Don't Buy Global Agenda - [H] Editorial

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good editorial Kyle. It's nice to see 'site owners actually take a stand and call a POS a POS, rather than using some bland generalizations in fear of offending companies to the point the 'site won't get the next review sample.
 
Grimgor said:
I had to suppress a chuckle when I read Kyle's rant.

Seriously, Kyle, don't you think that most people are mature enough to make their own purchasing decisions?

I can understand that you are annoyed that your shiny toys aren't fully supported by this game, and that you disagree about the developers' rationale for it, but they do have a point. You can't go and point to 1280x1024 vs 2560x1900 or whatever and claim that it's a baseless argument, because even at 1280x1024, you still see the same amount of game universe, it's just not as detailed. This is a far cry from an Eyefinity setup. Really, nobody should have to explain this to you, should they?

As others have mentioned, Eyefinity is a niche market. Are you going to lambast other dev houses for not supporting physics processors or six CPU cores? No. In other words, your stance is inconsistent and hypocritical.

At the end of the day, the developers have an, ahem, global agenda, particularly on the online multiplayer aspect to ensure that the game has a wide appeal that will keep people playing. They decide what is best for game balance, and that's their right. You only manage to come across as a toddler throwing your toys because they didn't warm your bottle enough for ya.

You know what would be great for the industry, Kyle? When you actually tried creating your own games and stopped ridiculing the hard work of others when you didn't lift a single finger to bring about its fruition. Sure, you're perfectly entitled to your criticism (we all are), but to abuse your web site's reputation to further your own agenda, is highly immature. And megalomaniacal. And arrogant.

I see lots of people here are claiming that holding back eyefinity will cause it to not penetrate the market as fast as it could. This is a post-hoc rationalization that flies in the face of the facts (others have mentioned Steam's stats). You don't have ANY right to demand that developers push technology. We do, however, have a right to demand that we are given innovative, fun, original games. You're so stuck in laa-laa-land, and so disconnected from reality it's not even funny. When's the last time you had to weigh up the cost of upgrading your shit against providing for your family? Not everybody is as fortunate, and that's something to keep in mind, isn't it?

If the game is brilliant, what fucking difference does it make if it doesn't make full use of your hardware's capabilities? There's a reason why games like Master of Orion and other old favourites regularly adorn the screens of people who grok that it's not what goes INTO the box that matters, but what comes out of it.
Click to expand...

QFT! Developers focus on the majority of users, I'm sure they will reconsider in a future patch.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Derangel said:
We have a right to get pissed when a developer intentionally locks people out from playing their game. As has been said many times in this topic, not supporting the resolution isn't the problem. Many games don't, implying everyone who uses Eyefinity is a cheater is another story all-together. I'd use an analogy, but I honestly can't think of a good one.
Click to expand...

No one is getting locked out from playing the game, only from using a configuration that allows for a wider point of view. I see no problem with that as it is their game and their right to do with it as they see fit as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Don't like it? don't buy it. It really IS that simple.
 
Eyefinity by ATI is being pushed hard by HardOCP... so hard that I think Kyle and HardOCP have a deal with ATI

Money always rules guys. Open your eyes.

PS: I think multi monitor gaming will only be used by people with to much money... console gaming is the primarily market and that will never have multi display (for quite some time at least)
 
germanjulian said:
Eyefinity by ATI is being pushed hard by HardOCP... so hard that I think Kyle and HardOCP have a deal with ATI

Money always rules guys. Open your eyes.

PS: I think multi monitor gaming will only be used by people with to much money... console gaming is the primarily market and that will never have multi display (for quite some time at least)
Click to expand...


Naw Im sure Kyle would be all over Nvidia's offering of Multi-monitor gaming if it was out first.

That is what 6 months behind the other company does for ya
 
Grimgor said:
I had to suppress a chuckle when I read Kyle's rant.

Seriously, Kyle, don't you think that most people are mature enough to make their own purchasing decisions?

I can understand that you are annoyed that your shiny toys aren't fully supported by this game, and that you disagree about the developers' rationale for it, but they do have a point. You can't go and point to 1280x1024 vs 2560x1900 or whatever and claim that it's a baseless argument, because even at 1280x1024, you still see the same amount of game universe, it's just not as detailed. This is a far cry from an Eyefinity setup. Really, nobody should have to explain this to you, should they?

As others have mentioned, Eyefinity is a niche market. Are you going to lambast other dev houses for not supporting physics processors or six CPU cores? No. In other words, your stance is inconsistent and hypocritical.

