a new type of shilling - game developer locks content to specific Intel i7 CPUs [updated]

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

Bruh stop. Wasitn your time. This is the dude that tried to argue with me that water cant be a human right because then itd be legal to eat people for the water in their bodies. 

Just because it sounds absurd doesn't mean it is. To have a right to something requires that something be indivisible and unalienable. Definitions, learn them.

[S w a t s o n]

14 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, those are facts, related by experts, based on information available in their Q&A session. It was done in scientific method. You, again, assume something that frankly you can't. Seriously, impugning chief developers at both Microsoft and Facebook who do nothing but optimize code? You have oversized balls for your knowledge and abilities.

 

No, you made two more beside it and four backing assumptions to the one you listed here. You may not realize you made them, but you did, just as you claimed I didn't observe my own assumptions.

Ah because experts never have their own biases or make unfounded claims with no evidence. Show me their scientific method, show me how they have proven what you say to be a fact.

 

Are we talking about the same thing? I've only made one assumption in my hypothesis about the dev's decision. We were talking about occam's razor and why your hypothesis required more assumptions than mine, not how many assumptions we can each make about any number of other topics.

 

Spoiler

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

So many entitled whiners here.  It isn't taking away a feature, it is giving a bonus to others ON TOP of the content they paid for.   This me too genration is ridiculous.

I don't even have money to buy the game

[PlayStation 2]

And this thread collapsed into a shitshow?

[S w a t s o n]

11 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

And this thread collapsed into a shitshow?

You've made a good point. I'm actually just ending the argument here, if he responds I will not respond back for the sake of the thread and my sanity. There's no fair way to break it off like this but it's getting a bit much.

[christianled59]

3 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It really couldn't have, something an actual game optimization engineer with standards would know.

 

Of course there was actual developer support. When has Intel ever stepped into helping game studios optimize financially or otherwise. It isn't a possibility. It's a certainty.

 

I mentioned the cache and hyperthreading because it is expertise only Intel would have in this case. It's an argument of my own claim there was actual development support.

 

It's only understandable in that it wasn't disclosed up front.

If it couldn't have been done any other way then why don't other games do this? Come on dude, stop with the demeaning bullshit. "something an actual game optimization engineer with standards would know." You might as well told me "fuck you". Some debate, huh?

 

If there was support then why did you make the claim that it would take more than 5 months without the correct skills? If you're claiming they had the help, then it shouldn't have taken that long. Also, considering the fact it's a timed exclusive, why not just release the game whole when, whatever they're doing, is finished? That's right, because it's a paid time exclusive.

 

This is nothing more than a money grab. 

[christianled59]

Abandoning thread. I was gone for several hours; I didn't know this actually went on for this long. Lol

[Mirdon]

Really glad there's an ignore user option, people who try and justify this crap are the types of people you can't have a healthy conversation with.

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Intel gave them money because that's what Nvidia and AMD do to get studios supporting new optimization and effects. That it required optimization for Hyperthreading to be feasible up front is not remotely surprising. It's clear game studios aren't ready for vectorization still, so it makes perfect sense to anyone with a background in game development and especially HPC programming.

 

Yes you are, provably. If you had quoted me in full you'd have also captured where I said Intel provided development support for optimization, which is obvious to anyone who isn't thick as a brick.

 

You are making seven assumptions. I'm making two.

Nvidia and AMD do not lock away promotional features behind and SKU. It might be impractical for you to use gamework features on anything below a 1070 sure, but you have the option if you want to. I'm sure Nvidia would like to move more 1070s and 1080s but saying "Hairworks available only on high end SKUs" would defeat the purpose.

 

So even if for technical reasons your argument is correct (I am not conceding that this is a strict hypothetical from me) this promotion it's still a terrible idea from a business perspective. Intel needs to do something else than lock away features behind high skus arbitrarily and maybe this promotion wouldn't be so divisive towards the vast majority of their intended target audience.

[patrickjp93]

5 hours ago, Swatson said:

Ah because experts never have their own biases or make unfounded claims with no evidence. Show me their scientific method, show me how they have proven what you say to be a fact.

 

Are we talking about the same thing? I've only made one assumption in my hypothesis about the dev's decision. We were talking about occam's razor and why your hypothesis required more assumptions than mine, not how many assumptions we can each make about any number of other topics.

 

Your conclusion requires more assumptions than mine to have a strong backing, let alone an air-right one.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Nvidia and AMD do not lock away promotional features behind and SKU. It might be impractical for you to use gamework features on anything below a 1070 sure, but you have the option if you want to. I'm sure Nvidia would like to move more 1070s and 1080s but saying "Hairworks available only on high end SKUs" would defeat the purpose.

