Titanfall Beta Requires 64-Bit OS

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Thanks to this post over at Blue's News, we now know that the Titanfall beta will require a 64-bit OS. Other than that, the hardware specs are actually pretty low:

  • 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8 / 8.1
  • AMD Athlon X2 2.8GHz or Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
  • 4GB RAM
  • 512MB VRAM, Radeon HD 4770 or GeForce 8800GT
Click to expand...
 
A modified source engine so probably nothing demanding. I do like that it requires a 64 bit OS the PC world is so slow to move forward.
 
microsoft should start being like Apple..

only supply 64BIT OS next and be done with 32!!
 
steam hardware survey reports ~71% of machines are compatible. good move.
 
I am glad, this whole 32 bit OSes hanging on is pissing me off, we shouldn't have to pick between 64 and 32 bit programs but now. We have had 64 bit on EVERY OS for what more than 10 years now? Its time to get ignorant consumers to start demanding they get this.
 
Of course - they also recently said that it will only be on Origin (which seems bizarre, since they used the Source engine, but I suppose they are bound to EA).
 
rflcptr said:
and if they're running a 32-bit OS, what difference would it make? :p
Click to expand...
doesn't it seem like the 32bit os not be able to access enough memory? the game requires 4gb but the rest of the specs are low. 4gb is high specs to a lot of computers out there...especially 32bit OS spec'ed computers as they never would have come with more than 2gb standard and it's not like everyday person is upgrading RAM.
 
32-bit windows won't use anything greater than 4 gigabytes, since the address space is 2^32 bytes large. however, before memory, devices get mapped into the address space (video cards in particular, with their ever-growing counts vram [1GB is common]). this leaves much less than 4 gigabytes of memory available to the OS and processes.
 
WebFusion2 said:
Of course - they also recently said that it will only be on Origin (which seems bizarre, since they used the Source engine, but I suppose they are bound to EA).
Click to expand...

Respawn is unequivocally EA's bitch. Was evident when Microsoft wrote a bribe check to keep Titanfall off the Playstations.
 
DPI said:
Respawn is unequivocally EA's bitch. Was evident when Microsoft wrote a bribe check to keep Titanfall off the Playstations.
Click to expand...

I was just going to say that it's being released by EA, therefore I want nothign to do with it.

EA could be handing out bags of 50's and I'd tell them to stick it up their ass.
 
I keep hearing about this game, people keep declaring it GOTY 2014.

But i'm just wondering, what's the appeal?, the multiplayer only aspect makes me on the fence about this game
 
I'm going to take the wait and see approach.
Sorry EA, I don't trust you and I won't use Origin, ESPECIALLY after the whole Sim City bit.
 
SGA76 said:
I'm going to take the wait and see approach.
Sorry EA, I don't trust you and I won't use Origin, ESPECIALLY after the whole Sim City bit.
Click to expand...

Maybe then they will finally learn. Hopefully this release is smooth though since it does look like a neat game. How can anyone buy this day 1 with the last few botched roll outs:confused:
 
I hate EA's Origin service so much, that I bought Kingdoms of Amular: Reckoning off of Gamefly for $5 thinking it was a Steam code, wound up being an Origin code, never installed it.
Bought it again off of Steam for $11 3 months later, but this edition had all the DLC as well so it kind of evened out.
But no, I refuse to taint my pc with Origin or any game that requires Satan's download service.
 
SGA76 said:
I hate EA's Origin service so much, that I bought Kingdoms of Amular: Reckoning off of Gamefly for $5 thinking it was a Steam code, wound up being an Origin code, never installed it.
Bought it again off of Steam for $11 3 months later, but this edition had all the DLC as well so it kind of evened out.
But no, I refuse to taint my pc with Origin or any game that requires Satan's download service.
Click to expand...

Well technically, Satan's download service would work better than everyone else's. He does have dominion over the earth.
 
LoL this game they actually are charging people to alpha test it for them; and whats crazy is alot of people are actually paying money to do it ! Reminds me of a old country song named ( SOME FOOLS NEVER LEARN )
 
SGA76 said:
I hate EA's Origin service so much, that I bought Kingdoms of Amular: Reckoning off of Gamefly for $5 thinking it was a Steam code, wound up being an Origin code, never installed it.
Bought it again off of Steam for $11 3 months later, but this edition had all the DLC as well so it kind of evened out.
But no, I refuse to taint my pc with Origin or any game that requires Satan's download service.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with Origin. I've had more issues with Steam over the past two years than Origin, but both have been very stable.
 
Though I don't care for this game, its good to see software developers finally ditching 32 bit OS's, I just don't see the point of supporting them anymore if everything is pretty much compatible with 64 bit, and we aren't going to be stuck with 4GB anyway.
 
SGA76 said:
I'm going to take the wait and see approach.
Sorry EA, I don't trust you and I won't use Origin, ESPECIALLY after the whole Sim City bit.
Click to expand...

Yea, I use it pretty fine and if that is your biggest reason to not get this game... you shouldn't let that get in the way if it's a potential non-issue. I'm getting this game on the X1 since all my friends are. If they didn't I wouldn't have bothered. I have BF4 on the PC. I got my FPS fix, but playing with friends and all that > *.
 
rflcptr said:
32-bit windows won't use anything greater than 4 gigabytes, since the address space is 2^32 bytes large. however, before memory, devices get mapped into the address space (video cards in particular, with their ever-growing counts vram [1GB is common]). this leaves much less than 4 gigabytes of memory available to the OS and processes.
Click to expand...

That can't be true or this 32bit OS editions chart here is incorrect. Also are you saying if you had 4GB of ram and a Titan, you'd be at less than -2GB of ram?
 
...and P.S.....there's also going to be "aim assist" in the PC version as well.

These guys are so married to consoles it's a waste to even talk about their games anymore. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep it console-only.
 
ChronoDetector said:
its good to see software developers finally ditching 32 bit OS's, I just don't see the point of supporting them anymore if everything is pretty much compatible with 64 bit, and we aren't going to be stuck with 4GB anyway.
Click to expand...

Now if only more developers would do this, maybe, just maybe....Microsloft would finally see the light & ditch ALL of their legacy code base, so we could FINALLY have an OS that is free from all of the leftover crap dating back to the DOS days :)

yea right.........
 
SGA76 said:
I hate EA's Origin service so much, that I bought Kingdoms of Amular: Reckoning off of Gamefly for $5 thinking it was a Steam code, wound up being an Origin code, never installed it.
Bought it again off of Steam for $11 3 months later, but this edition had all the DLC as well so it kind of evened out.
But no, I refuse to taint my pc with Origin or any game that requires Satan's download service.
Click to expand...

Just gonna say it, makes you a bit of a hypocrite to hate one and like the other. They are the same thing. This is why I refuse to use either.

Back on topic. I'm mildly interested at best in Titanfall. However this is a good move from the pc end. Honestly 32 bit should of been dropped after vista. Why there remains a 32 bit still is beyond me. Outside netbooks and lower power devices of course. Makes no sense to continue supporting it on larger machines.
 
It makes sense if the game just doesn't work well in the 32-bit process size constraints, which can be quite a bit less than 2GB depending on which version of Windows is running.
 
mope54 said:
doesn't it seem like the 32bit os not be able to access enough memory? the game requires 4gb but the rest of the specs are low. 4gb is high specs to a lot of computers out there...especially 32bit OS spec'ed computers as they never would have come with more than 2gb standard and it's not like everyday person is upgrading RAM.
Click to expand...

Maybe so in general, but for a gaming PC meeting the video card requirements - 4 GB is minimum. And, if they don't have it but do have the AMD 4770+ video card, they can upgrade RAM more than likely.
 
rflcptr said:
what you're referring to is a set of windows server OSes. since we're talking about a client OS... :p
.
Click to expand...

You mentioned all 32bit versions of windows with no caveats. If the server version can do it then the possibility exists that the consumer versions can as well, it's an artificial limitation.

Also you can't have a negative maximum amount of memory, that doesn't make sense.
 
Sgraffite said:
That can't be true or this 32bit OS editions chart here is incorrect. Also are you saying if you had 4GB of ram and a Titan, you'd be at less than -2GB of ram?
Click to expand...

32-bit consumer versions of Windows do not allow for more than 4 gigabytes of memory because of shoddy-ass drivers written by incompetents that make assumptions about the hardware.

It is the same reason why the LAA flag isn't enabled by default; too many incompetent programmers who decided that because, at the time, Windows ignored the least significant bit of the memory address, that it would be swell to start using that as a place to store data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top