At the end of the day, the developers have an, ahem, global agenda, particularly on the online multiplayer aspect to ensure that the game has a wide appeal that will keep people playing. They decide what is best for game balance, and that's their right. You only manage to come across as a toddler throwing your toys because they didn't warm your bottle enough for ya.

You know what would be great for the industry, Kyle? When you actually tried creating your own games and stopped ridiculing the hard work of others when you didn't lift a single finger to bring about its fruition. Sure, you're perfectly entitled to your criticism (we all are), but to abuse your web site's reputation to further your own agenda, is highly immature. And megalomaniacal. And arrogant.

I see lots of people here are claiming that holding back eyefinity will cause it to not penetrate the market as fast as it could. This is a post-hoc rationalization that flies in the face of the facts (others have mentioned Steam's stats). You don't have ANY right to demand that developers push technology. We do, however, have a right to demand that we are given innovative, fun, original games. You're so stuck in laa-laa-land, and so disconnected from reality it's not even funny. When's the last time you had to weigh up the cost of upgrading your shit against providing for your family? Not everybody is as fortunate, and that's something to keep in mind, isn't it?

If the game is brilliant, what fucking difference does it make if it doesn't make full use of your hardware's capabilities? There's a reason why games like Master of Orion and other old favourites regularly adorn the screens of people who grok that it's not what goes INTO the box that matters, but what comes out of it.
Click to expand...

I played in the beta, and I thought it was an ok game, pretty fun @ times, however...

I had no clue it didn't have EF support. If I had shelled out the bucks for EF, I'd have been super pissed.

Let's be frank, I think Kyle is going a little overboard calling for an all out boycott on the game, however, this is a hardware enthusiast site. I read these forums because my fellow PC gamers push the [H]ard envelope.

Bottom line, it's Kyle and CO.'s site. You can disagree with their conclusion, however, I definitely see why they made the decision. Someday, I'll probably have multimonitor gaming going on. When I do, I want to make the damn industry supports it or all I've got is the equivalent of a console with less support.

We need to support and embrace technologies that push the envelope of PC game and make it stand out. Unfortunately, it appears HI REZ is going to be the first developer to take Kyle's beat-down.
 
maleficarus said:
The human eye cannot see anything past 60 anyways so please dude, enough of the crap. 333 FPS? LOL The only time frames become important is unplayable (below 30) vs. playable (above 30).
Click to expand...

derp. You realize when you post something blatantly false it pretty much discredits every other post you've made in the thread right?

The human eye is perfectly capable of perceiving framerate changes over 60. Most monitors are currently limited to an output of 60hz, but some displays are capable of far higher, and since the human eye is continually updating. It's not a switched device running at a specific frequency, you can't pin a frequency on it and say 'it can't see over XXX lolz get a clue nerp' and expect people who actually know what is up to take you seriously.

The funny thing is that morons keep posting and believing this so it won't actually die.
 
Why couldn't Global agenda have a server dedicated to Eyefinity players or anyone that wants to compete against them? And other servers that wouldn't allow for it to keep things "fair". Just curious.
 
Some of you all need to stop Pole Jockin' on Kyle so much.

The game is an excellent game.
 
Will Eyefinity draw MORE of the map on screen for them versus the non EF users? Or is it the exact same area of the map just stretched out to fit a "bigger" monitor?
 
Why play online if your not going to compete?

If your serious about it, you get the best hardware you can afford.
 
I think the other side of it is that unless you're admiral akbar it's impossible to gain some massive cheating advantage just from having a wider FOV on multiple displays anyway. All this was gone over in the original eyefinity editorial Kyle did months ago. It looks cool but you still have to look over to make clear eye contact due the rim of your eye being action processing and the center being the only part capable of processing detail. The Eyefinity and multi-display setup do not give any advantage different than wearing Sennheiser headsets to track footsteps, Ventrilo chat rooms to ghost in pub's, or using striped down configs to speed up registry. If anything eyefinity would detract from competitive play due to the massive processing impact and well just the damn distractingness of it.