 

So even if for technical reasons your argument is correct (I am not conceding that this is a strict hypothetical from me) this promotion it's still a terrible idea from a business perspective. Intel needs to do something else than lock away features behind high skus arbitrarily and maybe this promotion wouldn't be so divisive towards the vast majority of their intended target audience.

Your use of the term arbitrary is both incorrect and telling of your own bias. Their target audience is VR. Screw off. The people capable of handling VR are the top 15% of hardware owners. That a game dev acknowledges that with harder locks is of no consequence to those who couldn't tolerate a sub-par experience anyway!

[patrickjp93]

21 hours ago, christianled59 said:

If it couldn't have been done any other way then why don't other games do this? Come on dude, stop with the demeaning bullshit. "something an actual game optimization engineer with standards would know." You might as well told me "fuck you". Some debate, huh?

 

If there was support then why did you make the claim that it would take more than 5 months without the correct skills? If you're claiming they had the help, then it shouldn't have taken that long. Also, considering the fact it's a timed exclusive, why not just release the game whole when, whatever they're doing, is finished? That's right, because it's a paid time exclusive.

 

This is nothing more than a money grab. 

SOmeone has to be first.

 

A couple Intel engineers are supposed to optimize 10^6 lines of code in 6 months on their own?! You people have zero sense of scale and capability.

 

Because that costs the devs money which they need to pay loans for. God you people are so narrow-minded it's astounding!

 

No, it's a necessary move by a company needing a leg up in a very competitive industry with vey little liquid cash on hand.

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Your use of the term arbitrary is both incorrect and telling of your own bias. Their target audience is VR. Screw off. The people capable of handling VR are the top 15% of hardware owners. That a game dev acknowledges that with harder locks is of no consequence to those who couldn't tolerate a sub-par experience anyway!

Oh so you think realistically anybody with a 1050 can enable Nvidia Hairworks on the Witcher 3?

 

Spoiler

 

Is the feature blocked by Nvidia and CDProjekRed if you don't own a 1070 or a 1080? Hell you can even enable the feature on AMD cards, on low end AMD cards even.

 

You're wrong patrick: pragmatically, Hairworks is an even more marginal setting than the top 15% of users. In fact almost no game developer does that they might recommend, detect hardware and set defaults to game settings but you can still enable the settings and be greeted by 3 FPS average after waiting an hour to load. So even if there was NO promotion at all it would still be asinine to restrict a feature that's not specifically dependent on hardware to specific hardware just because it's better hardware.

[patrickjp93]

17 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Oh so you think realistically anybody with a 1050 can enable Nvidia Hairworks on the Witcher 3?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Is the feature blocked by Nvidia and CDProjekRed if you don't own a 1070 or a 1080? Hell you can even enable the feature on AMD cards, on low end AMD cards even.

 

You're wrong patrick: pragmatically, Hairworks is an even more marginal setting than the top 15% of users. In fact almost no game developer does that they might recommend, detect hardware and set defaults to game settings but you can still enable the settings and be greeted by 3 FPS average after waiting an hour to load. So even if there was NO promotion at all it would still be asinine to restrict a feature that's not specifically dependent on hardware to specific hardware just because it's better hardware.

They can. They shouldn't. That Intel and Co. went as far as to say "you can't" in preservation of experience quality does not surprise nor offend me. Why should it?!

 

No it's not! It's at worst elitist!

[Misanthrope]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

They can. They shouldn't. That Intel and Co. went as far as to say "you can't" in preservation of experience quality does not surprise nor offend me. Why should it?!

 

No it's not! It's at worst elitist!

So is anybody saying Intel or this crap company Shouldn't do this promotion? We're just saying it's fucking stupid, and the backlash is well earned. Don't be disengenious nobody is trying to deny intel and Co. here have the right to do this.

 

For all your technical knowledge you act very unfamiliar with how PC culture works: This is an open platform. Every time any company, old or new, takes any step to make the platform less open, there's gonna be backlash you can "expect us" so to speak. Criticism and even boycotts do not infringe on anybody's rights and nobody is suggesting that. 

 

The idea is just fucking stupid, on several levels. You have done nothing to persuade anybody on the contrary since even your own points on how this is needed to push forward hyper threading defeat the purpose: It's a better idea to heavily suggest hyper threading and let people compare and see how much better the features on the promotion are with an i7 processor because of hyper threading.

 

You should be opposed to bad ideas that hurt the very thing you're trying to promote, and alienating people is one such bad idea, so much so that the devs correctly backed down already. Anybody can see forcing people so overtly doesn't works. Anybody but a true, irrationally authoritarian that believes everybody should conform to his worldview, patrick. 

