Depends on how you interpret "get" of course, you can put it into the computer, it just runs poorly because you can't use dual channel and your system can't access it all. It's something it's possible to run foul of but it seems akin to if you found out Crysis 2 needed a 2 button mouse or a download manager required an Internet connection.Azhrarn-101 said:You can simply install the 4GB of RAM even for the 32-bit version of XP, it won't allow you to use more than 3.5GB of it, but that's a different matter.Rack said:
You Can't Play The Witcher 2 On a Non-NTFS HDD
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's not a lie, just an oversight. It's a file system issue, not a game one, very few people still use FAT32 nowadays. If you ever tried to burn a DVD image to your hard drive, you'd have run into this problem long ago cause FAT32 doesn't support single files that are bigger than 4 GBs. I imagine Witcher's just the first game to use a single file that big or something if it's the first time this has happened.Snotnarok said:
Also, it's not really a requirement. I mean it is but... if you failed to list a video card requirement, people would have to buy a new video card if their current one couldn't run the game. That's a requirement imo. This just requires you to get a single partition formatted as NTFS, you don't have to buy anything for it. At best it's an issue if you've only got a single partition (which is stupid to do in the first place), even then you can get some free program to just create a new partition for you without even having to format the old one. And really, anyone who's gaming and has a system to support playing Witcher 2 should be on NTFS by now - personally, to those people, I'd consider this "issue" to be a public service announcement on switching to a newer file system
I say we let 'em have it. I mean, c'mon! We give them such colorful names like 'console fanbois', 'consoletards', etc and all they call us is 'elitists'. I mean, really? They're not even trying... It seems like they waste all their talent <url=http://www.destructoid.com/the-psn-facebook-page-your-new-source-of-facepalm-200121.phtml>only on each other.Sebenko said:
I say we keep jabbing the console gamers till we get some more animosity.
You might be waiting a while for that. While CD Projekt have said they'd be happy to port the game to consoles and have already ensured their engine can run sufficient assets on consoles to make porting viable with some tweaking (down-scaling graphics, chopping up maps into smaller discrete units, etc), they're not a company that gets excited about console gaming.Lord_Gremlin said:
Basically, they'll do it once they're offered enough publishing/distro deals to make it worth their while to make the ports.
Well, it looks almost as good as Uncharted 2. But nothing so extreme that it can't be ported.CommanderKirov said:
Why would anyone format a system HHD to FAT32? The only thing I have in FAT32 format are small thumb drives, so they can transfer data between PCs and Macs. A 4 GB file isn't that big in today's standards. If a game takes up 16 GB of space, you may think that some of the files might be bigger than 4 GB.
This sounds more like technological incompetence rather than a developer problem.
This sounds more like technological incompetence rather than a developer problem.
Say it brother!ash-brewster said:
Seriously, stop acting like little children in here. If you can play any game from this generation you already have an NTFS-formatted hard drive. And I haven't seen ANY developer mentioning that EVER. I don't even see how this qualifies as news.
I use Bootcamp frequently on my Mac, but due to having a relatively small internal drive, I have only 25GB partitioned for my Windows install and system files. I then use a large external drive which is formatted half/half HFS+ (Mac) and NTFS (PC), where I install most of my Windows games and programs. I also have another, older 180GB external which I have formatted to FAT32 to use as a backup and swap drive. I usually have this unplugged, turning it on only when necessary.Virgil said:
This system works well for me - I can get around FAT32 being kind of unreliable for installing large games on, while still being able to transfer things easily between the two partitions. It does require 2 externals however! (Or one giant one with 3 partitions, I suppose.)
So, regarding the OT: were I to buy and play The Witcher 2, this system would allow me to install it fine. I'd be tempted to do so, if my graphics card were more powerful ...
It's not an oversight, not everyone apparently has gotten over this if it makes the news like this. It's the same thing that happened with me and Black Ops, Dual core Supported in the requirements, except it took 6 months for me to be able to play it because, well of my dual core processor and their lack of testing and willing to admit their product doesn't support something.Vrach said:It's not a lie, just an oversight. It's a file system issue, not a game one, very few people still use FAT32 nowadays. If you ever tried to burn a DVD image to your hard drive, you'd have run into this problem long ago cause FAT32 doesn't support single files that are bigger than 4 GBs. I imagine Witcher's just the first game to use a single file that big or something if it's the first time this has happened.Snotnarok said:
Also, it's not really a requirement. I mean it is but... if you failed to list a video card requirement, people would have to buy a new video card if their current one couldn't run the game. That's a requirement imo. This just requires you to get a single partition formatted as NTFS, you don't have to buy anything for it. At best it's an issue if you've only got a single partition (which is stupid to do in the first place), even then you can get some free program to just create a new partition for you without even having to format the old one. And really, anyone who's gaming and has a system to support playing Witcher 2 should be on NTFS by now - personally, to those people, I'd consider this "issue" to be a public service announcement on switching to a newer file system
I get it that it's obsolete but it should at least say this. A small note would have cleared all of this up. It'd suck if someone had got the game and got screwed by this slight oversight.
Who's being dramatic? Have you ever bought a game and because of an 'oversight' you're stuck with a drink coaster for 6 months? Hell I have a few games that don't work on my pc because of 'oversights' which is me wasting money that a multimillion dollar company doesn't care about.Raiyan 1.0 said:
Am I the only one to read every post in the thread before contributing? Feel very deja vu times eighty!
That deja vu feeling's back.
Really, I thought the tricky part was matching Memory frequency to CPU multiplier to motherboard clock to allow them to run at a 1:1 ratio and therefore get the best performance out of them.Treblaine said:
You are - as mentioned numerous times now in the thread you don't need to buy anything - you can create a partition on your drive that's NTFS or you can convert the drive to NTFS (without having to reformat/re-install everything) if you wished. This is not a limitation, it is a mere five minute google on how to fix - one I'd wager whomever has a rig powerful enough to meet the specs thrown about in this thread and is still running FAT32 (for whatever valid reason) should be aware of and be able to resolve with the aforementioned five minute google.Snotnarok said:
That deja vu feeling's back.
I deal with MANY files that are larger than 4 GB. Weather it be a HD movie, archived folder, disk image, game assets, etc. The point is that -in today's standards- with 1 TB HHDs being sold for less than $100 U.S., 4 GB isn't that large. It may be large to you, but the technology doesn't agree.believer258 said:
I know and no the largest one I have is 3 gigs and thats a 2 hour movie so yeah.believer258 said:
But what is the point of having a file bigger than like a 2 or 2.5 gigs? what is this file that is 9 gigs is the world an open world that it renders EVERYTHING at once or is it just a needlessly large file.