Swtor still runs 32bit dx9.

I have an i7 7700 + GTX1070 + SSD + 16gb + clean Win10 installation with all up to date drivers (win 2004 updated, Nvidia 451.67 WHQL, latest motherboard BIOS), I even optimized my win10 for gaming (google Debloat win10). I run games at 1080p 60hz monitor.

Swtor is the only game that drops fps to 20-25 inside level 75 warzones when there's 12+ players using skills. My fps is 150-200 in Fleet but once inside warzones it suffers badly.

I tried literally EVERYTHING you can imagine throughout these 8 years to try to make this game run decently. Do you remember the Ilum lag fest when the game released? I was there.

I won't upgrade to an i9 because the problem is not my system.

On my machine:

FFXIV runs at 85-105fps 100% of the time on ultra settings using extrenal shaders to improve graphics (Reshade)

Gw2 runs at 60-75fps 100% of the time on mixed settings (reduced player model limit, no reflections)

ESO runs at 70-90fps 100% of the time on all High.

WoW runs at 100fps 100% of the time.

Black Desert Online runs at 60-75fps 100% of time on Remastered with High textures.

All new titles I'm running above 60fps, not on Ultra, but a mix of High/medium.

Just installed Horizon New Dawn, running it at minimum 65fps on medium/high settings.

Tera just released today a 64bit client, the difference is absurd, 30+fps gains inside the same dungeons with same graphics settings.

Swtor is my beloved game, I won't quit but it's tiring to play with such low fps.

Some people here will say "I run the game fine with my i3 + gtx460". What is "fine"?

For me fine = 60fps. Please go to a level 75 warzone in the middle of all clutter and tell me whats the FPS.

Some people with the exact same config as me will say they run at 60+fps 100% of the time, I beg you to share the magic.

I know this may not happen, because we know that EA is just an extremely greedy company that couldn't care less about its playerbase. Bioware seems to not have the money to invest on a 64bit client, but I have hope the new influx of players would change their minds.

Once you catch on to the way of the modern world, you will stop dreaming.

The fact is, just like the real world, the gaming world too wants YOU the consumer to give as much money possible to THEM while they offer as little as possible in return, so as to reap as much rewards as possible with the least amount of resources used. This is how BW operates, too. No surprise here...

They are not going to recycle what they make from SWTOR and put it back into SWTOR. They didn't do that in the past, they recycled their money into Anthem, actually... So yeah. Stop dreaming. They found a new way to pump more money out of SWTOR with Steam, end of story.

Gw2 runs at 60-75fps 100% of the time on mixed settings (reduced player model limit, no reflections)

Then either you are the luckiest guy on earth or you never leave past starting areas, because GW2 is notorious for their bad performance for all the same reasons SWTOR is. Albeit it handles large scale battles much better, largely due to how ANet handled abilities effects and created a game with massive group content in mind.

Both games rely on Dx9 and to be fair it probably will never change. The only game I know that did upgrade their client and added multi-threading is World of Warcraft, but they had the money and the talent to do that. Changing SWTOR this much will probably end up ruining the whole game with insane amount of bugs, just as it happens every single time you update Unreal Engine or Unity to a newer version and then come back to see that your entire project is completely messed up.

OP, a 64-bit client would do nothing to improve the game's DX-9 graphics engine.

You're basically calling for a code modernization, and by that time, it's be cheaper for EA to start over, but then you're looking to a 2 to 3 year development cycle, at least.

It's been a fantasy that I've asked for many times, between a rewritten client and a new engine, but I also know that's a complete baby-and-bathwater proposal.

GW2 runs on an outdated graphics spec....yet after all the bug fixes, GW2 is a beautiful game and FPS is fine.

ESO runs on Hero, a production release, and is a beautiful game and PVP is awesome.

(Beware the Kool Aid drinkers who'll suddenly come in and attack that...)

Meanwhile, swtor runs on an Alpha release of Hero with minimal bug fixes and encounters lag and low fps in various situations.

64bit or DX9 is not the problem...it's Bioware/EA greed and "could care less" attitude.

Understand the reason why these game developers try to keep DX9 and up compatibility is to maximize the qualified player machine base.

Maximized Player Machine Base = Higher Chance of Larger Player Base = More $$$$$$

The CEOs who run the big games are not hard core gamer's like us - they have forgotten that if you build the latest and greatest AND for the latest and greatest - people will find a way to pay for it so they can play it.

It's also the real reason why their hasn't been any TRUE revolutionary step up in game engines for at least a decade. The companies in charge are building to the lowest common denominator - not to the high end segment.

