DICE to require a 64bit OS next for games next year

maxilive said:
I'm guessing that is kind of taken out of context? What he probably means is future Dice games will need at least 4GB ram as recommended specs, therefore needing 64bit. I doubt they will stop 32bit OS's from running the game but they just wont support them.
Click to expand...

Just a drop of Dx9 support, like BF3, because they'll use Frostbite 2
 
R.P.L said:
Why's that?
Click to expand...

Because you can't use more than 3-3.75GB of RAM for the whole PC under 32bit. Games like BC2 can use up to 2GB of RAM easily, factor in 2GB used by Windows anyway and you see where problems come about.
 
R.P.L said:
It was a lie... at the very least they changed mid way through development (DICE even admitted this themselves).
Click to expand...

Where and how? I don't really understand what they mean by "Lead" the platform.
As far as i can see, it's perfectly stable (for me), looks flipping amazing and is great fun. I assume on console it would be the same, but with less players on a map and it looks a lot worse.
 
Rossi~ said:
Where and how? I don't really understand what they mean by "Lead" the platform.
As far as i can see, it's perfectly stable (for me), looks flipping amazing and is great fun. I assume on console it would be the same, but with less players on a map and it looks a lot worse.
Click to expand...

They're not saying that it leads the platform - they are saying that the game is primarily developed with PC in mind rather than the primary platform being consoles/etc.

This has been proven to be a false statement by things such as ps3 getting patches earlier, etc.
 
I suppose people will have time to upgrade before theses games do require 64bit.

With all the new stuff coming out im sure true gamers will have even more up to date stuff by then.
 
Rossi~ said:
What's wrong with their statement? I seem to have missed something here.
Click to expand...

Lead platform was a misleading term.

the PC gaming master race mistook this information as recognition of their superiority, and that the PC version of Battlefield 3 would be superior to all the other versions, designed from the group up to be superior, without the shackles of any console herp derpery and free to shine as a PC gaming beacon amongst the crpa console ports.

What they actually got was a game that had a lead console platform (PS3) but came with a dedicated PC version as opposed to a console port, and with game balancing designed to keep the experience on the PC the same as on the on console.
 
Last edited:
Rossi~ said:
Where and how? I don't really understand what they mean by "Lead" the platform.
As far as i can see, it's perfectly stable (for me), looks flipping amazing and is great fun. I assume on console it would be the same, but with less players on a map and it looks a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Google 'BF3 console lead platform' and you'll find plenty. It's referring to PC being 'the lead platform', i.e. as others have said the primary platform for development. I think the main gripe as far as I can tell is that it is lacking features that the BF / PC community has come to expect from PC exclusives such as mod tools, and issues like the commorose not working properly at launch (no idea if it works now), which surely would have been higher priority if PC was lead platform.
It also runs like poo for lots of people on PC, although that seems to be the case with lots of games these days.
 
R.P.L said:
Why's that?
Click to expand...

32-bit versions are unable to address more than 4Gb of memory. ~512Mb will be reserved by the system for various things, so can't be addressed. If you have a 1Gb graphics card then that's another Gb of RAM which can't be addressed. That leaves you with ~2.5Gb of addressable memory, which will be seen by your system as usable RAM.
And if you have a GPU with more graphics memory then that eats more into the addressable memory, leaving you with essentially even less RAM.

So, yeah. Unless you only have 2Gb of ram, you really need a 64-bit OS.
 
iviv said:
32-bit versions are unable to address more than 4Gb of memory. ~512Mb will be reserved by the system for various things, so can't be addressed. If you have a 1Gb graphics card then that's another Gb of RAM which can't be addressed. That leaves you with ~2.5Gb of addressable memory, which will be seen by your system as usable RAM.
And if you have a GPU with more graphics memory then that eats more into the addressable memory, leaving you with essentially even less RAM.

So, yeah. Unless you only have 2Gb of ram, you really need a 64-bit OS.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I didn't realise that so much RAM got hogged by other stuff (didn't even realise that GPU memory worked that way, what a noob :D).
I've got 8GB and 64-bit OS anyway, so hey ho!
 
I see nothing wrong with this at all

to take advantage of 4gb + RAM you need 64 bit OS anyway, so there is no reason why I can see that developers should hold back on developing more resource intensive games simply because people are still in the stoneage with their OS.

You can build a decent 64bit capable rig for well under a grand these days
 
wildman said:
I see nothing wrong with this at all

to take advantage of 4gb + RAM you need 64 bit OS anyway, so there is no reason why I can see that developers should hold back on developing more resource intensive games simply because people are still in the stoneage with their OS.

You can build a decent 64bit capable rig for well under a grand these days
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that they have a problem with it - just that it won't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom