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
eidairaman1
Well its expected to not work because an OS is not forwards compatible in the bit code. Only backwards. Its just like trying to run 32 bit apps on a 16 bit os n 16 bit apps on an 8 bit os etc etc. Its about time they moved fwd because potential is hindered by using 32 bit code to write programs. Weve had consumer 64bit cpus almost 10 years now its time to completely move code to 64 bit.


FordGT90Concept said:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
more than 35% of gamer's computers are running 32-bit Windows. Nevermind all those gamers that never install Steam because they play strictly The Sims (from what I've seen, the majority are 3 GiB equipped laptops running 32-bit Windows).



Try running a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system. EA is going to lose a lot of potential customers by not offering a 32-bit option--a lot more than they'll gain from switching to 64-bit (virtually none--who is going to buy a game just because it is 64-bit?). EA, of all the publishers, should know that people want their purchased software to work above everything else.
Posted on Reply
#2
remixedcat
This seems like a good idea and all but I think it's mostly a PR move for EA... They need to fix way more issues then this....
Posted on Reply
#3
Dippyskoodlez
FordGT90Concept said:


Try running a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system. EA is going to lose a lot of potential customers by not offering a 32-bit option--a lot more than they'll gain from switching to 64-bit (virtually none--who is going to buy a game just because it is 64-bit?). EA, of all the publishers, should know that people want their purchased software to work above everything else.
Once again, confirming apples 32-64 bit transition model is utterly genuis. :toast:

Really wish M$ would just kill 32 bit already. They have a severe dead horse beating issue they need to take out back and shoot in the head.
Posted on Reply
#4
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I don't call dictatorships genius. I call them brutal.
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
when over 60% of users now are running windows 64 bit (according to steam), then its a safe bet for a game maker to make a game for that in 1-2 years time. the numbers are only increasing.


what they want is a PC exclusive that makes them stand out as having the most advanced game tech - the best visuals and performance, and a game they can market as using all of the ram your hardware has (seriously, anyone else find it daft to have a 3GB video card, 12/16GB of system ram, and be capped at 2 or at best 4GB of address space?)


this will work out well for them, because the community itself will just tell everyone to upgrade to 64 bit, just like they did with their high end GPU's and CPU's.
Posted on Reply
#6
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Dippyskoodlez said:

Really wish M$ would just kill 32 bit already. They have a severe dead horse beating issue they need to take out back and shoot in the head.
not possible.

Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.

the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mussels
Moderprator
FreedomEclipse said:
not possible.

Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.

the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.
if no new 32 bit OS's were released, win 7 would last those businesses a decade or more. long enough for their apps to be updated. two days ago i upgraded my work machines from windows 98 (first edition 98, too)
Posted on Reply
#8
eidairaman1
FreedomEclipse said:
not possible.

Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.

the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.
I have legacy hardware myself but trouble is no drivers for the Signature rig to get the right potential out of it
Posted on Reply
#9
xenocide
FordGT90Concept said:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
more than 35% of gamer's computers are running 32-bit Windows. Nevermind all those gamers that never install Steam because they play strictly The Sims (from what I've seen, the majority are 3 GiB equipped laptops running 32-bit Windows).
People who play just The Sims aren't going to be buying Frostbite powered games, so it's a non-issue. Notice that DICE is the one that said this, since when has DICE made games that were marketed towards the same kind of people who only start up The Sims a couple times a week? A transition to x64 is unavoidable, and continuing to support it is just prolonging the problem. Almost all Computers come with 4GB+ RAM these days anyway, so having a 32-bit OS just doesn't make sense anymore.
Posted on Reply
#10
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 which is confirmed to be using Frostbite 2 has a broad appeal that could lure a lot of gamers from The Sims market; moreover, the game could likely be made to run on 32-bit easily. I wouldn't be surprised if EA forces DICE to support 32-bit because, as I stated before, 64-bit only isn't going to help EA's bottom line. DICE may want to drop 32-bit support but I can't see EA agreeing with that yet.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FordGT90Concept said:
Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 which is confirmed to be using Frostbite 2 has a broad appeal that could lure a lot of gamers from The Sims market; moreover, the game could likely be made to run on 32-bit easily. I wouldn't be surprised if EA forces DICE to support 32-bit because, as I stated before, 64-bit only isn't going to help EA's bottom line. DICE may want to drop 32-bit support but I can't see EA agreeing with that yet.
Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 isn't being developed by EA-DICE, so it doesn't apply here. It is just EA-DICE titles that will require 64-bit, not every Frostbite 2 title made by EA.

