360 and PS3 FIFA 09 would only run on "1-3% of PCs"

Kyur4ThePain - 471 days 6 hours ago

What they're saying is that only 3% of people have PCs that are as powerful (or more) than the Ps3 / 360.
The other 97% have crappy PCs.

Agree(11) | Disagree(1) | Report

JsonHenry - 471 days 6 hours ago

Yeah right. There is NO WAY machines that have only 512megs of RAM (total including video RAM) and video cards that were outdated in 2005 cannot play a game at or below a native resolution of 1024*720 is too hard for all but 3% of PCs...

I wish these people were made to prove their statements as being true before they are allowed to put up for everyone to read and take as fact.

Agree(8) | Disagree(11) | Report

GVON - 471 days 5 hours ago

"The PC version of FIFA 09 is different to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions because of the CPU processing power required for the architecture of the game"

no it's just saying the cpu's are far more powerfull than most peoples pc cpu's,nothing to do with ram or gpu's

Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report

Sitdown - 470 days 11 hours ago

It's obvious that you did not ready the article....when looking at his statement, it seems that he was obviously saying that only 1-3% of users that will be playing FIFA on the pc have upgraded their computers in order to be able to handle it. Think about how many low end computers Wal-Mart sales........then consider how many people have not upgraded their computer since 2005. There is only a small group of people that update their computers regularly.......while you have a large group who use the same computer until it completely dies on them....add in the lack of people wanting to upgrade to vista, it is obvious that not many people have gotten the proper equipment since 2005.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

shazam - 470 days 8 hours ago

that 90 percent of pcs have a single core cpu that doesnt even run at 3.2ghz. how on earth is that going to keep up with even the 360's triple core cpu let alone the freakin cell processor. seriously jason henry is a ridiculously huge pc fan. he thinks that everyone buys a new $1000 dollar pc or $1000 dollars worth of upgrades every year like him. he is in the vast minority.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

cemelc - 471 days 5 hours ago

Facts are not BS, if they were BS they wouldnt be facts.

Agree(13) | Disagree(1) | Report

TheIneffableBob - 471 days 4 hours ago

Well, then 42% of statistics are false.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

GameOn - 471 days 2 hours ago

most facts are not facts at all, they are just peoples opinions passed off as fact.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

andron666 - 471 days 2 hours ago

EA won't waste money if it wasn't necessary...

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Fishy Fingers - 471 days 5 hours ago

You can always link your PC to your HDTV and play with pads (either PS or Xbox, both available).

I do it. Play the consoles to, but some of my friends only have a PC.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

pwnsause - 471 days 4 hours ago

the game is PS3 lead, but i dont think that is the reason why

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

Ju - 471 days 5 hours ago

There is a PC version. They just said, if they would do it the same way they do it for 360/PS3, it would only run on 3% of the PCs. Obviously, if you need to support single cores and more RAM vs. 3core/SPUs you need to design the engine a bit differently. Maybe it scales up to a Quad, but it also needs to support single CPU machines, means less parallel design (possibly single threaded).

And, BTW, Crysis is designed for high end equipment (primarily), but scales down well, it seams. To really know what's going on would need to get a detailed report how they implemented their engine.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Peow - 471 days 5 hours ago

Yeah I guess you're right. Here's a bubble(not that you need it) since I'm generous today.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

FantasyStar - 471 days 5 hours ago

My PC will eat FIFA 09 for breakfast, then one hour later, it would get hungry again for more.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Jake the Muss - 471 days 3 hours ago

I agree with tk. I'm not a developer, so I cant talk for one. But developers have repeatedly stated that PC games require coding for a wide range of hardware, having to scale back to accommodate different configurations, making optimisation difficult and more time consuming.

To make a game where the engine can only run on the highest configuration of hardware would be to eliminate a large portion of your market base. The key word there is accessible. Not every one has custom built PCs like many N4G regulars have.

