Will Cryptic Offer refunds for those that cannot play this game

[Archived Post]

I have a 2.10 Ghz dual core, 4 gigs of ram, and an ATI 4650 Mobile card on my laptop. I didnt expect to run this game at max, to be fair I figured medium with a few settings turned down. And I would have been fine with that. but currently i have to run.

1) Cpu optimization software (which i downloaded because of this game, it turns off processes im not using other than CO)

2) Defrag, clean optimize, regedit etc my computer to streamline the crap out of it

3) Change my Video card settings through the control pannel to a series of settings that are SPECIFIC for this game

4) Turn all of the ingame settings down to the lowest possible settings, including the so called "TROUBLESHOOTING OPTIONS"

5) Stay away from populated zones ( i have to choose the most empty instances now, instead of playing with people im forced to play alone

6) Regularly Turn off my UI (hell i bound the toggle to "Z") Just to beable to use Travel powers, or go anywhere near a helipad or area full of Traders etc.

All to achieve a WHOPPING 35 FPS standing still, and 20 FPS moving and than 10-15 FPS in travel mode. (double these numbers when the UI is turned off than again with the UI Turned off I cant see my mini map, traget anyone, interacet with any objects etc.. etc..

This is unacceptable.

Do I have the best PC, NO no I don't. But this isnt Warhammer online graphics here, were takling about a game that is graphically on par wtih Guildwars to say the best. And My laptop plays both of those game FINE, at max settings by the way. (okay a few options turned down on War, but still only a few)

Believe me, the fact is, even a 2.1ghz dual core should be running this game at 60FPS at medium settings, if you have a recent 512mb card. with shadows turned off. The fact that Quad Core 3ghz machines with 1 gig on board memory recent generation GPU's can't play this stable is an attrocity.



This is killing the community. A LOT of people did the closed beta this was a problem during the closed beta, from what i'm hearing on the forums, it was a problem during the open beta, it continues to plauge us during the head start, and barring a miracle come tomorrow after noon.. wee you get the picture

I have no doubt, that many of the community memebers will be leaving the game, and checking back with the forums periodically, until this is fixed because the fact remains, that while some of u talk a big game ( I guess you have money to blow) were not gonna buy new CPU's for a game that looks no better than say "guild wars" which is an instnace based MMO that has been out for years and plays on just about anything.. Hell I bet my Smart Phone coudl run it.

I'm not at home right now, I'm away for a school, and while my Desktop at home, may be able to get a few FPS better, from what i hear, its not gonna do much better. And My desktop at home, is the one I build specifcally to CRUSH crysis, which by the way it does.

What we have here is poor optimization (not lazy mind you) simply poor.

It will be fixed, and im sure we will come back when it is.

But cyrptic was smart They knew they had a pretty established fan base, after the release of City of Heroes and City of Villans (2 of my favorite MMO's to date) those game were amazing, they ran well on just about anything (yes they were cpu intensive fan boys, but not like this, even when they first came out my pc played them at max FPS MAX settings) They knew that those players would come over, hell many of them were beta participants. And while they had them gathered they did the following:

OFFER discout 6 month and life time subscriptions for Champions online. And do so during the beta phase. Now quickly put a time limit on them, People buy these subs in advance, because they trust the company, many of them did so before the early start and many others did during the early start believing that the issue would be fixed quickly. Hell I bought mine during day one of the open beta, because I belived that the Debugger and beta phase was the root of the problem (more than a few posts lead me to belive that). Now that the early start has opend up I'm realizing I was wrong.

If it is not fixed quickly, these people (my self) included are gonnal feel pretty cheated. But hey thats the way it goes I guess. They got 6 months worth of my money to fix it, meanwhile until they do I'm playing a game that to be honest barely runs and I belive (honestly believe) that, that is exactly what they planned on from the start. Why put a time limit on them, that expired before the early start? Why not that expired on the release day, or GASP a week after.

The truth is, the level of graphics this game offers is decieving, it doesnt look that impressive (comic style) it looks very good, and I for one enjoy the styling (not that i get to see it in game, I cant run it at anything above the lowest) but the videos look amazing. The problem is, for some reason it murders all but the most amazing machines. And that is sad.

So Cryptic team members: Are you going to be offering a refund for lifetime and 6 months subs, for those of us who "whie we would much prefer a fix for the problem, we love your game" just well to put it plainly we can't play

To be honest, I don't want my money back, I just wanna play the game :), even just a quick "were working on it, 3 weeks estimated to fix" or "we atleast know WHATS wrong, were working on fixing it" I just don't wanna spend the money to find out that this is just how its going to be.