=8-|

New influx of players = more money. More money = no excuses. This game NEEDS 64bit.

That depends upon a number of factors. More money may just mean less worry about the game shutting down. 🙂

It's like if you wife said:

New influx of 'overtime' = more money. More money = no excuses. We NEED a bigger house. 😂

(When all you can afford is to repair your old clunker.)

But a 64-bit engine would be nice for the ten year anniversary. 🙂

ESO runs on Hero, a production release, and is a beautiful game and PVP is awesome.

 

(Beware the Kool Aid drinkers who'll suddenly come in and attack that...)

 

|

Oh Mr. Rabbitt,

Normally I trust forum-goers to believe the splendiferous superiority of my arguments b/c each of my posts is a magnificent, Mozart-like, veritable virtuoso display of my beatific brilliance.

This time, however, they do not need to do so.

Dear Forum-goers,

Silly Mr. Rabbit has been eating too many Trixx (which should only be for kids). Don't believe me? You don't have to!!!

Yes, if you saunter over to the ESO forums there are a panoply of posts from disgruntled denizens of Tamriel, particularly about venturing into the chaos of Cyrodiil. But...

There are also a number of posts from Zenimax devs openly acknowledging that framerates and server performance, particularly in PvP, are awful. They have been incredibly forthright and open about this issue. Their most recent solution, which is questionable / debatable, has been to make dramatic changes to AoE and how proc-based sets work. They are explicit about this point.

In other words, rail on BW all you want, but don't delude yourselves into thinking PvP in ESO is all double rainbows with Lucky Leprechauns feeding you magically delicious frosted charms. (Did I really just make another cereal reference? Yes, yes I did.)

So you can believe the silly rabbit, the Hutt, or Zenimax devs themselves (which is synonymous to agreeing with the Hutt).

<<sips Kool Aid infused martini>>

Dasty

64bit or DX9 is not the problem...it's Bioware/EA greed and "could care less" attitude.

 

Understand the reason why these game developers try to keep DX9 and up compatibility is to maximize the qualified player machine base.

 

Maximized Player Machine Base = Higher Chance of Larger Player Base = More $$$$$$

 

The CEOs who run the big games are not hard core gamer's like us - they have forgotten that if you build the latest and greatest AND for the latest and greatest - people will find a way to pay for it so they can play it.

 

It's also the real reason why their hasn't been any TRUE revolutionary step up in game engines for at least a decade. The companies in charge are building to the lowest common denominator - not to the high end segment.

 

=8-|

I bet you've got that "revelations" directly from Bioware CEO...

What you are saying is wrong, although I'm not gonna here try to deny someone's greed, as you can say this about any company, but one thing I know (and I know that because I've been working in this industry for years now) is that most games from around 2010 are CPU-bound, because at that time everyone involved thought that new CPUs will continue to increase primarly in clock ratings and not the number of cores. This however was not the case.

So where your argument really fails is the part where you talk about developers insisting on staying on out-dated drivers, because it's the lowest common denominator. It's not. It only works for people that have high-end PCs from 2010, not the crowd that lately bought a random PC for 500 bucks, which has 3.2 Ghz multi-core CPU and a mid-range GPU like Radeon 570 or GTX 1050ti.

Now that the game is on Steam you can easily see the average system specs that people have:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

Even if you have a low-end PC you are going to benefit from Dx11 or Dx12 (as long as you have Windows 10 OS). On top of that it is possible to have a game working on both Dx9 and Dx12, so that people that are playing on Windows 7 can still enjoy the game.

Having that out of the way... The real reason why there was no developement in that segment is because people are no longer interested. We are living in a very simple world that is run by money and you can call EA greedy but it is only natural that they are chasing profits and the real profits are elsewhere. It's not their fault that most players choose low effort games like Fortnite or micro-transaction ridden mobile games. Successful companies are flexible and they try to adapt to whatever is popular at the time.

So in the end it's the players that are to blame. Had people kept their intrest in MMORPGs, had they not fall for lootboxes and other cheap tricks then non of that would've ever happen and Bioware would be more encouraged to update their engine. Good example here is World of Warcraft which still runs on the same engine, albeit updated several times over because it continues to make huge profits for Blizzard and therefore it creates a need for them to keep their king of MMORPGs spot for as long as it is possible and profitable.

Now that the game is on Steam you can easily see the average system specs that people have:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

Even if you have a low-end PC you are going to benefit from Dx11 or Dx12 (as long as you have Windows 10 OS). On top of that it is possible to have a game working on both Dx9 and Dx12, so that people that are playing on Windows 7 can still enjoy the game.

Fussy: software that uses DX11 can run on Windows 7.

