Piracy Makes CoD4 Devs Sad

[Sqrl]

naznatips said:

Sqrl said:

naznatips said:

Bark said:
The problem with PC games is that you won't know for sure that your PC can handle a game until you try it. Yes, there are minimum requirements, but sometimes a game is unplayable even if you are above the minimums. If a game seems too slow or you don't like it for any other reason, you can't take it back. Most stores won't allow you to return opened PC software. This is due to piracy of course. This also LEADS to more piracy as you can't try games that don't have demos before you buy them.

That's bullshit. http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

That will check minimum and recommended. It will show you how far above minimum your system is. It's even more bullshit an excuse because CoD4 (like most PC games today) has a freaking demo! There is no excuse for stealing a game. Maybe if it didn't have a demo and you just wanted to see if it ran, but how many people actually do that? Certainly none of the ones playing online.

As much as I agree about the negative effects of piracy on the PC gaming market I have to point out that that systemrequirements tool isn't that great.

Aside from the fact that it marks you down for using XP (when it is actually a noticeble boost to performance) It also has issues with varying VRAM and Processors. Its far from completely useless but it really has a hard time when it comes to precisly categorizing. It will get you in the ballpark and thats about all its good for.

I have both XP and Vista on my PC and Vista runs everything just as well as XP as long as you have 2GB RAM or greater. As far as overal appearance obviously Vista allows for DirectX 10.

Well I wasn't exactly talking out my arse either =P I have XP and Vista on my PC also, and 4GB ram. Every game I have tested (and I have tested a lot) usually runs 2-5 FPS slower in Vista if both are being run in DX9. If you run a game in DX10 that difference jumps closer to 5-10fps. When I do these tests I try to use built in demo tools so that the game is doing the exact same thing in all cases and measuring the exact same situations, when possible I also use in-game FPS counters in addition to FRAPS. I have yet to find a game that has equal or worse performance in XP when compared to its performance in Vista.

And yes I realize most probably aren't as anal about it as I am.

 

Here are some benchmarks from other websites:

This last one is just another 3D performance test software...ugly...

To be fair tho, out of the hoards of games they tested there was the extremely rare instance where Vista took the lead...I don't own this game btw.

It appears to depend on the game, card, and features you are trying to use. But the results they got and I got are beyond conslusive that Vista is in fact a performance hit for gamers. It might not bother some people, but its not any less true.

 

My original point was still that they mark you down for not having Vista btw. I think we should at least be able to agree that XP is at least as good as Vista.