Tinygod

[Archived Post]

agreed good sir

I love this game and want to play it so bad

I pre ordered it in full during the closed beta assuming these kinks would be worked out by launch

well now that launch is here im just going to shelf my unopened box tomorrow and check back from time to time on the game status before i use my 30 free days

[Archived Post]

Everyone has a free month, until you start paying a subscription you don't even have room to complain honestly. You clicked accept on the EULA so boom, you've accepted there will be bugs and issues, so no they don't have to and won't give you money.

I'm also laughing my ass off at the fact that you said this isn't Warhammer online, which looks slightly better than WoW while Champions looks closer to Age of conan.

[Archived Post]

Everyone has a free month, until you start paying a subscription you don't even have room to complain honestly.
You mean, like the $200 limited-time-offer, buy-before-launch-or-forever-live-without Lifetime Subscription I bought? Because, yeah, I've been a paying customer since the second the Headstart began. Possibly, sooner than that - all the way back to the instant Cryptic processed my $200 payment ... around 19AUG2009.

As it is, I'm teetering on the edge of upgrading my whole computer (to an AMD Phenom X4 97750 running at 2.4GHz, yes a B3-seilicon revision model, with 8GB of RAM, on a fresh OS install of Vista Home Premium 64-bit ... and plunking my current GeForce GTS250 card into it.

If, after doing that, I can't set the quality-vs-performance slider to at least the 50% mark and still achieve a stable 30+fps, and it remains that way past ... oh, I'll be generous and give Cryptic until November 01 ... well yes, I will start asking for a refund. Because even 30fps is, IMO, "falling well short of expected results".

You clicked accept on the EULA so boom, you've accepted there will be bugs and issues, so no they don't have to and won't give you money.
A person's local Consumer Protection laws might say otherwise. Just because it's in a contract, does not mean it's legally enforcable upon you.

If the game is leterally unsuitable for it's advertised purpose, even when meeting the system specifications recommended by Cryptic ... then there is a very real problem, and the EULA will most likely not fully shield Cryptic from potential refund liability.

[Archived Post]

I have a 2.10 Ghz dual core, 4 gigs of ram, and an ATI 4650 Mobile card on my laptop. I didnt expect to run this game at max, to be fair I figured medium with a few settings turned down. And I would have been fine with that. but currently i have to run.

1) Cpu optimization software (which i downloaded because of this game, it turns off processes im not using other than CO)

2) Defrag, clean optimize, regedit etc my computer to streamline the crap out of it

3) Change my Video card settings through the control pannel to a series of settings that are SPECIFIC for this game

4) Turn all of the ingame settings down to the lowest possible settings, including the so called "TROUBLESHOOTING OPTIONS"

5) Stay away from populated zones ( i have to choose the most empty instances now, instead of playing with people im forced to play alone

6) Regularly Turn off my UI (hell i bound the toggle to "Z") Just to beable to use Travel powers, or go anywhere near a helipad or area full of Traders etc.

All to achieve a WHOPPING 35 FPS standing still, and 20 FPS moving and than 10-15 FPS in travel mode. (double these numbers when the UI is turned off than again with the UI Turned off I cant see my mini map, traget anyone, interacet with any objects etc.. etc..

This is unacceptable.

Do I have the best PC, NO no I don't. But this isnt Warhammer online graphics here, were takling about a game that is graphically on par wtih Guildwars to say the best. And My laptop plays both of those game FINE, at max settings by the way. (okay a few options turned down on War, but still only a few)

Believe me, the fact is, even a 2.1ghz dual core should be running this game at 60FPS at medium settings, if you have a recent 512mb card. with shadows turned off. The fact that Quad Core 3ghz machines with 1 gig on board memory recent generation GPU's can't play this stable is an attrocity.



This is killing the community. A LOT of people did the closed beta this was a problem during the closed beta, from what i'm hearing on the forums, it was a problem during the open beta, it continues to plauge us during the head start, and barring a miracle come tomorrow after noon.. wee you get the picture

I have no doubt, that many of the community memebers will be leaving the game, and checking back with the forums periodically, until this is fixed because the fact remains, that while some of u talk a big game ( I guess you have money to blow) were not gonna buy new CPU's for a game that looks no better than say "guild wars" which is an instnace based MMO that has been out for years and plays on just about anything.. Hell I bet my Smart Phone coudl run it.

I'm not at home right now, I'm away for a school, and while my Desktop at home, may be able to get a few FPS better, from what i hear, its not gonna do much better. And My desktop at home, is the one I build specifcally to CRUSH crysis, which by the way it does.

What we have here is poor optimization (not lazy mind you) simply poor.

It will be fixed, and im sure we will come back when it is.

But cyrptic was smart They knew they had a pretty established fan base, after the release of City of Heroes and City of Villans (2 of my favorite MMO's to date) those game were amazing, they ran well on just about anything (yes they were cpu intensive fan boys, but not like this, even when they first came out my pc played them at max FPS MAX settings) They knew that those players would come over, hell many of them were beta participants. And while they had them gathered they did the following:

OFFER discout 6 month and life time subscriptions for Champions online. And do so during the beta phase. Now quickly put a time limit on them, People buy these subs in advance, because they trust the company, many of them did so before the early start and many others did during the early start believing that the issue would be fixed quickly. Hell I bought mine during day one of the open beta, because I belived that the Debugger and beta phase was the root of the problem (more than a few posts lead me to belive that). Now that the early start has opend up I'm realizing I was wrong.

If it is not fixed quickly, these people (my self) included are gonnal feel pretty cheated. But hey thats the way it goes I guess. They got 6 months worth of my money to fix it, meanwhile until they do I'm playing a game that to be honest barely runs and I belive (honestly believe) that, that is exactly what they planned on from the start. Why put a time limit on them, that expired before the early start? Why not that expired on the release day, or GASP a week after.

The truth is, the level of graphics this game offers is decieving, it doesnt look that impressive (comic style) it looks very good, and I for one enjoy the styling (not that i get to see it in game, I cant run it at anything above the lowest) but the videos look amazing. The problem is, for some reason it murders all but the most amazing machines. And that is sad.

So Cryptic team members: Are you going to be offering a refund for lifetime and 6 months subs, for those of us who "whie we would much prefer a fix for the problem, we love your game" just well to put it plainly we can't play

To be honest, I don't want my money back, I just wanna play the game :), even just a quick "were working on it, 3 weeks estimated to fix" or "we atleast know WHATS wrong, were working on fixing it" I just don't wanna spend the money to find out that this is just how its going to be.

Tinygod


People need to learn to get over it. I play this game at 23FPS standing still, 15 traveling and I play JUST FINE. It does not hinder my ability to play AT ALL. Sure, it's not the prettiest but it's not a slideshow either. Get over it and no, you shouldnt get a refund. That's playable.

[Archived Post]

If you had any doubts at all about the performance of the game on your PC during beta
(as you indicated) you should have only subscribed on a month-to-month basis which could be canceled at any time.

[Archived Post]

I'm playing a fair bit below the minimum standard and everything is just ducky. Mind you the graphics look like some grade schooler's art project... but still. :P

[Archived Post]

I play this game at 23FPS standing still, 15 traveling [...]
I play the game at 15fps standing still, 2-5fps moving. AND IT GIVES ME HEADACHES ... it makes me physically ill.

That is not "just fine".

[Archived Post]

It's unlikely, to be sure.

[Archived Post]

It's unlikely, to be sure.

True.

I now have a new PC on the way, with an AMD Phenom X4 9750 clocked at 2.4GHz/core, 8GB of memory, and VISTA Home Premium SP1. As soon as it gets here, I'll drop my GTS 250 (1GB) into it. And I really really REALLY hope that gets me at least to the 20-25 (15 while moving) level, for fps.

It should get me into the "permanently 45-60" level, mind. But at least the new computer should get me out of "10-minutes to Headache City" territory.

[Archived Post]

True.

I now have a new PC on the way, with an AMD Phenom X4 9750 clocked at 2.4GHz/core, 8GB of memory, and VISTA Home Premium SP1. As soon as it gets here, I'll drop my GTS 250 (1GB) into it. And I really really REALLY hope that gets me at least to the 20-25 (15 while moving) level, for fps.

It should get me into the "permanently 45-60" level, mind. But at least the new computer should get me out of "10-minutes to Headache City" territory.

Ouch. Vista, huh? I woulda gone with 7 personally. lol

[Archived Post]

I am not an "Early Adopter".

