64-bit client?

[Icestar]

Some games on the market have already implemented a experimental version of the 64-bit version.

 

Can this happen to ToR aswell? We are a few that has high end computers with 12+ GIG ram that really would like the benefit of a 64-bit client.

 

How hard is it to patch and implement a 64-bit version from a 32-bit game?

Edited August 18, 2012 by Icestar

[Troezar]

64bit should be default by now. Most pc's seem to come with plenty if RAM these days as a selling point.

[Icestar]

64bit should be default by now. Most pc's seem to come with plenty if RAM these days as a selling point.

 

Exactly, I don´t know why the DEVs keep releasing games that could perform much better by allocating memory in a entire different way.

 

Imagine having a planet cached up in RAM while playing a warzone. When it is over you switch back to the planet with minimal loadingtime, now it takes ages.

 

ToR would benefit GREATLY whith this type of implementation

 

I have checked out the RAMdrive and other stuff but that is NOT what I am looking for, I want the game to be 64-Bit like any modern game should be by now.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Icestar

[MbaxterBeau]

Exactly, I don´t know why the DEVs keep releasing games that could perform much better by allocating memory in a entire different way.

 

Imagine having a planet cached up in RAM while playing a warzone. When it is over you switch back to the planet with minimal loadingtime, now it takes ages.

 

ToR would benefit GREATLY whith this type of implementation

 

I have checked out the RAMdrive and other stuff but that is NOT what I am looking for, I want the game to be 64-Bit like any modern game should be by now.

 

You are talking about devs that picked a game engine that can't handle world pvp and you think they were thinking about this?

[Icestar]

You are talking about devs that picked a game engine that can't handle world pvp and you think they were thinking about this?

 

Yeah, I think of those DEVS that hold proffessor and doctor degree in gamedesign in mind.

[Lazzer]

Windows 7 is a standard now and is 64 bit, but most computers are still sold with a base of 4gig RAM and there are still players using Windows XP.

[Icestar]

Windows 7 is a standard now and is 64 bit, but most computers are still sold with a base of 4gig RAM and there are still players using Windows XP.

 

Yep, but some games release a 64-bit version as a option, not a must have.

 

I am not sure if any non 64-bit operating system still recieves automatic security updates anymore, I think XP has stopped updating for example. There are some non 64-bit versions of Vista but I cant imagine that they are actually sold nowdays.

 

Bioware would benefit greatly by releasing a 64-bit version of ToR since many of us would happily play it more due to the insane loading times being significally reduced.

 

It is not a suggestion, it is a fact. ToR would be awesome with 64-bit support, I am sure this has been discussed on the DEV meetings sometime.

 

Why not prepare the F2P launch with a 64-bit option, THAT would greatly increase the playerbase I am sure of it.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Icestar

[MbaxterBeau]

Yep, but some games release a 64-bit version as a option, not a must have.

 

I am not sure if any non 64-bit operating system still recieves automatic security updates anymore, I think XP has stopped updating for example. There are some non 64-bit versions of Vista but I cant imagine that they are actually sold nowdays.

 

Bioware would benefit greatly by releasing a 64-bit version of ToR since many of us would happily play it more due to the insane loading times being significally reduced.

 

It is not a suggestion, it is a fact. ToR would be awesome with 64-bit support, I am sure this has been discussed on the DEV meetings sometime.

 

Why not prepare the F2P launch with a 64-bit option, THAT would greatly increase the playerbase I am sure of it.

 

Unfortunately Icestar most companies don't have people who think about problems like you do working for them and instead they have yes people.

[Diktat]

Unfortunately 32bits is something industry don't want to rid off. Even Windows 8 has a 32bits version. It's crazy but it's the world we're all in.

[turjake]

Unfortunately 32bits is something industry don't want to rid off. Even Windows 8 has a 32bits version. It's crazy but it's the world we're all in.

 

Wow has a 64 bit client in the beta stages, so even game industry is moving on.

Edited August 18, 2012 by turjake

[NasherUK]

I don't know why people are still developing in 64bit, no one uses it any more. 32bit only hardware hasn't even been sold for about the past 6 years.

 

The last mainstream 32bit OS was XP, but even microsoft have stopped support for it now.

Edited August 18, 2012 by NasherUK

[Icestar]

Wow has a 64 bit client in the beta stages, so even game industry is moving on.

 

Yep. I will try that in their new expansion. I am curious how much better the gameplay will be

 

32-bit client, it feels so 2000. It is 2012 now dang it

[moonshoter]

ADD Direct 11 Support it would be awesome!!.

[HoundMB]

There are some drawbacks to 64 bit that you may not be aware of. Sure utilizing a 64 bit architecture gives you access to a much larger amount of memory, but that also means that to reference a spot in that memory you now have to use 64 bits instead of 32. That's alot more bit pushing down in the guts of the computer.

 

So you may speed up your load times, but it could be at the expense of actual in game performance, which alot of people are already struggling with.