EDIT: I'd also place limited trust in the linked page, since it says that 46% (roughly) of players have machines with four physical CPUs, which cannot be true, unless "four physical CPUs" has suddenly come to mean "four cores" rather than "four CPU sockets all full" which end-user versions of Windows won't use more than two of.

We're not going to get a true revolutionary cutting edge new game out until ONE party with a brave risk-taking investor as a backer with lots of cash commits to coding for the next computer that is 3-4 years out.

That means leaving a lot of today's entry and even mid-range PCs behind...and Internet connections.

That means worlds that are globe based, - not flat maps - immersed in navigable space.

That means worlds that can be dynamically modified by players on a pixel by pixel basis updating the servers AND other players clients.

That means no more 1024/384 xDSL but more like dedicated 1 meg UP and 8-12 meg down.

That means decos, art, gear, furnishings, etc., that can be custom etched, engraved, sculptured, and painted - which update the servers AND other players clients.

That means storing 50 to 100 gigs for each world/space instance for which there will be dozens.

That means a client that is constantly maintaining dozens of TCP sockets just for the purpose keeping updated on the changes taking place in the game every ms - i.e., your basic xDSL and Cable services are not going to cut it.

Just like back in the Doom2, Duke3D and Quake I days, hardcore gamers will find a way to afford the hardware and software needed to play the latest and greatest.

The reason why the gaming market is so saturated - yet people are bored bouncing around - from one game to the next feeling like it's all the same . . .

. . . is because that which is announced as new - really isn't.

We're in constant rehash cycles....

=8-|

/snip

Please never present a $U.S. quarter of a billion dollar proposal before a board of directors or any CFO.

Thanks in advance,

Dasty

 

Just like back in the Doom2, Duke3D and Quake I days, hardcore gamers will find a way to afford the hardware and software needed to play the latest and greatest.

There is a distinction b/t hardcore gamers and those who like MMORPGs and FPS/ other types of games.

Dasty

ESO runs on Hero, a production release, and is a beautiful game and PVP is awesome.

No ESO does NOT runs on Hero, production or not:

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx

The CEOs who run the big games are not hard core gamer's like us - they have forgotten that if you build the latest and greatest AND for the latest and greatest - people will find a way to pay for it so they can play it.

The CEOs also want to reuse engine to save cost, save time, reuse expertise, and perhaps mature the engine enough to resell it. Thus Frostbite.

https://www.usgamer.net/articles/ea-frostbite-engine-history-bioware-ea-sports

I won't blame bad graphics for an mmo though. If you wanted to dethrone WoW with tens of millions of players, which everyone believed swtor is the best bet with Bioware Story + Star Wars + EA Money, you really need to be able to run on integrated graphics. 9 years old integrated graphics on single core laptops. We know swtor have few players for an mmo now but that was not the intention.

Engine optimisation, though, is different from bad graphics. And which 64bits is only a tiny little part of.

With money they could do so much more then going 64bit. So much more.

What? When boss EA pretends that swtor does not exists, what do you expect?

With money they could do so much more then going 64bit. So much more.

Serious question. Not sarcasm. I'm a brilliant ____ who knows nothing about computers.

What could they do w/o redoing the whole game?

Dasty

Just because there are new players doesn't mean they are subscribers. They could be F2P.

That's true, most people will see that it's free, or free to try, and probably give it a go.

Swtor still runs 32bit dx9.

I have an i7 7700 + GTX1070 + SSD + 16gb + clean Win10 installation with all up to date drivers (win 2004 updated, Nvidia 451.67 WHQL, latest motherboard BIOS), I even optimized my win10 for gaming (google Debloat win10). I run games at 1080p 60hz monitor.

 

Swtor is the only game that drops fps to 20-25 inside level 75 warzones when there's 12+ players using skills. My fps is 150-200 in Fleet but once inside warzones it suffers badly.

I tried literally EVERYTHING you can imagine throughout these 8 years to try to make this game run decently. .

I feel like I hear myself...

Fussy: software that uses DX11 can run on Windows 7.

 

EDIT: I'd also place limited trust in the linked page, since it says that 46% (roughly) of players have machines with four physical CPUs, which cannot be true, unless "four physical CPUs" has suddenly come to mean "four cores" rather than "four CPU sockets all full" which end-user versions of Windows won't use more than two of.

Fussy: "four physical cores" would mean any combination of physical cores, whether it's 4 separate CPUs in separate sockets, or 2 dual-core chips, or 4 cores in one chip.

Keep in mind that each 'core' of a modern multi-core chip, is a separate CPU. (Not like the old AMD FX series that used semi-cores.)