Historically, new versions of Windows have been "less than stellar" in terms of stability and games compatibility. After a few years though, MS has time to address the issues their newest OS has, and they become much more tolerable. Look at VISTA and XP originally, for example: in the first year or two of their lives, they were HORRIBLE for non-experts (meaning, people like me: "as long as the magic smoke doesn't escape ... I turn it on, and it works").

VISTA is now in the "stable enough for comfortable non-expert use"; my g/f has the same edition of Vista on her laptop, and it's been perfectly stable. Granted, she's not much of a gamer, but she DOES have WoW on it, and it runs that just fiine.

Whereas, Win7 isn't even out quite yet. So I don't want to touch it for at least 8-12 months after it's official Launch. I'll let you brave folks go traipsing about looking for unexpected minefields, thanks. :) LAter, when that's been done thoroughly, I can simply walk AROUND the smoking craters, instead of becoming one, LOL.

[Archived Post]

You'd be surprised, actually.

I fully agree with you on MS's track record with Windows, but Windows 7 is just awesome.

I think it is spared the problems XP and Vista had because it is essentially a re-worked Vista. Functionally, it works like Vista with all the headaches removed.

I dunno, it's hard to explain...but it works a lot better for me than Vista.

[Archived Post]

Well, maybe in a year, then. Probably not though, as I'll already be comfrotable with VISTA by then. :) Certainly, while Win7 might be better, VISTA in it's current shape won't be bad.

[Archived Post]

I'm posting this link because myself and others have experienced a performance boost by turning off Multi-core rendering even with a multi-core system. pleas try it if you haven't already.

http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=46395

this will not work for everyone.

[Archived Post]

I'm posting this link because myself and others have experienced a performance boost by turning off Multi-core rendering even with a multi-core system. pleas try it if you haven't already.

http://forums.champions-online.com/showthread.php?t=46395

I would if I could flippin' log in.

Damn you, Cryptic. ><

[Archived Post]

I really wish people would get it through their head that the problem lies in the 64-bit Vista taking 3 gigs of your 4 to run itself. DON'T get 4 gigs of ram...stay at 3 (which I ran the game for 6 hours on my tablet laptop with) or go to 6.

[Archived Post]

I really wish people would get it through their head that the problem lies in the 64-bit Vista taking 3 gigs of your 4 to run itself. DON'T get 4 gigs of ram...stay at 3 (which I ran the game for 6 hours on my tablet laptop with) or go to 6.

And for those of us not using 64-bit Vista? :rolleyes:

[Archived Post]

And for those of us not using 64-bit Vista? :rolleyes:

32-bit vista will recognize 4 gig, but cannot address it all. Not sure about how Windows 7 handles the 64/32 bit thing...

I have had no problems with either my laptop nor my desktop. Both running 32-bit Vista with 3 gig ram. Laptop has a dinky ATI card and desktop has nVidia 8600GT with 512 ram.

[Archived Post]

I am not an "Early Adopter".

Historically, new versions of Windows have been "less than stellar" in terms of stability and games compatibility. After a few years though, MS has time to address the issues their newest OS has, and they become much more tolerable. Look at VISTA and XP originally, for example: in the first year or two of their lives, they were HORRIBLE for non-experts (meaning, people like me: "as long as the magic smoke doesn't escape ... I turn it on, and it works").

VISTA is now in the "stable enough for comfortable non-expert use"; my g/f has the same edition of Vista on her laptop, and it's been perfectly stable. Granted, she's not much of a gamer, but she DOES have WoW on it, and it runs that just fiine.

Whereas, Win7 isn't even out quite yet. So I don't want to touch it for at least 8-12 months after it's official Launch. I'll let you brave folks go traipsing about looking for unexpected minefields, thanks. :) LAter, when that's been done thoroughly, I can simply walk AROUND the smoking craters, instead of becoming one, LOL.

I agree, I have Vista and have not had a single problem with it.

[Archived Post]

I run windows vista ultimate 32bit, 6 gigs of ram, which it recognizes and utilizes, not sure what the problem you speak of is being caused by. Been running the said OS since, well, release (I was sooooo tired of XP), and never had 1 problem, ever.

And no way will I trust a new OS for at least a year after release, all the stupid hacks and security issues usually show up after they hand it over to the GP anyway.

[Archived Post]

I really wish people would get it through their head that the problem lies in the 64-bit Vista taking 3 gigs of your 4 to run itself.
<--- currently, still using Windows XP service pack 3, with 2.5GB of RAM.