[Metalmac]

There are some drawbacks to 64 bit that you may not be aware of. Sure utilizing a 64 bit architecture gives you access to a much larger amount of memory, but that also means that to reference a spot in that memory you now have to use 64 bits instead of 32. That's alot more bit pushing down in the guts of the computer.

 

So you may speed up your load times, but it could be at the expense of actual in game performance, which alot of people are already struggling with.

 

LOL you do not understand processors. In order for a 64 bit CPU to use 32 bit it has to HALF the SPEED by splitting every single process into two 32 bit halves then process the data. And this is why 32 bit sucks.

You end up with 32 bits being wasted in the CPU for every single instruction done!

 

Moving to 64 bits would double the speed not slow it down.

According to your logic a 256 bit Video card should be slower then a 128 bit Video card.

 

By the way moving data at 64 bits would be twice as fast as moving it 32 bits at a time.

[warultima]

There are some drawbacks to 64 bit that you may not be aware of. Sure utilizing a 64 bit architecture gives you access to a much larger amount of memory, but that also means that to reference a spot in that memory you now have to use 64 bits instead of 32. That's alot more bit pushing down in the guts of the computer.

 

So you may speed up your load times, but it could be at the expense of actual in game performance, which alot of people are already struggling with.

 

As an IT professional and a seasoned gamer I have to disagree.

 

Most mainstream processors (i5/phenom and up) are "overkill" to a lot of the current games and pretty much all of them included native 64 bit command set thats designed to make stuff preform better. Structural wise its more complicated but it really shouldnt be consumers' concern, the burden lies to the programmers. 32 bit structure will never get to utilize the processors full potential. This is the reason why most CAD stuff now include a 64-bit application as standard (eg. photoshop, auto cad, 3d studio max and so on).

 

Only people will experience issues are the ones using low end processors (eg old P4s that has emulated 64-bit command set thats natively 32-bit core) which is why a 64-bit client should definitely be an option while 32-bit legacy client should remain. The process of switching to 64-bit is costly and buggy and many old school programmers do not have knowledge of. Lastly many game makers deem it to be unnecessary expense (hiring younger talented programmers to re-structure the existing client while they can NOT sell the 64-bit client for profit directly.)

 

Just from memory structure on (for example) video cards, going from 64-bit to 128-bit provides double the bandwidth with the same amount of memory. RL performance can easily improve over 30% depending on how the software is using the resource.

 

But unfortunately I dont think all these talks are realistic in SWTOR which is utilizing an out-dated engine and still dont have multi-processor support let along 64-bit integration. Also SWTOR is not making as much money as they would like I dont see how they will spend more to make this game more optimized. Switching away from Hero engine is also an option but hell it all comes down to if they got the money and will to make it happen.

Edited August 18, 2012 by warultima

[Icestar]

But unfortunately I dont think all these talks are realistic in SWTOR which is utilizing an out-dated engine and still dont have multi-processor support let along 64-bit integration. Also SWTOR is not making as much money as they would like I dont see how they will spend more to make this game more optimized. Switching away from Hero engine is also an option but hell it all comes down to if they got the money and will to make it happen.

 

This is actually sad news. 64-client is probably off the table then

[Fyurii]

Some games on the market have already implemented a experimental version of the 64-bit version.

 

Can this happen to ToR aswell? We are a few that has high end computers with 12+ GIG ram that really would like the benefit of a 64-bit client.

 

How hard is it to patch and implement a 64-bit version from a 32-bit game?

 

The real reason why this, and the vast majority of games don't have a 64-bit version on PC is simple.

Consoles aren't 64-bit.

Unless the next generation of consoles have 64-bit capability, we won't see an increase in 64-bit games, especially when a 64-bit OS can still run 32-bit software.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Fyurii

[Vincit]

Years ago, back in the stone age of 1997-2000, I used to work for a company called Simutronics which was the creator of the grand-daddy of all MMOs, the text based Gemstone II, started all the way back in 1987. (If you ever played in the Centaur Village of Alliance of Heroes or shopped for stuff for your player home, you probably saw something I worked on in one of their many text based games.) They were working on this thing called "Hero's Journey" which used a new and radical 3D engine they were designing called the Hero Engine.

 

Heavily modified, this engine is what we are currently playing SWTOR on now. A 14 year old design at its heart. So updating it is probably a pain in the hind-end for the devs.

 

Probably be easier to scrap it completely and build a new engine from the ground up.

[RazielHex]

Unfortunately 32bits is something industry don't want to rid off. Even Windows 8 has a 32bits version. It's crazy but it's the world we're all in.

 

You realize that this is because there's a sizable percentage of people who still use 32-bit machines, and programs need to be reverse compatible with the 8 16-bit registers a 32-bit machine has, rather than the 16 32-bit registers a 64-bit machine has, right?

 

That's why we're still using IPv4 for God's sake.

 

It has nothing to do with the 4GB of Virtual Memory a 32-Bit architecture carries (2GB Kernel/2GB User), or that the theoretical virtual memory a 64-Bit can go to being about 2EB. I would consider that a "flaw" as much as I would consider ASLR a "flaw."

 

Neither are.

Edited August 18, 2012 by RazielHex

[dandamanno]

The real reason why this, and the vast majority of games don't have a 64-bit version on PC is simple.

Consoles aren't 64-bit.

Unless the next generation of consoles have 64-bit capability, we won't see an increase in 64-bit games, especially when a 64-bit OS can still run 32-bit software.

 

This is also a very valid point. Get with the times consoles!

 

If you look here you can see that 64 bit is now the dominant platform at about 65% or so of total OS's. So it would make sense to give the majority of players a better experience no?

 

Unfortunately the problem is that a 64 bit .exe will not work on the other 35% of OS's whereas a 32 bit .exe will work fine on the 64 bit OS's. Developers know this, and so it is easier to develop the 32 bit program that works for everyone.

 

Sad but true. Maybe when it hits 75-80% devs will be more willing to say "Requires 64 bit OS to play"

[dandamanno]

You realize that this is because there's a sizable percentage of people who still use 32-bit machines, and programs need to be reverse compatible with the 8 16-bit registers a 32-bit machine has, rather than the 16 32-bit registers a 64-bit machine has, right?

 

That's why we're still using IPv4 for God's sake.

 

It has nothing to do with the 4GB of Virtual Memory a 32-Bit architecture carries (2GB Kernel/2GB User), or that the theoretical virtual memory a 64-Bit can go to being about 2EB. I would consider that a "flaw" as much as I would consider ASLR a "flaw."

 

Neither are.

 

Yes, and businesses are the worst. They never change things over until it is absolutely required. They simply do a cost benefit analysis and there are no differences to them using 64 bit OS (how would switching to 64 bit help out, say, a local insurance company, or Wal-Mart for instance).

 

Especially if it means having to replace old legacy hardware that requires 32 bit drivers to work.

 

That is why we still see 32 bit systems prevalent in the work place. And will for many years to come.

Edited August 18, 2012 by dandamanno

[Polebreaker]

Yes, and businesses are the worst. They never change things over until it is absolutely required. They simply do a cost benefit analysis and there are no differences to them using 64 bit OS (how would switching to 64 bit help out, say, a local insurance company, or Wal-Mart for instance).

 

Especially if it means having to replace old legacy hardware that requires 32 bit drivers to work.

 

That is why we still see 32 bit systems prevalent in the work place. And will for many years to come.

 

All true... However, we're talking about a game client. I doubt that business pc's are the target for such things.... At this point, any particular target home for a game like this is more than likely running an x64 capable machine, if not an OS (yet.) Games already demand better than average video performance. On the other hand, there isnt really (afaik) a huge impetus for making an x64 client other than marginal performance (~5%) increases.

 

BTW, the x64 Wow client does run better on my machine than the x86 client 8) But that's not true for everyone who's tried it.

[warultima]

64 bit client will mean nothing but performance increase on most gaming rigs.

While RL performance result might not be night and day it all boils down to the coding optimization itself.

 

As I said the process itself is costly and buggy and offers no real revenue increase on top of next to none existence backward compatibility to legacy hardwares (or will be running at reduced efficiency due to emulation limitation and performance degradation). AND by developing a 64-bit client now they have to maintain not 1 but 2 clients... an increased operational cost.

 

It's a shame really for a game that boasts a 200m development cost it's so outdated in so many perspectives. Even Rift (estimated development cost 50m) running a semi-old engine (GameBryo) makes gorgeous visual and is completely capable of RvRvR without turning the game into PvP slideshow like Ilum. Actually Trion also heavily modified GameBryo so much it's not even really GameBryo anymore. Trion says it's a "custom engine" derived from GameBryo.

 

Again why is it for a no name (and no $$$) development team like Trion can make their game so much better than BW/EA's (the cash cow) development team?

 

As far as 64-bit client goes, props to Blizzard. But if Rift dont even plan on releasing 64-bit client there's no way in hell they would do it for SWTOR, a game they considered financially failure, but one can only hope.

 

On the other hand Trion have made enough money JUST FROM RIFT (designed with F2P in mind but still sustaining their monthly subs only model) and is now using the money and funding 4 new games including a f2p multi-platform MMO, Defiance.

 

I have a dream, Trion takes over and develop a new Star Wars game. (sorry you EA fanbois, but better developers are better, and I dont think EA still have the capability to acquire Trion then proceed to destroy it like what they are doing to BW).

Edited August 18, 2012 by warultima

[Powrtech]

I think a 64-bit version would help immensely, I mean I know SWTOR itself just takes more memory and what not, but I can play WoW or GW2 with medium to full graphics settings and get 50 fps; but on TOR i play with all minimal settings still getting only around 20-30 fps. Most of the time it's worse than that.