Consoles, on the other hand, have a set architecture and developers utilise this to optimise their engines for the single hardware configuration. I guess what the writer was trying to say is that the engine specifically optimised for the CPU-intensive consoles would only run on 1-3% of PCs if transfered directly, as the architecture is completely different. Just look at the difference in CPU structure and available RAM. You cant make use of something you don't have, after all.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

moses - 471 days 4 hours ago

Considering most people don't have dual core, or if they do it's no where near 3.2ghz, I highly doubt it. Anyways, most games now adays are GPU intensive, not majorly cpu intensive.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

narked - 471 days 4 hours ago

agreed mate, so they could have done the job better, i didnt feel the pc demo was special, looks old. they could have done a better job which would match the fifa 09 on consoles, and not whine cause the pcs arent as powerful, thats why good pc developers have tweaking bars for turning on and off, so all people can choose the way their pc works.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Ju - 471 days 4 hours ago

Re: Quad. Exactly. But that's what he's saying. This is 1-3% of the market. At least I'd understand that. So, either you optimize this for a Quadcore, which means on a 360 e.g. you simply would design it in a way that you'd run 3-6 threads, because you can. On the PS3 you'd offload as much as possible to up to 6 SPUs. But on a PC you don't know if there will be a Quad cpu. This is a fundamental design decision. They could do multiple versions and install according what you have in your machine. But you simply cannot guarantee, that your PC can run 6 threads in parallel. Running those on a single core would simply harm more then it'll help. Context switch time will simply eat up your cycles. Especially if the design requires fixed time slices for each thread.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

narked - 471 days 4 hours ago

i cant agree more mate, but i think that more than 3% have quad cores.

they also could make it scalable by putting options on or off when you start the game, and put graphics according to the system you have.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Ju - 471 days 4 hours ago

Nah, optional wouldn't work in that case. If you really have a fundamental different engine below, you'd need run A or B. Sure, it could be done thru a launcher, or the "boot strapper" could simply execute code A or B (either separate exe, dll or even monolithic binary). But maybe I am just in fantasy land here anyway. Only EA knows.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Charmers - 471 days 3 hours ago

Or you could just have a version on their own dvd. So you could have the low spec "get a decent pc" version on one disc and a high spec "decent pc" version on another disc.

At any rate these "statistics" are a load of bull and totally made up. You just need to look at the steam survey to see what a load of rubbish it is. Currently it stands at :-

single core = 58.89%
Dual Core = 36.72%
Quad Core = 4.36%

http://www.steampowered.com...

Omgz at least 4 percent of steam users have a quadcore so how does that tally with the 1 to 3% this EA guy is spouting. This is pure propoganda to shift console copies of the game.

A dual core processor is more than a match for the Xenon and Cell BE. A dual core has a full instruction set, a full execution window and is out of order processing. In contrast the console cpu's have a very narrow instruction set, no execution window and only run in-order code. They are at best a match for a high end single core and a low end dual core (sub 2ghz).

To date every single console port that has come out has run BETTER on the PC yet we are expected to magically believe that fifa09 is so "cpu intensive" that the a decent midrange PC can't handle the console version please this is nothing but a load of bull.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

SkyGamer - 470 days 19 hours ago

You do realize that the cell is still a SINGLE CORE? Keep fooling yourselves but a decent dual core pc cpu will eat the cell in ALMOST every category. The cell in the ps3 anyway is ONE POWERPC WITH 8 SPE'S. ONE IS DISABLED TO PRODUCE MORE YIELD AND ONE IS RESERVED FOR SYSTEM OS. Don't even get me started on the cache size. PC's will ALWAYS have the advantage over consoles as enthusiast can UPGRADE pretty much everything. I'd like to see the ps3 run raptor hard drives spinning at 10,000 rpm running an Intel Core2Quad Extreme at 3.2 GHZ with stock cooling and a tri-sli gtx280 or for the more cost efficient HD4870 Crossfire with 8gb of ddr3 ram. When the ps3 can do that then it can walk the walk. Til then, it only talks the talk.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

narked - 471 days 4 hours ago

it may have some calculations for each player but it will be on par with crysis for sure. this is just their lame excuse.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Charmers - 471 days ago

But there is NO evidence for these figures, even steams survey shows at least 4% of steam customers have a quadcore processor, a processor that is more than a match for the cpu's in the consoles. So just where did this EA moron get his figures then ? Did he just randomly pick out a low percentage to make the consoles look really good so they can shift more console copies ......... hm I wonder.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

XGamer - 470 days 12 hours ago

.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report