[Ryujin2003]

On 12/07/2016 at 6:38 PM, zMeul said:

source: https://steamcommunity.com/app/342180/discussions/0/152391285458876458/#c152391285459577448

 

after purchasing Arizona Sunshine (VR title) from Vertigo Games, customers found out the hard way two of the game's modes are locked out with no indication of why - they took to STEAM forums

what they found is extremely concerning, especially since this wasn't disclosed in advance:

 

so, it appears that Vertigo Games have struck a exclusivity deal with Intel for two of the game modes - the users with 5th (Broadwell), 6th (Skylake) and 7th (Kaby Lake) gen Core i7 CPUs get to play them, the rest will have to wait 3 months

 

---

 

update: 1H later modder unlocked the previous locked modes

---

 

update 2: developers open the game modes to everyone https://steamcommunity.com/games/342180/announcements/detail/289751074098300224

 

Maintain 90 FPS in a 60hz monitor. Love it.

[Inkz]

Are you kidding me? I have a 4770k in my desktop and you are going to lock me out? I even have a i7 but because it is not within the last 2 cycles with ALMOST NO PERFORMANCE GAIN you lock me out? I am not interested in these games, but still the concept is terrible.  Also I know the issue is fixed, but still it should have never happened in the first place.

[patrickjp93]

18 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

So is anybody saying Intel or this crap company Shouldn't do this promotion? We're just saying it's fucking stupid, and the backlash is well earned. Don't be disengenious nobody is trying to deny intel and Co. here have the right to do this.

 

For all your technical knowledge you act very unfamiliar with how PC culture works: This is an open platform. Every time any company, old or new, takes any step to make the platform less open, there's gonna be backlash you can "expect us" so to speak. Criticism and even boycotts do not infringe on anybody's rights and nobody is suggesting that. 

 

The idea is just fucking stupid, on several levels. You have done nothing to persuade anybody on the contrary since even your own points on how this is needed to push forward hyper threading defeat the purpose: It's a better idea to heavily suggest hyper threading and let people compare and see how much better the features on the promotion are with an i7 processor because of hyper threading.

 

You should be opposed to bad ideas that hurt the very thing you're trying to promote, and alienating people is one such bad idea, so much so that the devs correctly backed down already. Anybody can see forcing people so overtly doesn't works. Anybody but a true, irrationally authoritarian that believes everybody should conform to his worldview, patrick. 

No no no and no across the board. It's not locking down the platform. It's putting reality in your face. If you want more performance or higher quality at the same performance level, it takes work, work the games industry lacks the expertise to accomplish on its own for now. That Intel stepped in to help with optimization is no surprise, and that the studio decided to put the content under different minimum constraints is not surprising!

 

What, would you prefer the minimum for the WHOLE GAME be the I7 instead? Screw off. The companies deserve to have these options, and they shouldn't be harangued for exercising them. 

 

I'm not trying to convince you or persuade you. I'm disproving your idea of rationality. This does nothing to hurt the platform. 

[patrickjp93]

14 hours ago, Inkz said:

Are you kidding me? I have a 4770k in my desktop and you are going to lock me out? I even have a i7 but because it is not within the last 2 cycles with ALMOST NO PERFORMANCE GAIN you lock me out? I am not interested in these games, but still the concept is terrible.  Also I know the issue is fixed, but still it should have never happened in the first place.

There's a 30% gain in AVX/2 workloads (Linpack benchmarks). Not to mention the mainstream Broadwell I7 has 128MB of eDRAM, and cache optimizations can have huge effects. Seriously people, do some damn research before you make wildly inaccurate statements.

[Inkz]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

There's a 30% gain in AVX/2 workloads (Linpack benchmarks). Not to mention the mainstream Broadwell I7 has 128MB of eDRAM, and cache optimizations can have huge effects. Seriously people, do some damn research before you make wildly inaccurate statements.

Let me rephrase that, for games there has been a minimal change.

[patrickjp93]

Just now, Inkz said:

Let me rephrase that, for games there has been a minimal change.

And this is a game Intel is helping hand-optimize for Hyperthreading and who knows what else. Clearly, this is not going to be like the average cases.

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

There's a 30% gain in AVX/2 workloads (Linpack benchmarks). Not to mention the mainstream Broadwell I7 has 128MB of eDRAM, and cache optimizations can have huge effects. Seriously people, do some damn research before you make wildly inaccurate statements.

So, what about an i7 4790K at 4.7GHz core, 4.6GHz cache (any higher requires a better cooler)?

[patrickjp93]

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

So, what about an i7 4790K at 4.7GHz core, 4.6GHz cache (any higher requires a better cooler)?

You can't have minimum requirements be overclocked parts. As for the cache, quantity and speed are equally important.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

Seriously people, do some damn research before you make wildly inaccurate statements.

 Must...resist...urge...

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

 Must...resist...urge...

To stick your foot in your mouth?