Calling it an unfair advantage is not only incorrect it's idiotic. As I stated previously back in day people had a big advantage just from having nicer setups.That's why we have broadband. That's why we build our own PC's. That's why we're on hardforums goddamit.(except for the console only kids in the game section. I think they're just trying to spread their Halo virus.)
 
kirbyrj said:
Well, whatever...the point being that if the game is good, people will buy it regardless of whether or not it runs on 3 screens or 1 screen. Not many people will NOT buy a game just because it doesn't support Eyefinity.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There must be a good reason why the devs aren't supporting it. I personally thing it isn't a high priority for them, because they are working on other more important issues before adding on things such as this.
 
hfx392 said:
Now, I don't know if Global Agenda forces a fixed FOV regardless the users' aspect ratio or not - but it would seem to me that if they do, Eyefinity/multimonitor setups would actually be somewhat of a disadvantage.

However, a larger, say 120° FOV, is an advantage over a "standard" 75-90° FOV in several types of games - shooters included. It has very little/nothing to do with the pixel count. I'm really not sure how anyone can question this.

Shooters are usually about who sees who first, and the person with a wider FOV has a better chance of seeing someone first. Like waving a flashlight around in the dark trying to find something, one is more likely to find it quicker with a wider beam. Being able to see someone at +/-60°, while they can't see you at +/-45° is an advantage.

Either way, I think choosing to enforce/limit a fixed FOV is purely a design choice, and well within the rights of the designers to enforce or allow. You don't like their choice? You don't have to - but please don't try to act like a wider FOV isn't an advantage.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is as big of a issue, because the game is in the third person viewpoint. First person shooters it does cause a person to have an advantage.


Edit: also like to point out, even though eyefinity may be supported in many games, the UI's of plenty of games have issues with eyefinity.
 
Last edited:
A poor game that amounts to not much more than TF2 that I pay monthly for is not even on my radar.
 
the editorial said:
And let's face it, if that poor bastard setting up the turret in the video would have had some Eyefinity loving, that purple dude with the sword would not have cut his head off.
Click to expand...

Funny the editorial mentions this. Thats exactly the problem.

We've been down this road before. When you can pinpoint someone's footsteps due to awesome headphones + 3d sound tech thats an advantage too. As can macroable keyboards and mice. So is modifying a game's flag texture so a CTF game draws a massive flag, always showing its location over a hill or whatever. Or running a packet sniffer on a linux box between you and the game server, giving you radar. Somewhere along the line it turns to cheating.

I know this new 120hz monitor is giving me an advantage. Too damn bad, they can pry it from my cold dead hands ;)
 
Last edited:
Multi-display infancy my ass!

I've had dual-head since 2000

IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME THE DEVELOPERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT!

Unfair advantage? How about those of us with 24" or larger WS monitors that go to 100 degrees FOV? Why not limit that to 1024x768 and call it a day?

Specious argument at best; "we're too damn lazy to code for it" is closer to the truth.
 
mrpc9886 said:
Multi-display infancy my ass!

I've had dual-head since 2000

IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME THE DEVELOPERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT!

Unfair advantage? How about those of us with 24" or larger WS monitors that go to 100 degrees FOV? Why not limit that to 1024x768 and call it a day?

Specious argument at best; "we're too damn lazy to code for it" is closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

I have a 30" Dell. I assure you a guy with a 3x20" Eyefinity is going o see a hell of a lot more than I will.

People are still glossing over my point. This isn't TF2. This is a game with subscription based content and the developers are trying to keep an even playing field. Yes you can argue that WoW arena teams would have an advantage with an EFsetup. But the thing is WoW is based around arena. GA is based on PvP. They are trying to get you to pay to play the better content. EF would be an advantage.

Thing is FPS games (Battlefield) locked out widescreen for a long time because it was not common and seen as an advantage (plus to be honest they were lazy about it). Now widescreen is the status quo. Hell every pre-made you buy comes with widescreen. Maybe when EF comes in a box you will see it change. But until it is mainstream and common it will be seen as an unfair advantage. Shit happens, telling people not to buy it because the devs don't want to support it isn't fair. They are doing it for balance. It just doesn't seem right when other games don't support it yet and are single player that it's not bitched about.

But, but, but AvP will support it out of the box. Yeah, it's not a pay to play game. Buy the box and that's it. It is not a constant stream of revenue. That's why they are doing it, to protect monthly income
 
Just wanted to stop back in and say that I looked into the game a bit since I'd never heard of it before this "editorial." Looks like fun so I went ahead and signed up. Thanks for making me aware of this intriguing game Kyle.
 
Stupidest editorial ever.

Who the heck tells people not to buy a game simply because it doesn't support one minor feature? I realize you love Eyefinity so much that you want it to have your babies, but that doesn't mean the entire world should not buy a game simply because that game doesn't like your future baby-momma.