But besides that, the game industry should move away from 32-bit. I haven't seen a system sold with gaming as a main purpose that was still using a 32-bit OS. Yes, there are pre-builts that still come with 32-bit Windows installed, but they are also using onboard graphics. People are willing to upgrade components or even their entire computer just for a game, and we want to argue that upgrading their OS isn't worth while?!

And, as you pointed out, 1/3 of the market uses 32-bit at this point. They are the minority. Progress shouldn't be held back because of the minority.
Posted on Reply
#12
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
newtekie1 said:

And, as you pointed out, 1/3 of the market uses 32-bit at this point. They are the minority. Progress shouldn't be held back because of the minority.
How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.
Posted on Reply
#13
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
I don't see where they list how many people took the survey. That's pretty ridiculous they don't say.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mussels
Moderprator
Frick said:
How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.
and how many of that 1/3, have low end hardware, mostly OEM machines? i'd bet most of them.
Posted on Reply
#15
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
Mussels said:
if no new 32 bit OS's were released, win 7 would last those businesses a decade or more. long enough for their apps to be updated. two days ago i upgraded my work machines from windows 98 (first edition 98, too)
Speak for yourself.... I still know business that are still using Win 98SE, Win 2000 & Win XP

:p so the saying goes....If it aint broke. dont fix it. but of course their whole network could be a lot more efficient, reliable, more secure and possibly more productive if they upgraded both their hardware and software.
Posted on Reply
#16
Raw
64bit?
I want 128bit.
Posted on Reply
#17
Mussels
Moderprator
Raw said:
64bit?
I want 128bit.
for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?
Posted on Reply
#18
Kreij
Senior Monkey Moderator
Mussels said:
for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?
Who doesn't want quadruple precision floating point number accuracy and access to 3.4x10^38 bytes of RAM? :D
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Mussels said:
and how many of that 1/3, have low end hardware, mostly OEM machines? i'd bet most of them.
A very good point, just going over their video card survey, about 15% have integrated or totally bottom of the barrel video cards that would never even touch a EA-DICE Frostbite title.

Not to mention 15% are still running XP, which EA-DICE has already given the boot when they stopped supporting DX9. So the actual percentage that are getting to boot by the 64-bit decision is more like 20%.
Posted on Reply
#20
Raw
Mussels said:
for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?
I'm j/k'ing pal, j/k'ing.
:ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#21
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Raw said:
64bit?
I want 128bit.
You'll need it when 4096 TB of RAM becomes not enough (limits of EM64T and AMD64).
Posted on Reply
#22
Jizzler
Damn, those of us on quad Xeon/Opteron are already a quarter to the limit!
Posted on Reply
#23
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
btarunr said:
You'll need it when 4096 TB of RAM becomes not enough (limits of EM64T and AMD64).
No, no. x86-64 processors today (excepting enterprise) have 40-bit (1.099 TB) or 48-bit (281.474 TB) memory addressing capabilities. As more RAM becomes common place, they'll increase that number up to 64-bit which is 18.446 EB (exabyte). I think an extension to x86-64 could happen sooner, rather than later, to add more registers and standardized, specialized instructions (better compete with ARM). 128-bit memory addressing won't happen for a long time.


Kreij said:
Who doesn't want quadruple precision floating point number accuracy and access to 3.4x10^38 bytes of RAM? :D
We already got 128-bit floating point decimals (.NET Framework calls it Decimal).

I struggle to find a use for 32 GiB RAM, nevermind that-to-the-38th-power RAM. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#24
Vinska
FordGT90Concept said:
I struggle to find a use for 32 GiB RAM, nevermind that-to-the-38th-power RAM. :roll:
You, maybe. Those who want to build a supercomputer with all the memory in one address-space, might find 40-bit addressing a bit of a problem.
Posted on Reply
#25
Dippyskoodlez
Frick said:
How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.
IMO, computers that are running a 32 bit OS, and do NOT meet the minimum system requirements(hardware wise) for a game are not considered part of the target market.

People just whining to whine. :slap:

If EA/DICE support a simultaneous 32 bit executable, that means they have to split their dev team up even more than they already cut all the corners they can. (while the 32 bit exe becomes used by noone except hackers that are looking for a secondary exploit.)

seems to me, like a rock solid idea, RIGHT BF3? Completely bug free!

Windows x64 has been the same product package since vista x64, there really is NO reason not to be running windows 7 x64 if you have windows 7. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment