won't have a hope in hell of running the game at decent frame rates isn't really an issue? And how many of those quad core or better that make up the remaining 44% are older Core 2s and AMDs that also run the game at unacceptable frame rates?

I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Quad with a GTS450 and 6GB of DDR2 667MHz RAM. This is more powerful than an XBox 360, which also uses the Direct3D api. I can play PS2 great when no one is around (works better on high settings than on low, believe it or not...), but in a Planetside scale battle, 0 to 20 FPS with hitching galore makes the game unplayable at any graphical setting, due to the combat calculations that are going on. While I can play at those low frame rates, it's an unfun lesson in futility to do so and given the huge volume of games out there, why would people stick around for that kind of mess when they can play something else that runs better?

Graphically the game works well, but combat wise it requires a good Core i5 processor. It can't be played on any of the consoles at all and the majority of PCs won't be able to play it as intended at acceptable frame rates. How does this not make PS2 a niche game in the making?

[Timealude]

Its hard to say right now. There are still alot of people not in the beta, despite there being tons of keys they gave out, for people to judge the game simply because its constantly changing...Hell we might not even be looking at the same game now as we will when they release. From what I have played it has potential and that is a good start with another continent as well as other things this game should be a home run.

[selmu]

Well i dont know what kind of pc you need to roll planetside 2. I roll bf 3 in ultra with 40-50 fps, and cant roll ps 2 with more than 10 fps.

Good idea, good game, shitty engine and very poor progamation. Those developers lately they just forgot how to make pc games, everything is shitty cpu bound. The UI is incredible bad, it consumes alot of your cpu never saw such bad job like that.
It will suced for those living in near the servers. They really need much optimization.

[Timealude]

Well i dont know what kind of pc you need to roll planetside 2. I roll bf 3 in ultra with 40-50 fps, and cant roll ps 2 with more than 10 fps.

Good idea, good game, shitty engine and very poor progamation. Those developers lately they just forgot how to make pc games, everything is shitty cpu bound. The UI is incredible bad, it consumes alot of your cpu never saw such bad job like that.
It will suced for those living in near the servers. They really need much optimization.

I have an I5 and live no where near san deigo and i run at 30-40 on high in big battles.

[JawsOfLife]

Well the steam stats show why Sony decided to go with PhysX on Nvidia gpus. 9/10 of the top most used discrete graphics cards are nVidia (which is actually a staggeringly large number).

[AThreatToYou]

Graphically the game works well, but combat wise it requires a good Core i5 processor.

FALSE

30+ constant frames on AMD Phenom II X4. What the game requires is a quad-core processor, however.
AMD processors will have no trouble running PS2 due to it using all available cores. Yes, finally! Your hex-core and octa-core processors will finally be used by a good game!

[Tatwi]

FALSE

30+ constant frames on AMD Phenom II X4. What the game requires is a quad-core processor, however.
AMD processors will have no trouble running PS2 due to it using all available cores. Yes, finally! Your hex-core and octa-core processors will finally be used by a good game!

So the hundreds of beta testers on the beta tech support forums with quad phenom IIs are wrong, because you say so. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

[Morsong]

I have thought about this as well, and I think that Planetside 2 is going to be a hell of a lot more popular than PS1. Most users finally do have a good enough of a broadband connection, but now the main concern is with peoples pcs. Are they powerful enough? Here's my take on it:

Back when PS1 came out buying a new computer and good upgrades was quite expensive. It still is but it isn't as expensive as it was. I still haven't played PS2 because I need to upgrade my mobo, cpu, and ram, maybe even my gpu. But you know what? Hardware is a lot cheaper nowadays than it was, and I think that will be in favor of people who need to upgrade to play.

Plus PS2 is f2p. I think it'll stay quite nicely with people. :)

[AThreatToYou]

So the hundreds of beta testers on the beta tech support forums with quad phenom IIs are wrong, because you say so. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

They are probably also using an AMD/ATi video card, which haven't been coded in properly yet to my knowledge. I also imagine a lot of those posts are out of date. If it works so well on one Phenom II X4, I fail to understand how it should perform badly on all others. Y'know, there are other factors involved, such as other programs being ran and the like.

There is no practical need for an Intel processor as far as running video games go, and there hasn't been for years. Yes, I understand the latest Intel processors are technically superior in almost every way, but they are certainly not needed to play PlanetSide 2. At least to the point where they are the only viable processors to run the game at max settings, because even at current they are not.

[wraithverge]

new game comes out, only half the systems can play it. You haven't been a PC gamers long if this shocks you.

[JawsOfLife]

They are probably also using an AMD/ATi video card, which haven't been coded in properly yet to my knowledge. I also imagine a lot of those posts are out of date. If it works so well on one Phenom II X4, I fail to understand how it should perform badly on all others. Y'know, there are other factors involved, such as other programs being ran and the like.

There is no practical need for an Intel processor as far as running video games go, and there hasn't been for years. Yes, I understand the latest Intel processors are technically superior in almost every way, but they are certainly not needed to play PlanetSide 2. At least to the point where they are the only viable processors to run the game at max settings, because even at current they are not.

No need for an Intel processor to run video games well? This chart (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html) disagrees with you. here you see an i5 2400 generating almost 20 more fps than a phenom II X4 980, from 40.9 to 59.9 fps, a HUGE performance jump. Yes, Intel does own the gaming scene. Not to say AMD cpu's are worthless, but from a gaming perspective, Sandy/ivy Bridge is just so much better.