So, how does the memory usage of VISTA, apply at all to someone NOT USING VISTA AT ALL ...?!?

Clearly, "the problem" is not how much memory VISTA does or does not use. While that memory usage may be an exacerbating factor to be sure, it clearly cannot be the ROOT or causative element, because I HAVE the framerate problem, yet, Vista has never even been in the same ROOM as this computer.

...

Granted, the new computer - which should arrive around the 16th of this month, and be the first PC that I have owned outright, woo hoo! - will be a Vista machine. But it'll be running a 64-bit version of Home Premium SP1, with 8GB of RAM behind it's quad-core processor. And another 1GB on the video card, as well. So if I STILL have framerate problems, I will be (a) absolutely convinced it is NOT a too-little-memory-in-my-computer problem ... and (b) screaming, frothing-at-the-mouth, strongly-wish-to-do-someone-serious-bodily-harm ROYALLY PlSSED OFF. :(

[Archived Post]

I run windows vista ultimate 32bit, 6 gigs of ram, which it recognizes and utilizes, [...]
Um ... my understanding is that a 32-bit OS cannot recognise and address over 4GB of RAM (hence why I sprung for a 64-bit copy of Home PRemium, instead of the cheaper 32-bit Home Basic, when choosing which version of Vista to use). Are you sure you haven't got a 64-bit edition of Vista Ultimate? :)

[Archived Post]

FIX THE FRAMERATE PROBLEMS!
I have a GeForce GTS250 with 1GB.
5 frames per second while using a travel power is NOT acceptible!
10-15 frames per second while standing still is NOT acceptible!


Dude, we all know that Dual GeForce GTX 295's is totally the new GTS250!!!! That or Dual Radeon HD 4870..

[Archived Post]

Dude, we all know that Dual GeForce GTX 295's is totally the new GTS250!!!! That or Dual Radeon HD 4870..

Um, what's your problem?

No, the GTS 250 isn't THE newest card on the market - it's essentially a 9800GTX, rebuilt with a smaller (55nm) process. But it's still a solidly good card, nonetheless. And my signature's claims are 100% accurate: with a card like I have, the abysmal framerates I am getting are inexcusable.

I was getting (very slightly) BETTER framerates out of an old Radeon X600 ...!!

And if you want to split hairs ... the GTS295 is nothing moee than a PAIR of GTS260s mounted onto a single card.

...

So, again ... what's your problem? :rolleyes:

[Archived Post]

Everyone has a free month, until you start paying a subscription you don't even have room to complain honestly. You clicked accept on the EULA so boom, you've accepted there will be bugs and issues, so no they don't have to and won't give you money.

I'm also laughing my ass off at the fact that you said this isn't Warhammer online, which looks slightly better than WoW while Champions looks closer to Age of conan.



Um there is a slight difference between kinks and bugs, and the game not playing with its minimum or recommended system settings. And the 30 days free does not negate the fact that we paid in advance for the 6 month subscription or life time subscription (all though atleast life time isnt eating away at the months you paid for, while they work out the problem with the game not playing on your system)

the fact that they have an eula means nothing to me. I wonder if you have even bothered to read it.

please point out the area where it says "this game may not run on the systems we said it would"

seriously, your comments are just disgraceful, and pathetic.

and this game looks like age of conan ?? are you kidding?

[Archived Post]

If you had any doubts at all about the performance of the game on your PC during beta
(as you indicated) you should have only subscribed on a month-to-month basis which could be canceled at any time.

Well... Here's my problem.

I know my computer sucks. I can vouch that simply by stating I don't even know what to post to show you how much it sucks.

I played in Closed and Open Beta and even though I had to have the graphics set to lowest, the game still ran and ran pretty well outside of massively populated areas.

I logged in today and it's unplayable in the tutorial.

Tried Canada Crisis. Unplayable.

So... something happened between now and the Open Beta.

I'm looking into upgrading my computer but since my funds are practically non-existent (a wedding will do that to you) I don't think it's feasible.

So what will happen when I receive my copy of Champions today? It will be shelved until I find out they fixed it or I somehow get a magical upgrade to my computer that allows me to play with at least 15 fps.

*Sigh... I loved this game. I truly did. I can't wait to be able to play it again.

Edit: Just took a look at the system requirements. I do meet the minimum requirements. I have a 3.2GZHz single core processor, 2gbs of RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTS, and a nice, fresh install of DirectX 9.0c.

