Will PS 2 succeed at launch? - Page 2

AThreatToYou · 2012-09-16, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

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

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 I also imagine a lot of those posts are out of date.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 · 2012-09-16, 07:24 PM

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

JawsOfLife · 2012-09-16, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

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 I also imagine a lot of those posts are out of date.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 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 · 2012-09-17, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by wraithverge

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.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This game will cause a decline in the birth rate.

I certainly hope so. xD

AThreatToYou · 2012-09-17, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by JawsOfLife

No need for an Intel processor to run video games well? This chart 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 · 2012-09-17, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

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 · 2012-09-17, 11:56 AM

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 · 2012-09-17, 12:03 PM

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

Hosp · 2012-09-17, 12:13 PM

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

PredatorFour · 2012-09-17, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

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 · 2012-09-17, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

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 · 2012-09-19, 06:40 AM

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 · 2012-09-19, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.