[Dagron]

new game comes out, only half the systems can play it. You haven't been a PC gamers long if this shocks you.
^This. Upgrading your rig every few years is the norm, people should get with the times.


This game will cause a decline in the birth rate.
I certainly hope so. xD
 

[AThreatToYou]

No need for an Intel processor to run video games well? This chart (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html) disagrees with you. here you see an i5 2400 generating almost 20 more fps than a phenom II X4 980, from 40.9 to 59.9 fps, a HUGE performance jump. Yes, Intel does own the gaming scene. Not to say AMD cpu's are worthless, but from a gaming perspective, Sandy/ivy Bridge is just so much better.

Sure, sure, propaganda...

the big deal is this:
40.9 to 59.9 fps

not this

here you see an i5 2400 generating almost 20 more fps than a phenom II X4 980,

You're looking at the wrong information if we're judging the hardware independently. 41 FPS is completely playable. So is 60. Is 60 better? Yes. Is 20 fps worth paying roughly an extra 200$ for? I imagine at least half of the PC crowd would think not.

If an AMD processor runs the game at a playable rate, yes, there really is no need for an Intel processor. I don't think you understand what the word "need" means.

[JawsOfLife]

Sure, sure, propaganda...

the big deal is this:


not this



You're looking at the wrong information if we're judging the hardware independently. 41 FPS is completely playable. So is 60. Is 60 better? Yes. Is 20 fps worth paying roughly an extra 200$ for? I imagine at least half of the PC crowd would think not.

If an AMD processor runs the game at a playable rate, yes, there really is no need for an Intel processor. I don't think you understand what the word "need" means.

The point is not how many frames more exactly it generates, the point is, it generates roughly 50% better frames. That means in unplayable games, an intel could make the game playable. I.e. where a Phenom II X4 gets 20 FPS (bad experience) the i5 2400 would get 30 fps (Much more playable).

Also, even towards the end of its life, the Phenom II X4 was about $150, as compared to the $190 of the core i5 2400. That's a $40 difference, not $200 difference lol.

[Boone]

It will be a huge success I think if it runs well on majority of PCs. The game will still be fun I'm sure with 1 West and 1 East server, but SOE isn't making much money I'd think. I don't expect this game to have 100 servers anyway like the norm with MMOs.

Not too worried. They have, what, 3-4 more months to work on it? This is if it doesn't slip into 2013 which I still think it may. Not far into 2013, but I believe it'll slip, which to be honest is fine with me.

Long term worries me a little only because how the majority of gamers minds work nowadays. They just move and hop onto the next thing. F2P should help this a lot, but most people just don't have the attention span to stick with a game. They just have to play the new game.

PC gamers aren't near as bad as console players in that respect though from what I've seen. They need to market a bit better though, but I'm sure they're saving that closer to release. Don't want to look like Blizzard who markets years in advance...waste of money my opinion unless Blizzard (they must put something in the water to their fans I swear).

[Crator]

What are you using to measure success OP? What is your definition of failure? (as you seem to think PS1 failed somehow)...

[Hosp]

I'm thinking Hamma starts banning for the "Will PS2 Fail/Succeed" threads.

[PredatorFour]

What are you using to measure success OP? What is your definition of failure? (as you seem to think PS1 failed somehow)...

Seem to think PS failed? Well it did in marketing for sure, hardly anyone knew about it when it shouldve been really well known. My definition of success is the same as the devs, to set the bar at a new high for FPS games in general.

[Crator]

Seem to think PS failed? Well it did in marketing for sure, hardly anyone knew about it when it shouldve been really well known. My definition of success is the same as the devs, to set the bar at a new high for FPS games in general.

Sorry, seems like I combined my response to some other comments in this thread with the OP... You are correct, advertising was minimal in PS1 and was not good in that regard. We all know PS2 is doing so much more in the way of advertising and that will help a great deal. Another thing that will help will be the free-to-play model. This is a MMOFPS. Not many of those types of games out there really. So you're thinking all other FPS games will convert to MMOFPS in the future due to PS2? I'm not certain about that. PS2 may very well redefine what we know about all genres of MMORPGs though. The game changer being truly massive and goal oriented towards player vs player interactions that includes thousands of players in the same area working towards goals in those areas at the same time.

[cryosin]

Not true. You can run the game on a $400 computer if you really wanted to, at around 30 FPS. That's very playable.

You get what you pay for. If you wanna run the game at 60 FPS, you gotta spend the dough.

That's just how PC gaming works :P

Core i5 + 560ti + 8GB system would be about $600 newegg and $700-800 pre-built. That's a reasonable price for a gaming PC and that should run PS2 flawlessly.

[drhax]

Not true. You can run the game on a $400 computer if you really wanted to, at around 30 FPS. That's very playable.

You get what you pay for. If you wanna run the game at 60 FPS, you gotta spend the dough.

That's just how PC gaming works :P

Core i5 + 560ti + 8GB system would be about $600 newegg and $700-800 pre-built. That's a reasonable price for a gaming PC and that should run PS2 flawlessly.

I have that exact same system but with i5 OC to 4.4 and it doesn't run ps2 flawless. I get about average of 50/60 Fps in small fights and in big ones it starts dipping on high/med setting. I have latest drivers too.