Thursday, May 24th 2012

EA-DICE Frostbite Titles in 2013 Will Require 64-bit Windows

While content-creation and media transcoding applications have transitioned to native x86-64 applications that can take advantage of large amounts of system and video memory, a similar transition by game developers has been rather slow. Very few PC games ship with 64-bit executables, as most games are ported from game consoles anyway, which have slim system requirements.

EA-DICE has been behind developing games that take advantage of the latest PC technologies (such as DirectX 11), and according to a lead developer and rendering architect with the studio, Johan Andersson, games that are driven by Frostbite engine, which are slated for 2013, will require 64-bit operating systems, these games will not run on 32-bit Windows, or in 32-bit mode, on 64-bit Windows, but with full-fledged 64-bit executables. The 64-bit address-space would allow games to take advantage of system memory over 4 GB, and more importantly, high amounts of video memory, as 2 GB and 3 GB become standard with performance-segment graphics cards.


Add your own comment

113 Comments on EA-DICE Frostbite Titles in 2013 Will Require 64-bit Windows

#1
NC37
This has taken too long. I kinda wish M$ had done the Apple thing and just outright forced people into 64bit like how Apple forced OSX onto customers along with about a dozen other things they've done to tick their customers off in the last decade.
Posted on Reply
#2
Ferrum Master
EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence. :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#3
Prima.Vera
by: Ferrum Master
EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence. :nutkick:
How come this is a good decision? :eek:
Posted on Reply
#4
eidairaman1
by: FordGT90Concept
VIA C7 isn't. What I was getting at though is that a lot of laptops and even cheap desktops are still selling with 32-bit Windows 7. There's also a ton of people still running Windows XP 32-bit. Even if their computer has otherwise been upgraded to play newer games, the fact they don't include a 32-bit executable will mean they can't run the game at all. For example, Frostbite 2 engine is used on Need for Speed: The Run and I know Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 is based on Frostbite 2 and scheduled for release in 2013. Those games don't need more than 4 GiB of memory to run. Even BF3 can run within that threshold if the settings are turned down far enough.

What I'm getting at is that it is a mistake for EA to not provide both executables.


No, Frostbite 2 is DirectX 10+. XP supports nothing higher than DirectX 9.0c
In All Honesty Who runs a Via C7 for gaming?

Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it
Posted on Reply
#5
Ferrum Master
by: Prima.Vera
How come this is a good decision? :eek:
AMD64? Bigger executable, less crappy loading, better textures, maps, more things to proud PC user not a crappy console port gamer...

That's my opinion.
Posted on Reply
#6
Vinska
by: FordGT90Concept
I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS. If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.

They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.
I bet there would be quite a lot of people who would end up running the 32bit executable for one reason or another, along with playing on high settings. Crash-fests, ahoy!
That would probably lead to even more support calls. And trying to help them would be many times more work than simply not giving 32bit executables. (Also try to look from the eyes of those people that have to answer those calls and try to help the customers. I have some first-hand experience with such things, and I can say - I would be happy for this (64bit only) If I would be a tech-support-guy at EA)
Posted on Reply
#7
Ferrum Master
by: eidairaman1
In All Honesty Who runs a Via C7 for gaming?

Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it
Yep.

Although for myself I've made a philosophy. ARM should be used for web, productivity tasks - like writing and reading some stuff and watching videos/music. Less power heat etc... an ARM should replace x86 in mid and entry PC level. For the sake of green earth ecosystem and overall cheapness.

