All of these age related comments (including yours) are baseless insults that target a much larger and different group than the one made up of aggressive people complaining about AVX requirements. Both sides of that fight consist of immature and sometimes downright stupid people.
You don’t have to be 50+ years old to have a machine that is 10+ years old without AVX support. Those in their late twenties had a chance to play even the original Diablo 2 when it was released in 2000.
Some old server machines can be picked up for pennies. They are usually much better at multithreading than the latest average consumer-grade desktop machine and their single core performance can also be very close. One of my friends often picks up well priced old Xeon workstations for jobs that are easy to parallelise (like offline 3D rendering).
I’d say that requiring AVX in newly released software isn’t unreasonable. Sometimes the developers can’t even forsee potential issues. I worked on a lot of different types of software (including game engines and servers) and we had quite a few “oops” moments after releases. Software engineers aren’t gods, they are humans who don’t know everything and make mistakes. Quite often they aren’t even the ones making the final decisions.
That is true. But a real gamer has CPU with AVX. I see no problem here. Same for the Windows 7 “cryers”: A new computer isnt expensive, only gpu is :).
To quote Drakuloth - “AVX support was not supposed to be a requirement for the game, so if the engine is requiring it, that’s unexpected behavior.”
Now to turn around and say that it’s minimum specs is incorrect. If it was a requirement from the beginning, i.e. Alpha and Beta, I believe people would accept it and move on. So this one is on Blizzard and spinning it as a minimum spec requirement was totally unnecessary as it tries to shift the blame on the consumer.
Having said that, I’m glad they are working on a solution and not leaving it as it is.
The minimum spec is the processor not the optional features (like AVX) that are missing from some processors. The min spec is very important because that’s the hardware the developers test the software on and that makes it impossible for their QA team to catch mistakes like AVX requirement (unnecessarily) turned on.
The game and the related tools (like level editors) are compiled with very different settings depending on who the user is. The programmers often run the game with all debug info embedded into the executable and optimisations turned off to make it easy to find and diagnose issues during development. Some other people at the company (like level designers) use a version of the software that is full of debug info (to make it easy to diagnose crashes) but compiled with some optimisations turned on to improve the performance (some kind of balance between debuggability and acceptable performance). The production release usually has zero debug info and compiled with most optimisations turned on to improve the performance and make it difficult to debug and reverse engineer.
It’s very likely that they intentionally used a bit different configurations for beta and the final release to make it easier to diagnose bugs during the beta. In a situation like that it isn’t difficult to make a mistake like using different AVX settings in the beta and release. Accidents like that are rather common but some settings have less prominent effects than the AVX one.
You treat a group of players with a certain type of hardware as superior. Most gamers don’t care about your definition of “real gamer” and a lot of them enjoy video games without AVX or x86 CPUs.
Using “real this and that” is often an attempt to force expectations on others.
Even from a technical perspective: requiring special instruction sets (like AVX) makes sense only when they bring significant performance improvements. That often requires tailoring the software to that instruction set from the beginning of the project. In reality there are a lot of special instruction sets (not only in x86 CPUs) that aren’t as useful as their designers originally thought because extracting value from them takes so much work that doing so isn’t economical and often isn’t done in real-world projects.
“Expensive” depends on your financial situation that depends on a lot of other factors: the place you were born, your family, your personal traits/abilities, etc… Life isn’t fair.
I have four RTX 3090 GPUs because they help a lot in my data science related projects. In contrast my gaming PC still has my “old” RTX 2080 because I was lazy to update it: took quite a while to fine tune my current setup to be quiet/silent and it is still more than enough for the games I play. I can afford high-end GPUs so they must be “cheap” for everyone right?
they will do that mayby in 2 monts when few tousent of players move to another game they know that ppl will joing game servers wipe XD dont care match about d2r will not upgrade pc for 400+euro to play game
Some of us built our PC’s to last a long time instead of having to replace every 3-5 years or so. I built mine while I was still in school 10 years ago. CPU was first generation i5. Then I upgraded RAM and GPU about 6 years ago. The whole rig still works quite well. I can play many of the latest games at max settings.
Upgrading CPU is not that trivial now because my MOBO needs to be changed given the new CPU sockets and I greatly dislike changing MOBOs since it requires me to take everything out.
Upgrading CPU is not easy for me though
Oh ya. So I had to do a little research on the topic of AVX technology here and it seems to be compatible for my desktop that I still have. It seems that it’s useful for integrating programs like Adobe flash player but not limited to just that.
Sorry it’s 2021. If you’re using hardware/software from the previous “age” due to financial concerns that sounds like a personal problem.
I’m 37 years old, my computer is not amazing or new but it is up to date enough that I’m not sitting on hardware from 10-15 years ago.
This thread is literally the new “old guys standing around complaining about things”.
Buy a new cpu and join us in 2021.
How many of you are still using windows 7? Hmmmm? And how many of you refuse to switch because of “blah blah I’m old and I like what I like blah blah”? Hmmm?
Oh yeah, so my 8 year old laptop runs the game (albeit with old school graphics mode only, otherwise it’s unplayable) but damn if my ancient 5 year old processor on my Desktop can even launch the game (course the Beta ran fine on max settings)! Yeah, course I should upgrade, they totally warned us of the AVX support beforehand!
Why would someone buy a new motherboard, CPU, and memory during one of the worst times to upgrade in recent memory to play one 21 year old game? Everything is marked up or out of stock right now. Ignoring that, these are computers that run the game just fine. We saw it in the beta.
They will either fix it or people will ask for a refund. No one is going with your suggestion unless they were about to upgrade anyway.
My machine has AVX and D2R runs fine for me. Fortunately I don’t have financial issues but thank you for your worry. My gaming PC has a recent i9 with an RTX 2080. I have four other PCs too with AMD Threadrippers and RTX 3090s for heavy workloads and a macbook for personal things (email, etc…). I don’t remember the last time I used Windows 7 but it was quite a few motherboards ago.
I don’t care how old you are but you happen to be older than me. What makes you think that financial issues (and these AVX problems) affect only 50+ year old people?
From a technical perspective D2R is zero years old. It borrowed the game design and some code from a 21 year old game but many important parts (like the renderer) are brand new.