For the record, I'm running Windows XP SP3

If any of this info helps and I can get this game to run even half-way decent and I'm just missing it then let me know.

*just tried running through Canada Crisis again. Put everything I could to lowest including setting it to half resolution. Game looked even crappier then before and ran just as bad.

[Archived Post]

I run windows vista ultimate 32bit, 6 gigs of ram, which it recognizes and utilizes

It might recognize it but it is physically impossible for a 32bit OS to actually use 3GB or more. And this includes any memory on your video or soundcard.

To actually use all the RAM you need a 64bit OS. That's just facts.

That being said, there's performance problems with this game for sure. I have a high-end gaming rig and barely get 25fps out of it, with a lot of options turned down. And yet games like **** run on max settings absolutely no problem.

[Archived Post]

That being said, there's performance problems with this game for sure. I have a high-end gaming rig and barely get 25fps out of it, with a lot of options turned down. And yet games like **** run on max settings absolutely no problem.

Indeed. The highest I've been able to get is around 40 on the lowest settings possible.

Meanwhile **** runs at 130+ FPS constantly on max settings.

[Archived Post]

Indeed. The highest I've been able to get is around 40 on the lowest settings possible.

Meanwhile **** runs at 130+ FPS constantly on max settings.

exactly. At a certain point, we need to say. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. And 6month and lifetime subs should be refundable, for the next 30 days.

[Archived Post]

I was in Beta and I run a Phenom Quad Core 940 over clocked to 3.8 gigs per core with 8 gigs of 1066 DDR2OCZ ram and have 2 9800 GT cards SLI with Windows 7 and I have no problems I zip around in the game at 45-60 FPS I would say with your new system you should be fine if not then your system is not set up right.

Get Ntune and over clock it and see if that helps no way you should be running around with 15-20 fps on a quad core if you are then your system must have cheap ram and a bargin buy video card.:D

[Archived Post]

I was in Beta and I run a Phenom Quad Core 940 over clocked to 3.8 gigs per core with 8 gigs of 1066 DDR2OCZ ram and have 2 9800 GT cards SLI with Windows 7 and I have no problems I zip around in the game at 45-60 FPS I would say with your new system you should be fine if not then your system is not set up right.

Get Ntune and over clock it and see if that helps no way you should be running around with 15-20 fps on a quad core if you are then your system must have cheap ram and a bargin buy video card.:D

lol, how does this even relate to the topic at hand

honestly your computer is so far beyond the recommended settings, that it should not even be considered.

If a company says, so easy a child could use it, and you are a harvard professor, well, its not really fair to say, I can use it no problem, so there is no issue.

Though I realize you are responding to another post in this thread, I just thought I would point that out.

YOU GET 45 FPS to 60 FPS? are you kidding me, you are one ghz short of a ****ing super computer. Why are you not getting in the 100's

[Archived Post]

I was in Beta and I run a Phenom Quad Core 940 over clocked to 3.8 gigs per core with 8 gigs of 1066 DDR2OCZ ram and have 2 9800 GT cards SLI with Windows 7 and I have no problems I zip around in the game at 45-60 FPS I would say with your new system you should be fine if not then your system is not set up right.

Get Ntune and over clock it and see if that helps no way you should be running around with 15-20 fps on a quad core if you are then your system must have cheap ram and a bargin buy video card.:D

I've already overclocked my video card by quite a bit.

I don't dare overclock my CPU, as I can't afford a new one if this one fries.


Besides, with my system, I shouldn't have to overclock.

[Archived Post]

Yea, with some peoples systems, there are major performance issues. This could actually be a driver issue, and Cryptic is looking into this and hopefully working with ATI and/or NVIDIA to fix the problem with peoples systems.

On the lowest settings, the games graphics aren't much, and could use some visual enhancements. However I'm sure there's plenty of advanced graphics options, in game, that you can increase without taking a hit.

I can run this game completely maxed without shadows in 1920x1080, WoW without shadows on max, Guild Wars completely maxed, and EVE Online completely maxed with great FPS. In Champions I get a huge hit when there is a raid of say 20 champs vs mega destroid, but otherwise it's a solid 30-40fps.

The point of me saying all this, although on the lowest settings it might look like Guild Wars level graphics, but on MAX it looks better than any of those games, by a long shot. WoW's toons look like walking cardboard boxes to me now, although I still like the game, I've lost interest in the toons.