AMD64? That is the powerhouse of domination when we need a muscle car. Hardcore workstations, gaming machines and designer CAD and folding guys. RAM is cheap as hell, and it should be used at last.
Posted on Reply
#8
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: Vinska
I bet there would be quite a lot of people who would end up running the 32bit executable for one reason or another, along with playing on high settings. Crash-fests, ahoy!
That would probably lead to even more support calls. And trying to help them would be many times more work than simply not giving 32bit executables. (Also try to look from the eyes of those people that have to answer those calls and try to help the customers. I have some first-hand experience with such things, and I can say - I would be happy for this (64bit only) If I would be a tech-support-guy at EA)
Simple solution: launcher detects platform and runs 64-bit when available, otherwise runs 32-bit. Virtually every EA games has a launcher now so it would be completely transparent to the user. It can even be handled entirely from the installer (if 64-bit OS, install 64-bit binaries; if 32-bit OS, install 32-bit binaries).


by: eidairaman1
Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it
Only software emulation, not driver/hardware. Nothing 16-bit will run on 64-bit and 64-bit OS's are bigger than 32-bit OS's so when space is limited, 32-bit is preferred.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vinska
by: FordGT90Concept
Nothing 16-bit will run on 64-bit and 64-bit OS's are bigger than 32-bit OS's so when space is limited, 32-bit is preferred.
Actually...
Posted on Reply
#10
Widjaja
The question is...will these companies supporting only 64-bit OS make their games run properly?
Or is this to cut down programming costs by not having to make sure the game is 32 and 64-bit compatible?
Posted on Reply
#11
Prima.Vera
by: Ferrum Master
AMD64? Bigger executable, less crappy loading, better textures, maps, more things to proud PC user not a crappy console port gamer...

That's my opinion.
No, I mean from the key word point "x64 only"
Posted on Reply
#12
Ferrum Master
by: Prima.Vera
No, I mean from the key word point "x64 only"
I don't think so, it isn't such hard to compile an exe using x64 or x86 flags. The key moment is that the compiled program will grow out of the 3.2GB memory limit span...
Posted on Reply
#13
Vinska
by: Widjaja
The question is...will these companies supporting only 64-bit OS make their games run properly?
Or is this to cut down programming costs by not having to make sure the game is 32 and 64-bit compatible?
It appears to me they are going pure-64bit exactly because they want to make sure that their games run properly.
So, myeah... the first option ;]

Also, going pure-64bit lets them fine-tune the program a little better, that way they can make the game run more efficiently. Keeping the code both 32bit & 64bit compatible sacrifices some fine-tuning opportunities, or at very least make them harder to pull off correctly. Thus I'd say: going pure 64bit will probably be a win for both the devs and the users.

More: keeping 32bit "alive" can be compared to "making new games while keeping the current consoles in mind, as it is planned to port the said games to consoles" (or vice-versa). And I think You all know too well where does this usually lead... :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#14
Filiprino
Finally, 64 bits. More registers, more memory, bigger numbers, faster operations. Finally the extra bandwidth AMD64 archs have been gaining recently won't be wasted.
It only has taken over 9 years since the launch of Athlon 64 on 2003 with the appropiate Linux kernel.
Posted on Reply
#15
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Prima.Vera
What's wrong with Windows 7 x64 ???!?:shadedshu:shadedshu
Windows 8 is out by 2013 so of course WIndows 8 will be the thing to buy.
Posted on Reply
#16
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
by: Frick
Windows 8 is out by 2013 so of course WIndows 8 will be the thing to buy.
If you are happy to pay for the windows 8 metro theme. I know there will be a lot of tweaks under the hood for Win8 but the metro theme is the 'face' of the OS and most people hate it.

when vista came out, i totally skipped it. I'll probably do the same here
Posted on Reply
#17
ERazer
ohh sweet baby jesus about time :D
Posted on Reply
#18
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: FreedomEclipse
If you are happy to pay for the windows 8 metro theme. I know there will be a lot of tweaks under the hood for Win8 but the metro theme is the 'face' of the OS and most people hate it.

when vista came out, i totally skipped it. I'll probably do the same here
I meant that is the thing that will be promoted and put on sale. Some retailers won't even sell WIndows 7 in a year. Like it or not, it's the way it is.

And given how many people use Windows I'm pretty sure "most" of them are not in majority. You have probably heard the opinions of hundreds or maybe even a few thousand people, and that is nothing.
Posted on Reply
#19
Jizzler
by: FordGT90Concept
I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS. If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.

They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.
Just list my number, they can all be greeted by a recording of my farts.


by: Ferrum Master
EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence. :nutkick:
Ha ha! As much as I'd like to play a fiddle while EA burns, I'll give props where it is due.

Good move EA /clap

Now, give us Dungeon Keeper 3 you bastards!
Posted on Reply
#20
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I think DK3 would be blasphemous to what Bullfrog made. Just look what they did to Syndicate. Two words: rape and pillage.

Now, if Lionhead somehow got back the rights to Dungeon Keeper and made #3, that I would be interested in. :D

Wishful thinking. :(
Posted on Reply
#21
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
by: Frick
I meant that is the thing that will be promoted and put on sale. Some retailers won't even sell WIndows 7 in a year. Like it or not, it's the way it is.

And given how many people use Windows I'm pretty sure "most" of them are not in majority. You have probably heard the opinions of hundreds or maybe even a few thousand people, and that is nothing.
Reguardless - Unless retailers can 'sell' unsold copies of operating systems back to microsoft there will always be copies floating about If you know where to find them and thats not just a fact. you can quite often find unsold older versions of software floating about on the market even though most retailers stopped selling them and manufacturers stopped distributing that particular software.

Given that Microsofts Win8 statistics will be heavily skewed due to them 'forcing' everyone to adopt it by distributing through OEMs with their laptops and computers. Its no different then when they done the same thing with Vista - I know of hundreds of people who bought new netbooks, laptops and computers with Vista on it who wiped and installed XP on it as soon as it was unboxed.

as much as youd like to admit that there are a positive amount of people who like the metro look at the same time there are those (including many of this forum and other forums) that have declared their hate for it and also their hate over the removal of the start button button.

general consumers or the 'sheep' will be most likely be totally be indifferent to this when their new machine comes with Win8. Either 'adapt' and get on with it or seek ways which they can downgrade to Win7 like most people did with Vista.

---

:EDIT:

Just to add to the software arguement.... Windows 95 & 98. you can still find copies being sold so your point is invalid - If people really wanted to downgrade to Win7 there will always be copies floating about on the market, if not then theres always the non legit way of aquiring a copy that will work the same as a fully activated copy and it doesnt cost a penny. apart from you paying your regular internet bills.
Posted on Reply
#22
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I think Windows 7 is going to dominate desktops/laptops and Windows 8 will dominate devices with touch screens. Windows 9 will probably achieve a happy medium in 2014-2015.
Posted on Reply
#23
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: FreedomEclipse
Reguardless - Unless retailers can 'sell' unsold copies of operating systems back to microsoft there will always be copies floating about If you know where to find them and thats not just a fact. you can quite often find unsold older versions of software floating about on the market even though most retailers stopped selling them and manufacturers stopped distributing that particular software.
Totally true, but Win8 will still be the main thing.
Given that Microsofts Win8 statistics will be heavily skewed due to them 'forcing' everyone to adopt it by distributing through OEMs with their laptops and computers. Its no different then when they done the same thing with Vista - I know of hundreds of people who bought new netbooks, laptops and computers with Vista on it who wiped and installed XP on it as soon as it was unboxed.
Me too, but a lot of times that was unwarranted because it was the right "thing" to do. YOu were supposed to hate Vista even if you didn't know anything about it.
as much as youd like to admit that there are a positive amount of people who like the metro look at the same time there are those (including many of this forum and other forums) that have declared their hate for it and also their hate over the removal of the start button button.
Aye it is, but as said earlier they/we (I share some of the concerns) are unimportant and they're still just a tiny tiny fraction of the market.
general consumers or the 'sheep' will be most likely be totally be indifferent to this when their new machine comes with Win8. Either 'adapt' and get on with it or seek ways which they can downgrade to Win7 like most people did with Vista.
And there came the "sheep" comment. :shadedshu

EDIT: Wait, what's this thread about again? :ohwell: :p
Posted on Reply
#24
Delta6326
Awesome its about time. I don't see how in this world we can progress technology when people are to stubborn to develop new things and make it main stream.
Posted on Reply
#25
Recus
Too bad in won't help not to be shitty console port.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment