System Requirement Checks: Why?

[Knonsense]

I've only experienced this phenomenon a couple times, but it's somewhat baffling to me.

When I was around ten, I got Spider-Man for PC out of the Bargain Bin at target or something like this, and after I installed it and tried to run it, it assured me that minimum system requirements were not met. It wanted Transform & Lighting, which was not supported by the Graphics Card on my parents' computer at the time.

This was an incredibly frustrating experience, because $10 was 10 weeks of allowance when I was ten. At some point I was able to find some utility that confused the game into thinking my Graphics card had T&L enabled, and the game worked well enough for me at that point. There were a few graphical glitches but nothing I cared about. About an hour later I discovered I didn't very much like the game, but that's beside the point.

Most programs will let you attempt to run them, even if you don't meet the minimum specs, yet a few won't let you attempt to touch them out of sheer stubbornness. In a more recent case, Dead Space.

Dead Space refuses to try to run on my laptop, because my nVidia 8600m GT is on board. I could understand, since somewhere out there it says no on board graphics, if the game attempted to work but failed, but instead I get a window:

"Your Graphics Card does not meet Dead Space(TM) minimum requirements."

This is far more irking to me than a tech support rep saying "you're not supported," and I really can't understand why they would build something like this in.

It just doesn't make sense to me that they won't let you even *try*. Anyone have any ideas as to why?

Solutions are welcome, but I can live without them. EA gave me the game for free, so I didn't waste anything.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Can you Run it. Google search it my freind. It will save you much pain and crying.

 

[insectoid]

I've never run across anything like that...seems a rather stupid system to put in place.

 

[Sketchy]

When I get my new computer, I will be running System Requirement checks just so I can laugh them off. It's going to be AWESOME!

 

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Lost Planet Colonies does the same thing if you don't have Shader 3.0 support, as do the Lego Star Wars and such games if you don't have shader 2.0.

Just wanted to point out that it's sadly more common than one might think.

I know Half-Life 2 told me it would run bad on my computer. Something like: "Your computer does not pass minimum system requirements and the game will likely not function properly. To play anyways, press next." I like that better than "No shader 3.0 bye bye"

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Uhh you can't be arsed to read the back of a box?

 

[Aardvark]

It's problems like these that had me switching to consoles.

There's usually a way to disable the minimum requirement checking. Differs from game to game. Google up each one, see how it is done, then you'll be in for some fun, as the clouds blot out the sun.

Disregard the second half of the last sentence.

 

[mitrovarr]

The most frustrating thing about these checks is when they are either wrong or obsolete. The most obvious example of this is games that complain to core 2 duo or quad owners that they don't have a processor with enough mhz to run something that was designed for a pentium 4. However, I've had older games simply refuse to run because I didn't have a modern enough graphics card - apparently the game was hard-coded to accept the graphics card lines that existed at the time (voodoo and tnt) and would not accept a geforce or radeon as a valid option. I've also had older games refuse to install because there wasn't enough disk space when their little disk space counters overflowed, faced with more disk space than they could handle.

I understand the point of these checks, but they should only provide warnings, not completely prevent you from playing the game. If not, you simply create another opportunity for a game-stopping bug to appear.

 

[Jolly Madness]

Race Driver: Grid, I was really looking forward to it, but apparently I don't have "Shader 3.0" supported by my graphics card... why can't I just play WITHOUT shaders?

 

[Dommyboy]

Older Valve games tell me that my computer is bad for games. Though never fear! Those games are from when quad cores were unheard of.

Race Driver: Grid, I was really looking forward to it, but apparently I don't have "Shader 3.0" supported by my graphics card... why can't I just play WITHOUT shaders?

Well if that is the case then it would mean Shader 3.0 is necessary for the graphical engine to run otherwise the game won't work. Though I find the checks to be stupid because sometimes the game will still run fine for you even if you don't have recommended requirement.

 

[Knonsense]

Can you Run it. Google search it my freind. It will save you much pain and crying.

As much as I love "Can You Run It?", it said I *could* run it.

Uhh you can't be arsed to read the back of a box?

The back of the box didn't actually say anything about on board graphics. That information was exclusively online from what I could see.

 

[Laughing Man]

Cost is why they do it. It's cheaper for the company to install a spec check on the game that prevents you from running the game if your computer isn't up to minimum spec then it is for them to have to deal with stupid people phoning them up to complain their game runs like crap on the computer that didn't meet minimum spec to start with.

The other reason is as Dommyboy said in some instances the game engine requires a specific spec to run at all. Without it it simply won't work.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Can you Run it. Google search it my freind. It will save you much pain and crying.

The results that thing gives should not be taken as gospel.

According to it I can run BF 2142, but not Left 4 Dead or Deadspace. The reality is I can run the latter fine but BF2142 dislikes my soundcard righteously, to the point of crashing on start up.

#Edit#

After playing with drivers and settings BF2142 works fine too.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Race Driver: Grid, I was really looking forward to it, but apparently I don't have "Shader 3.0" supported by my graphics card... why can't I just play WITHOUT shaders?

Because other than maybe one or two textures, the entire screen would be black?

Shaders are what makes up most of the end result of a texture in modern games. If you can't run SM3.0 then textures would look ugly to the point of unplayability, if you get any at all.

Also, upgrade already. SM3.0 has been the standard on all cards for a good two years now, even longer with nVidia (ATI didn't start using it until the x1###)

 

[Uncompetative]

Progress.