I am kidding of course, but that is how stupid this editorial was. You come across as a whining little baby, and over the last 6 years I have come to expect WAY better from you. It would be a different matter entirely if you reviewed the game and compared its pros and cons, and mentioned this as a major issue, but not a deal breaker, then let us decide for ourselves. But instead you basically throw a tantrum in front of the entire world because you can't have your way and play with your new toy whenever you want.

Sad.
 
Interesting way of making a point against a company...you have made it more popular than they could have ever dream of probably. lol
Now, your fascination with Eyefinity is really getting to a scary level now.
As an extreme gamer your love for it over 3D vision is just strange and does not compute for me...I mean, yeah, 3 monitors is a LOT better than just one but you are still freaking experiencing those awesome 3d worlds in plain old 2d no matter how many monitors you use plus there was SoftTH and TripleHead actively used (niche market yes but still) and I dont recall you raving about those this much.
Still, I do agree that they have no right of blocking this.
I mean, are they locking all mouse rates to 125 or something to not give and advantage to users with high speed mouse? Or are they blocking 3d vision so that I do not have the advantage of judging depth better? I mean, so many things they would need to block based on their flawed logic that is not even funny.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how so many of you people don't give a crap. This is not about eyefinity, it's about their dumb ass excuse that it will give players an advantage. Ya so what if it's an advantage.

By your philosophies every one should have there game capped at 20 fps so people with good computers don't have an advantage.

Let's limit the res to 800x600 since everyones monitors support that and no one will have an advantage.

People with good internet connections and good ping should be kicked for having an advantage.

Mice should be limited to 100dpi just in case there is someone playing with a ball mouse so no one has an advantage.

We should probably kick or handicap good players too so no one has an advantage of being better than some one else.

It's one thing for a game to not support a feature but stupid devs like this can really hurt the adoption rates of new technologies. If all devs start saying that it's an advantage and start disabling the feature then the tech will never take off. The next big revolution in gaming that should become the standard in a few years could instead just fade away and be forgotten about.
 
Last edited:
I agree this is an awesome technology. I look forward to it becoming more commonplace, where we see more people using it. As soon as I have the money, I'm upgrading to Eyefinity myself. Kyle's video when he first put his together excited me beyond belief.

This being said, I don't agree with this "hunt and burn" mentality of singling out every game that dosen't support Eyefinity. Yes I agree something should be done to show these developers that Eyefinity is something we want. Getting on their forums and letting your voices be heard, emailing the company and voicing your concerns to them, letting your public disgust be known across the internet....these are all ways to deal with these companies. However telling someone not to buy a game, simply because they have the attitude of not supporting a feature that you may or may not like, when you have the power of a website such as HardOCP, in my opinion is wrong. PC Gaming is in a fragile state. We lose more and more people to the "I'll play it on my 360" attitude everyday. We don't need fewer companies creating PC games, we need more. An editorial like this could put this game developer out of business, especially from what I can tell they look like an indie studio, and it looks like this title was only developed for the PC. When every major game studio is taking the " I'm gonna suck console dick" mentality(see CliffyB) and we actually have a player that is supporting PC gaming, I kind of wonder which is more important, Eyefinity or more competition in the PC gaming realm. I prefer both and would not like to have to choose. Just my .02.
 
Do you really care that much about this? You are in an absolute extreme minority of PC gamers. Hardly anyone at all, much, much less than 1% of PC gamers would drop that much money on a setup to play a few games. You would need a minimum of 2 $300 videocards and 3 $300-800 monitors. I understand this is a hardcore PC gaming and hardware website, and eyefinity is cool as hell, but I don't think that people should be boycotting a game over a lack of supporting an extremely niche setup. Yes their reasoning is illogical, they should have just said that it is not supported because it is not worth the time, effort, and other various resources needed to please a tiny amount of consumers.
 
CyCo_SoMaTiC said:
I kind of wonder which is more important, Eyefinity or more competition in the PC gaming realm. I prefer both and would not like to have to choose. Just my .02.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

But I think cool technologies like eyefinity give us one more leg up on the Console competition. It could be a major reason why someone went out and bought a gaming setup vs a console. Better graphics used to be enough but not anymore. I think pcs need to do more like eyefinity to separate them selfs from consoles if they want to stick around as a gaming platform.

Because the cost of an eyfinity setup is so great right now many people are writing it off as a niche group. It is a niche group for now but if consumers push hard enough manufactures will find ways to drive prices down to a more reasonable level. It may take years but if demand is great enough they will make it happen.

Many people are writing this off as a niche group, which it is for now. If demand is great enough however manufacturers will find a way to make this technology more affordable to the rest of us and in a few years could become the norm.
 
Last edited:
Big Kudos to Kyle for the article, it's really great to see someone has the guts to bitch for the gaming community. I've been reading [H] for a few years now, and not always agreed with K's opinion but there's something I'm pretty sure about: this guy has the balls to put his opinion online no matter who gets pissed off about it.

That's independent journalism and not sheep-journalism, long live [H]!
 
I don't see any problem with them blocking it for multiplayer games. Just like blocking FOV changes. Now if it was a single player game and they intentionally decided not to support it, okay, boycott it.
 
Xyvotha said:
Big Kudos to Kyle for the article, it's really great to see someone has the guts to bitch for the gaming community. I've been reading [H] for a few years now, and not always agreed with K's opinion but there's something I'm pretty sure about: this guy has the balls to put his opinion online no matter who gets pissed off about it.

That's independent journalism and not sheep-journalism, long live [H]!
Click to expand...
But why not have the balls as you said for more important issues like the carp they pulled off with the PC version of MW2 instead?
 
As someone who currently has his PC hooked up to a (was) $600 TV, and who will be moving on to a $600 Eyefinity setup in the near future, I thank you Kyle for standing up for a voiceless minority such as myself. It is sad that the culture today is about appeasing what is popular more than standing up for what is right.
 
well now i guess i really have a reason not to get this game.. even though i never was anyways.. game looks stupid.. just wish MMO's and RPG's would friggin die already..


shaolin95 said:
But why not have the balls as you said for more important issues like the carp they pulled off with the PC version of MW2 instead?
Click to expand...

because they probably quit playing MW2 after the first couple weeks like the rest of us.. along with having to deal with so many blind fanboy's that cant use simple commonsense..
 
So, here is the post the HR dev was responding to:
ATI Eyefinity - horizontal FOV locked
The newer ATI 5000 series of cards have the ability to combine multiple monitors into a single screen. This can also be accomplished with the SoftTH program and Matrox TripleHead2Go peripheral. A common setup is 3 monitors side by side (ie (3) 1900x900 => 5700x900). Many games support this higher resolution and give an expanded horizontal field of view (leading to more peripheral vision). By and large, this setup is breathing new life into PC gaming.

You can specify the resolution in GA using the /setres command, however the horizontal FOV remains locked, leading to a decrease in the vertical FOV (reduces it to the middle 1/3 of the standard view). Seems silly that by using 3 monitors, I am only going to see 1/3 of what I can see with 1 monitor.

Is there a way to unlock the horizontal FOV or any plans to support it? Surround gaming is starting to pick up steam and many people are actively seeking titles that support it (and dismissing any games that don't). If there is a command that I have overlooked, please let me know. Thanks.
Click to expand...

So, unless I'm reading this wrong, GA would support Kyle's eyefinity setup since he is running three monitors in portrait mode and wouldn't need an expanded FOV since the final display size he has is close to a supported resolution. It's only the super-wide (5700x900 in the post) eyefinity configs they don't support. Right now the game supports 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 aspect ratios I think and it sounds like you can use any res as long as they are one of those aspect ratios. In competitive FPS gaming super-wide FOV settings have often been banned (in CAL and TWL at least) because they do give an advantage. Top of the line equipment can give you a slight edge, but eventually you've gotta draw the line and decide if you're going to allow corked bats. GA is trying to be a competitive game, so people are going to expect at least somewhat of a level playing field.
 
TroubleMagnet said:
So, here is the post the HR dev was responding to:


So, unless I'm reading this wrong, GA would support Kyle's eyefinity setup since he is running three monitors in portrait mode and wouldn't need an expanded FOV since the final display size he has is close to a supported resolution. It's only the super-wide (5700x900 in the post) eyefinity configs they don't support. Right now the game supports 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 aspect ratios I think and it sounds like you can use any res as long as they are one of those aspect ratios. In competitive FPS gaming super-wide FOV settings have often been banned (in CAL and TWL at least) because they do give an advantage. Top of the line equipment can give you a slight edge, but eventually you've gotta draw the line and decide if you're going to allow corked bats. GA is trying to be a competitive game, so people are going to expect at least somewhat of a level playing field.
Click to expand...

sounds reasonable enough to me /shrug
 
someone has to take a stand! if one studio off in the corner gets away with it they all will do it. if you pay the money and buy the hardware you should be able to use a title how you want. if it gives an advantage well then that will just push more people to that solution.
 
J Macker said:
You actually wasted a Windows 7 serial key on that POS? Socket 754 has been dead for 4 years. We are 2 generations past DDR 3200. Hardware must be expensive in your country to be gimping along on that. Why did you put that rig in your sig?

For me, Eyefinity was achieved with 1 videocard and 3 $200 lcds. It's not as expensive as it seems. It does not cost $2000 as you claim. The 5850 beats out the $350 GTX 285 and it's cheaper. Eyefinity can be done with a 5770 and 3x 19" lcds for a 15:4 aspect ratio. That's affordable since you probably have a 17" or 19" lcd right now and you can buy 2 more used off Craigslist for $75/ea.

So.... 5770= $180. 2 used lcds = $150.
I guess that is expensive for a guy using socket 754 as a main rig.
Click to expand...


I just sold my Core 2 Quad system and I am about to bite the bullet on an i5/i7 system with a 5850 next week. I updated my sig, I only had that sempron for like a week and thought it would be funny to put it in there. I have a C2D system in the meantime, and I have MSDN access so I have four windows 7 pro serials. Also, there is no way you could run a triple monitor config running max details on a 5770. You would need at least one 5850. It wouldn't make sense to cheap out on an eyefinity setup. If you have the time and money to be that serious about pc gaming, go hard or go home.
 
dr.stevil said:
Wheres the [H] boycott over 2K removing 360 controller support from bioshock 2?
Click to expand...

Kyle doesn't use a 360 controller for his games, presumably, so why should he care? This is his site and if he wants to make it all about Eyefinity until the next thing comes along, that's his business.
 
This whole post is shameful, not the least for slandering an indie developer trying to put out their first title. As others have said repeatedly, why should Hi-Rez support a standard that is used by such a small segment of their potential audience, particularly when its use could unbalance the game in an Eyefinity user's favor?

They key word in the previous sentence was could. In order to ensure that it did not, Hi-Rez would have to spend time and resources implementing Eyefinity/triple-monitor support in such a way as to not give those players an advantage over others. When you're an indie developer with a relatively small budget, what makes more sense: throwing money at this "problem" to embellish the user experience for a hundred of your customers (and I'm being generous there in terms of adoption) or deciding against that rabbit hole altogether, instead spending resources to bolster the presentation/user experience for all of your customers?

Games like GA live and die by word of mouth recommendations, and criticizing them so harshly, and in my mind unfairly, on a highly trafficked, enthusiast site will dissuade potential customers from giving the game a try, even though the vast majority of your audience does not have a triple-monitor setup.

I hope you've privately reached out to Hi-Rez and will take down this "editorial" soon. If not, this six-year [H]ard veteran will vote with the only currency that has value on the internet: I'll take my eyeballs and ad-clicks elsewhere.
 
shaolin95 said:
Interesting way of making a point against a company...you have made it more popular than they could have ever dream of probably. lol
Now, your fascination with Eyefinity is really getting to a scary level now.
As an extreme gamer your love for it over 3D vision is just strange and does not compute for me...I mean, yeah, 3 monitors is a LOT better than just one but you are still freaking experiencing those awesome 3d worlds in plain old 2d no matter how many monitors you use plus there was SoftTH and TripleHead actively used (niche market yes but still) and I dont recall you raving about those this much.
Still, I do agree that they have no right of blocking this.
I mean, are they locking all mouse rates to 125 or something to not give and advantage to users with high speed mouse? Or are they blocking 3d vision so that I do not have the advantage of judging depth better? I mean, so many things they would need to block based on their flawed logic that is not even funny.
Click to expand...

That is where your wrong they have every right to block it. they created the game and they have the final say. Im even sure they dont give a shit what you think.

Its going to take time to grow eyefinity is a new Tek and there will be more and more companie's that support it BUT your always going to have companie's that find it unfair and WILL block it.
 
What is shameful is an indie developer named 'hi-rez' is putting out a game and then artifically limiting the field of view of people who are running at high resolutions. They should be hugely embarrassed.

Someone running landscape eyefinity sees 1/3 of the game, and the dev is standing behind thier vert - bullshit. And a bunch of people are whining that more money = advantage. That is shameful. Because guess what? MORE MONEY IS AN ADVANTAGE IN LIFE. DON'T LIKE IT? GET HUSTLIN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top