Classic case of False Advertisement?

[Wolfeisberg]

How many times has THIS thread been restarted? Over 400K views, and 100K+ comments total so far.

 

How many separate threads have been made regarding this issue ? I would bet over a hundred thousand at least (google lists over 2,000,000 when I search SWTOR.com and FPS). There are countless Youtube videos up regarding this issue where user comments agree that the lag is unplayable. There are plenty of reputable game review websites un-biasedly stating that the majority of the player base simply cannot run this game due to it's horrendous, and inexplicable FPS.

 

majority? /facepalm yeah, those guys are talking out of their bums. Provide links to these said reputable review sites that seem to be polling the majority of the playerbase to find out they cant run the game.

[heatfanman]

...Welcome to PC gaming.

[Mandrax]

Many players whose system specs far exceed the recommended (not required) settings for Star Wars: The Old Republic are still finding the game unplayable due to severely low FPS. I understand that marketing a game that has low system requirements means selling more copies. However, this is false advertisement in it's purest form:

 

False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. Truth refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label.

 

While I know that there is not a chance in hell at me getting my $90 back from this fraudulent selling practice, I do believe that there is enough evidence at this point to support the fact that Bioware is well aware that the label on their product is misleading, and false. At a bare minimum, Bioware should be forced to revise their current Minimum System Requirements, and Recommended System Requirements before continuing to knowingly sell a product that is essentially broken for those it is wrongfully marketed towards.

 

Let's be honest, how many of you would have purchased Star Wars: The Old Republic if you knew that your system was not even remotely close to being able to run the game with a playable FPS? I know that I certainly would not have, and only purchased the game due to the misleading / false minimum requirements, and recommended requirements.

 

You realise that this case would be thrown out when BioWare produce a computer with the minimum specs that runs the game?

 

There are people with those specs that are playing, I know for a fact because a close friend of mine is on min specs and running around 30 fps in most areas with everything turned off.

[TheJmoney]

EA had their hand in this game. Knowing that EA can't even get a football game correct year after year should clue you in that they have a hand in this game's shortcomings as well.

[Draccman]

I have an i7 and an overclocked gtx560m, yes a laptop I know, but WELL above min specs. In the fleet I get anywhere from 10-25 fps, it is really quite horrid, Ilum I get around 30ish FPS even when noone is around, battle for alderaan I see around 30-40, while playable it is still dips to around 30 sometimes which is lower than I would like. Basically anywhere else I get 60-100 fps. There are some serious issues with this game, and considering I spend most of my time at the fleet it is unacceptable. I can turn everything on low and still not see playable framerates at the fleet.

 

I know WoW has much WORSE graphics than this game, but I cant help but draw the comparison of 80 FPS in stormwind with everything on ultra flying above the city looking down, and the horrid 10-25 fps in the fleet.

[Xugos]

I spent less than $500 on my computer when I built it 3 years ago. I run everything at high.

 

It's not like bioware is ignoring the issue. Turn down your graphics if its that bad. . .

 

This is in no way false advertising though.

 

BS. I know $3000 dollar rigs that are having issues with this game.

[Dianoia]

You do realize that legal precedant takes priority to your definition, right?

 

And, Mr. Lawyer OP, legal precedant is not on your side. Go do some research and find out why. That's what lawyers do, after all.

[SilverSalute]

1. Turn off shadows

2.???

3. Profit!

 

when i did this it was 30 times better. it probably helps most in Coruscant or anywhere inside or surrounded by tall buildings

[jbscotchman]

Weird, this is the first I'm hearing about performance issues. I played three weekend betas, and the retail version all run fantastic with my PC in my sig. Max settings with 70+ fps almost all the time.

[LordRelyks]

My system is a 2 year old laptop piece of crap that can still run this game flawlessly.

[MrTijger]

BS. I know $3000 dollar rigs that are having issues with this game.

 

See now why most peolle say its not a general issue?

[Colow_Leper]

twin core 3.0 GHz with a GTX 560 graphics card - 8 Gb memory - Windows Home Premium 64 bit

 

FPS at 60+ (which is all my monitor can cope with) - drops to 20-30 under pressure.

 

Can't see the problem myself - Just a bog standard PC - works fine.

 

In my case there may be a reason why it's running smoothly - when I downloaded for beta the game wouldn't run at all. Seems to have been a driver problem (I hadn't updated the drivers since I got it 2 years ago) - I went to all the various sites and got the latest drivers. The FPS was still an issue - but as the machine was 2 years old, I decided that the graphics card was probably due for updating - so I got the GTX 560 (mid range, all I could afford) and went off and got the new driver straight away.

 

My belief is that 99% of the issues that people have with the game are down to their hardware and software (and this belief has had people accuse me of either being a "fanboi" ^^ or working for Bioware - I'm neither. I also agree with the posters on here that say "look - there are MILLIONS of people that have no problems with the game - and only a very small number that do". A million players v a thousand players is 0.1% of the players - that's really not a lot in the scheme of things.

 

What you need to realise is that we all have the same version of the game running - and if 999 people don't have a problem for every one that does, I'd say that Bioware had done a pretty good job (at least as far as the initial version).

 

I know that it's frustrating - when the game wouldn't run at all for me, I was tearing my hair out. It was my GF that calmed me down and suggested that I go through my system.

 

Edit

 

That's 60 frames per second at highest res with all options on, including shadows (which are strangely jagged - so those who have to turn them off, you're not missing much!)

Edited January 3, 2012 by Colow_Leper

[JimG]

2 the game has yet been fully optimized

 

That's the problem right there. They are running into issues with optimization and compatibility.

[Imperialis]

Funny... i have an old 220GTS and a Quad Q6600 and i run the game just fine.

 

> Low / Med settings with 40 / 50 FPS

 

> This seems hardly a Engine problem, more like a driver issue as my cooler goes to 100% in certain areas ( shadows / smoke - fire particles / or in conversation with npcs ) but the framerate remains above 35 fps in these cases.

[Noth]

I've heard this in my guild several times. I say update your drivers and suddenly the problem vanishes for the player.

[Vindor]

Imperial fleet 9 am : 111 fps

Imperial fleet 9 pm, pvp vendor area : 20 fps

 

At least THEY didnt advertise massive siege pvp battle

 

lmao

[kineticdamage]

Are people failing at optimizing their rig or what ?

I got a one-year old rig and set everything to max ... even forcing overkill configuration in the .ini files, like setting dynamic lights overboard, antialiasing, complex shadows ..

 

Hell I'm even forcing Ambient Occlusion in Nvidia parameters ! (which is hugely resource consuming)

All in 1080p.

 

Guess where I sit FPS-wise ? 70.

 

People should learn to know their hardware before starting to complain, once again.

PCs are not consoles, ffs.

 

 

edit : oh and this so called rig :

Intel core i7 920

Nvidia GTX580

10 Go RAM

Edited January 3, 2012 by kineticdamage

[Korrigan]

I spent less than $500 on my computer when I built it 3 years ago. I run everything at high.

Same here. Old computer, running everything maxed out smooth as silk.

 

Gonna repost what I posted in a similar thread:

 

AMD Phenom II X4 640 Black (@3.4ghz)

4GB of RAM

ATI Radeon HD6870

500GB HDD

 

As you can see, my computer is neither the latest hardware not a killer gamer machine.

 

Yet I run this game with everything maxed out and 4x antialiasing forced through a Catalyst profile (new feature of Catalyst 12.1), it's smooth as silk at 1920x1080, 60+fps almost everywhere, including in warzones.

 

If you have performance problems, you can try to play the game in "Fullscreen (Windowed)" mode instead of pure "Fullscreen" mode. Also, if you use antialiasing, put it to the lowest (performance/multisample) setting in the control panel/profile.

[DariuszPol]

Thats a lie.

 

Nope. My PC is also worth 500$

AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition

4GB DDR3 1600Mhz from GoodRam

ATI Radeon HD 6850 from Gigabyte

+ Gigabyte main board, integrated sound card etc.

Windows 7 Home.

 

Nothing fancy and yet I play on max settings with no problems at all. Probably engine don't handle well some configurations OR you have bottleneck like 128bit graphic card (ancient stuff yet you can still buy some) or something like that.

More to that :-) I play Crysis 2 AND Battlefield 3 on max settings with this hardware.

 

Resolution 1440x900 if someone ask. Not a lie