If developers let everyone run cutting-edge games on old spec. machines then the cost of upgrading to run future bleeding-edge games would raise cries of protest and low sales. Just look at what has happened over Crysis. Stupid people complaining that the graphics are too bleeding-edge for them to reasonably afford. They are stupid because its developers Crytek said that they had deliberately put a lot of things into the engine that current PCs couldn't manage (even really expensive ones) and that Maximum Resolution, 4xAA whatever, everything on Very High and a super high framerate well above 60 were there to be exploited in the future as gamers inevitably upgraded their machines and revisited the game. In other words these gamers were bleating about Crytek making an extra special effort to ensure that Crysis had a long "shelf-life".

Just look at Alan Wake. I've been seeing the same damn previews for years. When is this game going to come out?

Well, I have a suspicion about PC game development. They pick a target on the 'progress curve' that not even current bleeding-edge machines can reach. Then they spend 3+ years developing the graphics engine to make this possible in the hopes that when the game and all of its content is finally debugged and ready to 'master' there are new cutting-edge machines that can just about run the game satisfactorily. A release at this time forces the majority of gamers who are 'behind the curve' to upgrade certain components of their PC so it is cutting-edge - they are careful to not make them feel that they have to replace the GPU, CPU, expand the RAM, base it on a faster Motherboard (which requires a beefier PSU, which all needs a larger case, which you may as well get so that you have the option to monkey-around with SLI and PCI -Express slots), all at once as you may as well buy an entirely new PC and few people are rich enough to do that to play one game. So, instead, the industry collectively encourages you to part with a "little" money here and there on hardware with each system-stretching game you acquire.

This can go wrong. It was okay for Alan Wake's developers to only release static screenshots, back in the early days of development I very much doubt that there were PCs in existence that could do more than render static frames in minutes. Then, much later, you get a trailer, but that is obviously pre-rendered. Now finally we have this and if I heard correctly "overclocked 3.7 Ghz Intel Quad-Core" - ouch:


Now the delay should be obvious. They have overshot the curve, expecting either that the median installed base spec. would be higher than it is by now, or that the game was finished far earlier than expected. In either case they are being forced to 'sit on its release'. I also doubt whether it will scale down to a 360 without losing a lot of atmosphere and scale. They'd be well advised to make it a launch title on the next Xbox.

Really, PC gamers are the frog in the saucepan of cool water in: How to boil a frog. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog )

 

[Laughing Man]

If developers let everyone run cutting-edge games on old spec. machines then the cost of upgrading to run future bleeding-edge games would raise cries of protest and low sales. Just look at what has happened over Crysis. Stupid people complaining that the graphics are too bleeding-edge for them to reasonably afford. They are stupid because its developers Crytek said that they had deliberately put a lot of things into the engine that current PCs couldn't manage (even really expensive ones) and that Maximum Resolution, 4xAA whatever, everything on Very High and a super high framerate well above 60 were there to be exploited in the future as gamers inevitably upgraded their machines and revisited the game.

To be honest any developer that launches a game with the express agenda of not allowing people to play it to it's full capacity until x years down the line is an idiot and deserves nothing but pure fail. Crysis is a grand and wonderful example of this. You have Crytek bitching and moaning about piracy causing them to pull the plug on PC exclusives, cieting Crysis's poor overall sales as a reason when the reality was they created a game that was poorly optimised for the majority of it's potential market and wasn't anywhere good enough in the gameplay stakes to warrant people 'revisiting' it at a later date.

 

[jamesworkshop]

If developers let everyone run cutting-edge games on old spec. machines then the cost of upgrading to run future bleeding-edge games would raise cries of protest and low sales. Just look at what has happened over Crysis. Stupid people complaining that the graphics are too bleeding-edge for them to reasonably afford. They are stupid because its developers Crytek said that they had deliberately put a lot of things into the engine that current PCs couldn't manage (even really expensive ones) and that Maximum Resolution, 4xAA whatever, everything on Very High and a super high framerate well above 60 were there to be exploited in the future as gamers inevitably upgraded their machines and revisited the game.

To be honest any developer that launches a game with the express agenda of not allowing people to play it to it's full capacity until x years down the line is an idiot and deserves nothing but pure fail. Crysis is a grand and wonderful example of this. You have Crytek bitching and moaning about piracy causing them to pull the plug on PC exclusives, cieting Crysis's poor overall sales as a reason when the reality was they created a game that was poorly optimised for the majority of it's potential market and wasn't anywhere good enough in the gameplay stakes to warrant people 'revisiting' it at a later date.

I cant disgree more crysis ran on many different systems http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/images/01/74/17453_CrysisDetailVert.jpg
I like the idea of a game that can grow at the same rate as my PC does it makes buying a new graphics card worth it.
I don't bother checking system requirment and I dont even have a crazy powerfull machine
(2.6 dual core/ 2 gig of ram/ single graphics card) in fact the worst performance in crysis is its poor optimisation when running in SLi mode.
Also take a look at crymods loads of people have made their own levels one guy even did a flowgraph allowing the player to do wallruns like mirrors edge
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mwEfpHVerCU
This is why PC games having lasting appeal far beyond than what any developer has time for

 

[clarinetJWD]

Well, there's two things here.

First, $1 a week for allowance!? Even for a 10 year old that's insulting.
Second, there's a site for system requirements: http://yougamers.com/
It'll analyze your setup, and put your computer on a scale of minimum, recommended, YG minimum, and YG recommended. The site is operated by Futuremark, the company behind the wildly successful benchmarking series 3DMark, so it's legit.

 

[Laughing Man]

I cant disgree more crysis ran on many different systems

Never said it didn't run on numerous different systems I did however use the qualifier 'not allowing people to play it to it's full capacity' suggesting max detail, AA and AF rather than having to run it at lower settings.

I like the idea of a game that can grow at the same rate as my PC does it makes buying a new graphics card worth it.

Indeed, but firstly you have to have a game that is justifiably worth buying the graphics card for prior to the games release or is good enough that you will still be playing it when the price of better hardware comes down. Crysis failed on both accounts.