open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: An update on the SSE compatibility issue
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Rhok Relztem
Caldari
CGMA Synergist Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.28 15:38:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Rhok Relztem
Yes you do. Without SM3, the CC does not load so unless you know someone who will let you use their system to create your portrait, you are going to be sh*t-out-of-luck when the grace period expires.

And I have been fully enjoying EVE with SM2 for the past two years (and still am but without a portrait). SM3 is only required for the CC at this point.
The New Character Creator works with Shader Model 2 (SM2), but it will not look as nice.

The current minimum hardware requirement for EVE is SM2 but recommended is SM3 or higher.

If the New Character Creator doesn't work for you using an SM2 card, have you tried updating your video drivers to the latest version? Have you filed a technical petition? The GMs have a few tricks up their sleeve for updates from the graphic cards manufactures and Microsoft.

As detailed in CCP Zulu's earlier dev blog then the minimum will become SM3 and I would urge everyone to upgrade soon.

Thanks for the response CCP Explorer. My drivers are the most current available and yes, I did file a tech petition. They gave me the same suggestions that can be found in the forums, all of which I've already tried numerous times and in a plethora of different combinations. The petition is still open but seriously, the tech folks don't have a clue as to why this is happening nor how to fix it. They are handing out generic suggestions that anyone with a normal degree of computer savy &/or common sense would have tried immediately. They told me that my Intel chipset is the culprit and is basically incompatible with EVE, yet I've been playing EVE for these last two years with this same laptop (which is less than four years old) with most settings on high and with virtually no issues until now (and only with the CC, the game itself still runs just fine) AND there are players who are experiencing the exact same problem using NVIDIA and Radeon graphics cards and chipsets.

I've been trying every channel of communication possible to get this looked into, yet it appears as though no one in CCP is bothering to actually figure out exactly WHY this is happening to so many players. I have a thread on this issue in General and there are many others scattered throughout the forums that illustrates just how widespread this is, yet there is still no official response to the cause nor the hope of a future fix.

I've worked in tech myself and am a computer modder/overclocker. I have custom-built every system I've ever owned except my very first C64 back in '89 (and the 128) and this laptop, but I'm currently on a tight budget and can't afford to build a high-end system right now and my last desktop bit the dust after a massive series of brownouts and then a surge that fried everything basically. I won't build another system without knowing for a certainty that it will be able to run EVE (and the CC) now and in the foreseeable future. That's why I've been so frackin pi$$y about this. I, and many others, are getting frustrated as hell. We need to know EXACTLY what the minimum requirements are AND/OR why the CC won't load for so many players, before this grace period expires. At least give us a generic or random portrait to use with a redo once our systems can load the CC, instead of locking us out of the game.

Rhok Relztem
Caldari
CGMA Synergist Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.28 16:00:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: The Informant
Originally by: Rhok Relztem
Originally by: Tagana Shavar
Originally by: Rhok Relztem
C'mon CCP. Grow some gonads and tell us what the minimum graphics requirements are NOW so that we at least know what to look for to upgrade or buy new/used systems before we get locked out of the game.


If you'd have bothered to actually read the linked blog about the graphics card, you'd see it's already been announced in October. The only thing that's unclear is the exact moment this will become a minimum requirement. Reading is cool. It makes you learn stuff. Wink

There's always one smartass. As a matter of fact I did read the linked blog and probably read more in a month than you do in a year. Yeah, reading is cool, but reading without comprehension makes us say stupid things (especially in forums).

If you'd have bothered reading my post with any comprehension, you'd have noticed that I mentioned there are other players in the forums who also can't access the CC even though they have SM3 or SM4 capable cards so there is something else changed too. Besides that, the October blog simply states that the change will be sometime in the future. Well SURPRISE!!! The CC already requires it and when the grace period is up, that means anyone without SM3 and whatever else has changed is not going to be able to play EVE even though their systems have been able to handle EVE up to this point with no issues. The CC is non-gameplay related currently (until Incarna launches) but people are going to be locked out of the game anyway. THAT is my point. Why say the graphics announcements will come at a later date when they are ALREADY required?! ANNOUNCE IT ALREADY! It should have been announced before the expansion was launched.

I'm on a limited budget right now (as I'm sure many others are in these times) and will probably purchase a used system or build one with less than top-of-the-line hardware, but I don't want to buy something without knowing it will run EVE (or, more accurately, the CC).


You clearly haven't fiddled around with the graphic settings then. You can customize a character using low shaders, which works just fine on my x1400 Ati Radeon Mobility graphics card with 2.0 shaders. So it is still possible to make a character without the top-notch looking graphics. Granted it won't look anything like what you see, but it works and gives you an idea of what it will look like.

How in hell does my post illustrate to you CLEARLY that I haven't messed with the graphic settings? Rolling Eyes That's the first thing I did and I've tried every possible combination. Just because it happens to work for you doesn't mean that it will automatically work for everyone.

Renan Ruivo
Hipernova
Vera Cruz Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.28 17:31:00 - [33]
 

I do guess that this is for the best as well, however, i am quite interested in knowing how did you guys reached that number. 0.3% players, really? I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in this thread knows at least one guy who was affected by this change. Not everyone plays his/her account(s) in one single machine you know..

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.01.28 21:49:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 28/01/2011 21:50:46
SM2 is enough but SM3 or high is best. Is hard to understand?

Stop buying GC's and buy hardware that works Laughing

Or, play it with the lower resolution until you get enough from your granma to buy a new pc Laughing

Or do some extra job, extra clients, stop smoking for a month, stop drinking or DL P@rn.
Cool

Vaneshi SnowCrash
Posted - 2011.01.29 04:57:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Nikolai Kondratiev
And good decision I guess, I've never really been into software development, but maintaining a second client for non-SSE2 CPUs would be too complicated ?
We currently maintain 3 clients; a Windows client and a Mac client for Tranquility and a Windows client for Serenity. Each new client/configuration carries overhead and some of the middleware we now use requires SSE2.


Hmm, ok a serious if slightly drunken question.

I thought Transgaming, the vendor responsible for Cider, kept the Mac thing running and you just supplied the Windows program for them to fiddle with?

If you're doing it all in house why not just go bugger it and start rolling your own .app using a tweaked Wine or similar?

Vaneshi SnowCrash
Posted - 2011.01.29 05:03:00 - [36]
 

I'm not going to be popular saying this but can you please stop the airy fairy "Shader Model x" thing? Look if the minimum card to play EVE, in a supported fashion, is a GeForce 7900GS or it's ATi equivalent say so.

It's a bit like burying the vsync option in the "Interval" setting thing, or at least something that behaves very similarly to vsync on/off.

Yes, some of us here a techies, a lot are just gamers. Give it to us in gamer terms like:

Interval immediate = vsync off
Minimum GFX card = Nvidia 6800 Ultra

I just want shiny and high fps sometimes no matter the cost ya know?

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2011.01.29 13:09:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Vaneshi SnowCrash
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Nikolai Kondratiev
And good decision I guess, I've never really been into software development, but maintaining a second client for non-SSE2 CPUs would be too complicated ?
We currently maintain 3 clients; a Windows client and a Mac client for Tranquility and a Windows client for Serenity. Each new client/configuration carries overhead and some of the middleware we now use requires SSE2.
Hmm, ok a serious if slightly drunken question.

I thought Transgaming, the vendor responsible for Cider, kept the Mac thing running and you just supplied the Windows program for them to fiddle with?

If you're doing it all in house why not just go bugger it and start rolling your own .app using a tweaked Wine or similar?
TransGaming maintains the Cider framework and provides that to us. We then maintain the Mac client on top of that framework.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2011.01.29 13:29:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Vaneshi SnowCrash
I'm not going to be popular saying this but can you please stop the airy fairy "Shader Model x" thing? Look if the minimum card to play EVE, in a supported fashion, is a GeForce 7900GS or it's ATi equivalent say so.

It's a bit like burying the vsync option in the "Interval" setting thing, or at least something that behaves very similarly to vsync on/off.

Yes, some of us here a techies, a lot are just gamers. Give it to us in gamer terms like:

Interval immediate = vsync off
Minimum GFX card = Nvidia 6800 Ultra

I just want shiny and high fps sometimes no matter the cost ya know?
"Minimum hardware requirements" are literally that, anything less and EVE won't run. Even the "recommended hardware requirements" are in a sense minimum hardware to have a good experience since obviously the experience is always going to be more enjoyable with better hardware (and the best experience is always going to be with top-of-the-line hardware).

Personally, I have two machines at home that run EVE very well. One is an 32-bit XP dual-core system with 2 GB RAM and NVIDIA 9800 (512 MB) and the other is a 64-bit 7 dual-core system with 4 GB RAM and NVIDIA 450 (1 GB). I can multibox 3 clients on the XP machine and 4-6 on the 7 machine. You can run EVE on much less and still enjoy the experience.

Rhok Relztem
Caldari
CGMA Synergist Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.30 18:28:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Vaneshi SnowCrash
I'm not going to be popular saying this but can you please stop the airy fairy "Shader Model x" thing? Look if the minimum card to play EVE, in a supported fashion, is a GeForce 7900GS or it's ATi equivalent say so.

It's a bit like burying the vsync option in the "Interval" setting thing, or at least something that behaves very similarly to vsync on/off.

Yes, some of us here a techies, a lot are just gamers. Give it to us in gamer terms like:

Interval immediate = vsync off
Minimum GFX card = Nvidia 6800 Ultra

I just want shiny and high fps sometimes no matter the cost ya know?
"Minimum hardware requirements" are literally that, anything less and EVE won't run. Even the "recommended hardware requirements" are in a sense minimum hardware to have a good experience since obviously the experience is always going to be more enjoyable with better hardware (and the best experience is always going to be with top-of-the-line hardware).

Personally, I have two machines at home that run EVE very well. One is an 32-bit XP dual-core system with 2 GB RAM and NVIDIA 9800 (512 MB) and the other is a 64-bit 7 dual-core system with 4 GB RAM and NVIDIA 450 (1 GB). I can multibox 3 clients on the XP machine and 4-6 on the 7 machine. You can run EVE on much less and still enjoy the experience.

And that is why so many of us are asking why are we going to be locked out of the game when the Character Creation grace period expires CCP Explorer. My current system is very similar to your first system with the exception of the graphics - 32-bit Vista dual-core with 2GB Ram and Mobile Intel 945 Express Chipset - and I've been enjoying EVE on it for nearly two years. I would love to have a high-end system (almost all of my desktops that I've built over the years have been) but this laptop has filled in just fine until I can afford to upgrade to a better system.

Since there doesn't appear to be any fix in the works for the hung-progress-bar bug, is there any chance that we could be given an option to have a random character generated within the guidelines for our characters' race and bloodlines with one redo when our systems are either upgraded to the point of allowing us to access the CC or we simply acquire a new system? At the same time, announce a warning that even though we have a portrait, when Incarna launches, we will need to be able to meet the requirements for the CC or we won't be able to play (and announce what those requirements will be).

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
Posted - 2011.01.31 10:46:00 - [40]
 

Better yet, give us the option to NOT participate in walking around in stations. Then you won't have to worry about it. Walking around - hig end graphics = Leisure Suit Larry 1. I prefer to have my pleasure slaves delivered, ktxbai.

protohuman
Posted - 2011.02.01 10:53:00 - [41]
 

If it is really NVidia PhysX SDK 2.8.4, which requires SSE2, maybe you could include dll's from SDK 2.8.3 (temporary and/or optionally, with some sort of warning). This would give your customers proper transition time.
Although 2.8.4 gives 4x better FPS then 2.8.3 (here) in cloth simulation, for now this feature are used only for character editor.

Hawk TT
Caldari
Bulgarian Experienced Crackers
Posted - 2011.02.02 01:19:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: protohuman
If it is really NVidia PhysX SDK 2.8.4, which requires SSE2, maybe you could include dll's from SDK 2.8.3 (temporary and/or optionally, with some sort of warning). This would give your customers proper transition time.
Although 2.8.4 gives 4x better FPS then 2.8.3 (here) in cloth simulation, for now this feature are used only for character editor.


One of the reasons why 2.8.4.4. is more suitable is explained here - Driverless Model. Not all players have Nvidia GFX Cards & Drivers, so 2.8.4.4. is much easier to distribute without asking the players to go to Nvidia's site and install PhysX separately.

I also guess there are some bug / stability fixes as 2.8.4.4. is supposedly the last PhysX Build before the major 3.0 release...

St'oto
Elite Predators
Posted - 2011.02.02 06:43:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: St''oto on 02/02/2011 06:49:09
Edited by: St''oto on 02/02/2011 06:48:19
Edited by: St''oto on 02/02/2011 06:47:49
Originally by: Hawk TT
Dear CCP,

You should update the Minimum Hardware Requirements more precisely:
1) Minimum HDD space 6GB? My current EVE folder is 14.5GB + 0.5GB for my user profile CCP/EVE folder...Put 16GB
2) 56K Modem? While technically EVE will work, the network lag will be terrible, because of the latency. Try it on 3G - while the bandwidth is much
greater than 56K, the latency is comparable to 56K Modem...
3) Why the hell one should need DVD-ROM?

You should also update the Recommended Requirements:
1) Again HDD Free Space - put 20GB
2) Video 256MB SM 3.0 - while it could run, this is definately not "Recommended" - more of a 1GB SM 4.0 card
3) Why the hell one should need DVD-ROM?

If you don't want to raise the bar for "Recommended", just put a 3rd category "Out-of-station-playable" Twisted Evil


2 on second list) GTX 260 with 896MB of ram owns eve. Like wise my old 8800GT with 512MB of ram owned EVE as well. Both ran it maxed out. Only difference is when I had my 8800GT EVE did not have AA support like it does now. So your "1GB recommended" is actually an "Enthusiast" recommended. I can run everything completely maxed out on top settings including AA with 896MB which is still to much Vram for eve in all honesty. Quit blaming the game and start blaming the user (you).

EVE has bugs but what software doesn't? Especially on this scale with the amount of code it will always have bugs. EVE will never run perfect unless they freeze all development for ever and just focus on fixing the codebase. Even then it will probably never be a perfectly bug free piece of software. But in all my years of playing EVE I have always been able to run with all the eye candy and I'm not exactly an enthusiast. I am a gamer that likes eye candy on all my games. But I don't spend 2K a year. I spend usually $400-$600 on a computer build. Anyone that complains about upgrading from an ancient technology needs to find a better hobby. It takes way to much resources to support legacy hardware and in all honesty you guys are damn lucky eve is supporting this wide range of hardware. Most companies will go for the latest and greatest which would be DX10,11,and 9, as well as all high level shader models. Hell some games don't even support DX9.

Consider yourselves lucky all you need to do is drop $50 on a new GFX card to keep playing eve. But if you play on a cheap ancient notebook or netbook and are moaning about this, again update or find another hobby. You are keeping the majority of the user base from enjoying more innovations, over 90% of users have updated to stay with the game. Why should we be held back because you can't afford to keep up with us? It's a pretty simply solution from a business perspective, drop those small amount of customers because they can't invest to keep their system at least 4 years behind the curve so it doesn't impact the huge majority.

After all at the end of the day CCP is a business and I'm sorry but they will go with whatever makes them more money. So instead of blaming a business blame yourself. Again why should we be held back from enjoying a game because you people can't invest into a slightly upgraded but still ancient computer?

System that will more then run eve.(call this your recommended.) Fill in with cheaper hardware if you are so inclined but this runs eve without any trouble
including CC

System specs :
AMD Phenom II x2 555 Callisto @3.2GHZ (unlocked to triple core, 3.8GHZ up from 3.2GHZ per core)
Motherboard : ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO
Ram : G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB DDR3 1600MHZ (factory OC 9-9-9-24 IIRC) with 1.5V
Heatsink : Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
GFX Card : BFG Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 Max core(1200MHZ memory /1500 Shader/700 Core)
power supply : BFG Limited Edition 800W(BFGR800WPSULE)
OS: Windows 7X64 pro


Epa C
Posted - 2011.02.02 09:32:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Epa C on 02/02/2011 09:33:16
Edited by: Epa C on 02/02/2011 09:33:00
Edited by: Epa C on 02/02/2011 09:32:24
Originally by: CCP Explorer Personally, I have two machines at home that run EVE very well. One is an 32-bit XP dual-core system with 2 GB RAM and NVIDIA 9800 (512 MB) and the other is a 64-bit 7 dual-core system with 4 GB RAM and NVIDIA 450 (1 GB). I can multibox 3 clients on the XP machine and 4-6 on the 7 machine. You can run EVE on much less and still enjoy the experience.[/quote


I think this gives us an idea of what system will be needed

Emo Dodo
Posted - 2011.02.02 16:20:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Emo Dodo on 02/02/2011 16:23:21
I have an ok machine (similiar to CCP explorers) but I still turn everything down to lowest settings to maximize visibility and performance.

If I could make the game wireframe and icons only, I would do so.

What I am saying is, you are over underestimating eve's market potential as a game that can run on old hardware. Gameplay does not demand a beefy machine.

Cordin Hamir
Posted - 2011.02.03 20:41:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Renan Ruivo
I do guess that this is for the best as well, however, i am quite interested in knowing how did you guys reached that number. 0.3% players, really? I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in this thread knows at least one guy who was affected by this change. Not everyone plays his/her account(s) in one single machine you know..


I suspect they 'know' this number from responses to surveys. Of course there are two obvious problems with this approach, firstly, like sex surveys, people often embelish the truth in such surveys and secondly, even when telling the the truth the people that answer them at all tend to be those that are 'well endowed' (or at least believe themselves to be - thus I would not be surprised if the actual percentage of players affected was way way above 0.3%).

My problem with this whole thing is that it is obviously not part of some carefully thought out plan where as part of a huge improvement to the game CCP have taken a leap forward hardware wise, rather it is a royal....mix up on CCPs part where they have obviously not realised what they have done until it is too late and then put out these stupid panicky messages - and before you ask mine is big enough to run Eve but I still think this is a mess.

Heimer
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2011.02.04 06:10:00 - [47]
 

Yup. Wrong decision. Not the first time, won't be the last.

0.3% is a bogus number. Guaranteed. (And how many people is that? A thousand or two? You're really telling them to take a hike?)

Delicious irony that probably more effort went into not fixing the problem instead of fixing it.

Glad my graphics card was above the level needed for the new graphics requirement later this year, too bad the SSE2 screwup made the computer useless anyways. Well, useless for Eve, not so useless for other games.

How about at least taking out the SSE2 check at startup and letting my side machine, whice used to run 3 Eve Clients at once continue to be useful?

And how much performance increase came from using SSE2? 5%? And no way to ship a replacement library letting people give up that 5% but be able to play, while letting people with non-ancient hardware keep ejoying their 5% boost? Did you even try?

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.05 00:04:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Heimer
Yup. Wrong decision. Not the first time, won't be the last.

0.3% is a bogus number. Guaranteed. (And how many people is that? A thousand or two? You're really telling them to take a hike?)

Delicious irony that probably more effort went into not fixing the problem instead of fixing it.

Glad my graphics card was above the level needed for the new graphics requirement later this year, too bad the SSE2 screwup made the computer useless anyways. Well, useless for Eve, not so useless for other games.

How about at least taking out the SSE2 check at startup and letting my side machine, whice used to run 3 Eve Clients at once continue to be useful?

And how much performance increase came from using SSE2? 5%? And no way to ship a replacement library letting people give up that 5% but be able to play, while letting people with non-ancient hardware keep ejoying their 5% boost? Did you even try?


It's not a bogus number. Hardware without SSE2 is being phased out even in office environments, gamers have moved on years ago. Most games needed SSE2 since 2007 or so, and we're 4 years down the line by now.

Laptops without at least SSE2 haven't been made since 2006 as far as i'm aware. Desktop CPU's even earlier. The Steam hardware survey has SSE2 capability at 99.33%, and has a considerably larger sample. Since Trinity was released a few years ago, a LOT of people have upgraded their PC's for it, so the 0.3% figure sounds perfectly legit.

Point is - If you want to play PC games, you have to upgrade once in a while or give up on newer games. It's been like this since the early 90's when PC's first started to gain popularity, and it's still the same now. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending a PC is like a console, and every game ever made will work on the same setup forever, that's ignoring the cold hard facts, nothing else.

By the way, removing the check would be pointless, since the code would try to call functions that your PC simply isn't capable of. Also, obviously they tried, otherwise they wouldn't have said that they did just a few posts above yours. It's what the entire topic is about.

And i have to ask... What other games? I "guarantee" you that they're all from 2007 or earlier.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.06 13:54:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Ranka Mei on 06/02/2011 13:57:45
Originally by: Heimer

0.3% is a bogus number. Guaranteed. (And how many people is that? A thousand or two? You're really telling them to take a hike?)

Yes, take a hike. From your own self-centered perspective you moan about the 0.3% who can't play the game any more, discounting the other 99.7% for whom you wish (the graphical) development of the game to be held back, just so you can still run EVE on your obsoleted hardware. Since I'm in the 99.7% camp, I'd love to see better graphics in EVE, Incarna-style: high-res textures, high-end shader models, etc.

Now that really wasn't called for. Please keep the discussion civil. Spitfire

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.11 04:52:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Now that really wasn't called for. Please keep the discussion civil. Spitfire


Not sure what to say, here. I stand by everything I said: I don't want a 0.3% of the EVE population to hold back the graphical development of the other 99.7%. I like graphics.

Perhaps you deem "Yes, take a hike!" uncalled for. But I submit to you, what else do you tell a person who complains because his 10-year-old hardware can't cut it any more? Asking CCP to cater to such obsoleted hardware is totally unreasonable, in my book. The only remedy is to simply buy half-way modern hardware, and no not bring the complaint here.

I'll try and word it nicer in the future, though. :)

Toshiro GreyHawk
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:39:00 - [51]
 

One of the things people seem to continually miss as they slam people using old machines is - that's not their primary machine.

The thing is - EVE has been designed - and CCP has marketed this game - for people to use multiple accounts of the game.

Now - there are different ways of doing this - but one of those ways - which works better than the others (at least for me) is to use multiple computers to run EVE.

This update just cost me 2 of the 4 computers I had that could run EVE. I lost one to the SSE problem and apparently the other to Windows 2000 no longer being supported (although up until this update it had been working).

Yeah - that's old stuff - but it did help me run all my accounts. Every time we get hit by something like this - I have to do something to make up for the problem - which cuts into my playing time - as well as my ability to use all those accounts I've subscribed. It becomes a lot harder to justify subscribing to all those accounts ... when the computers I was using to run them ... are getting knocked off the obsolescence shelf.



So - to summarize my experience with the latest update:

1) I've lost 2 of the 4 computers I was using - and while I *might* just be able to swap some parts and do some reinstalls and cobble together one machine out of the two that will work - that's that much more time I'll have lost playing.

2) I had to spend the time to re-do all those characters on all those accounts ... that took a lot of time. It's not that big a deal if you've only got one account - but if you've got a number of them ... it does take a lot of time.

3) And ... the extractors for my PI stuff all have to be redone - yet more time spent simply trying to stay even with what I had before this update.


The point of all that - is that when you - CCP - make a decision to cut something off - you are directly impacting the ability of people to use the product you marketed as supporting multiple accounts. Every time a multi-account user has to do something to adjust to what you've done with your update - it is multiplied by the very number of accounts they've subscribed.

Only tonight did I get around to trying to update those two computers that failed ... since I was busy fooling around with all the other stuff I had to do up until now.


Now ... I worked in software development for two decades ... so I know how this goes. I also know that you could have retained support for all these old machines if you'd wanted to do it. It just would have cost you more money - and you made the decision that it wasn't worth it to you to do so. Now - lets be clear about something here - this isn't Planetside which has been abandoned by SOE. This is a growing - popular game - so you are not desperately trying to keep afloat here - you cut support for the old machines - because you wanted to make MORE money by having your support for the game cost LESS.


So - here's a little note from that .3% you don't give a damn about. We aren't just a statistic - we're people whose gaming experience you have made worse by your decisions.


Every time something like this happens - I have to make a decision about ... do I really want to keep all those accounts ...

*shrug*

we'll see ...

If I do - it's going to cost me a good bit of time I'll not be playing the game and a good bit of the utility I was getting out of those extra accounts.

If losing those machines hadn't happened RIGHT NOW ... it wouldn't be so bad ... but coming on top of all the crap I've had to do to try and catch back up to where I was in the game and what I was doing - having to now fool with this ... puts me that much further behind.


Not a happy camper right now.



One last note on statistics ... they don't mean that much - unless you're one of them.



.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only