Game just needs graphic tweaks for lower settings, smoother transition of texture pop-in on all settings, and optimization of the games graphics engine and drivers for ATI and NVIDIA.

Not sure if I got that right, but took a shot anyways.

The character complexity in CO in terms of texture, animation, variety, and effects is leap years ahead of WoW, Guild Wars, and EVE's characters.

[Archived Post]

YOU GET 45 FPS to 60 FPS? are you kidding me, you are one ghz short of a ****ing super computer. Why are you not getting in the 100's
Lol, I guess my pc is one ghz over a super computer? Seeing as I have the same amount of memory, but at 2 GHz and 2 285GTX OCs. I haven't overclocked my cpu tho, so that's still at 3 GHz per core. But yea, I too get a fps varying from 9 to 70 (traveling low through MC or moving sliders at the tailor makes for the worst fps), but instead of a refund they should just fix this ridiculous bad performance issue.

[Archived Post]

Lol, I guess my pc is one ghz over a super computer? Seeing as I have the same amount of memory, but at 2 GHz and 2 285GTX OCs. I haven't overclocked my cpu tho, so that's still at 3 GHz per core. But yea, I too get a fps varying from 9 to 70 (traveling low through MC or moving sliders at the tailor makes for the worst fps), but instead of a refund they should just fix this ridiculous bad performance issue.

Yeah, I agree whole-heartedly.

A refund doesn't fix it for those of us who didn't get a lifetime/six-month sub.

Just fix the game.

Oh... and after looking at these last few posts.

I can run WoW with everything maxed. EVERYTHING. It's one reason I thought I should be able to handle this game with at least medium settings.

[Archived Post]

Yeah my computer isn't all that much worse than Dennis's. 3GHz quad core with a single GTX 285 OC'd and 4GB of 1066 DDR2 RAM.

I shouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, struggle to run this game on lowest settings.

[Archived Post]

I can run WoW with everything maxed. EVERYTHING

WoW will run well on a toaster. That is NO frame of reference at ALL.

[Archived Post]

Lol, I guess my pc is one ghz over a super computer? Seeing as I have the same amount of memory, but at 2 GHz and 2 285GTX OCs. I haven't overclocked my cpu tho, so that's still at 3 GHz per core. But yea, I too get a fps varying from 9 to 70 (traveling low through MC or moving sliders at the tailor makes for the worst fps), but instead of a refund they should just fix this ridiculous bad performance issue.

Why should I have to wait for them to fix it, with an active subscription.

I should be able to get a refund and come back when its fixed.

Thats like paying for a Cruise ship tour around jamaica, arriving at the boat, and having the captain tell you that it can't carry any passengers who arent 40 years of age or older. But that they are working on correcting that (maybe) and that he will be keeping your ticket fair while they do so.

OH AND ALSO he's gonna be taking days off of the trip that you paid for, for each day you wait. So I hope it takes less that a week to fix it, or you paid for nothing.


And that example is by no means, that far off basis. I realize you guys who have super computers are doing okay at low to recommended settings. But those of us who just barely met the recommended settings are having a very bad experiences. And over all, it is not worth the subscription we paid.

[Archived Post]

Lol yea, the main reason (next to the fact that I in no way can comprehend what people find interesting about WoW) is that the graphics suck so much, I just can't play.

[Archived Post]

WoW will run well on a toaster. That is NO frame of reference at ALL.

because WOW is an example of an mmo that has:

1) been out for a very long time, and so has been subjected to many performance tweaks.

2) a game that was very much optimized and written with running on any computer in mind


this game fits neither of those criteria.

Yet another example of why after so many years WOW is still around.

say what you want about the big beast that shall not be named, but if it does one thing right, its that it RUNS and RUNS well.


PS: your comments made it sound as if WOW runs on a toaster because it has crap grahphics, I really hope thats not what your are implying.

because while the game is dated, it is by no means graphically lacking.

[Archived Post]

Indeed, don't use WoW as a reference. Pretty sure that'll run on a wrist-watch.

Use ****, Crysis, CoD4 or 5, etc. Like I said earlier in this thread, **** runs very smoothly on my system with everything maxed. CO barely gets over 25 and that's only if I disable the UI which isn't really an option.

The various forms of flight are the only option for travelling over MC. Anything else just lags waaaaaay too much. Particularly SJ is impossible.

-edit due to the post above mine-
I've been playing WoW for almost 5 years now, great game. But using it as a benchmark for a pc's graphical strength is no longer viable. And never really was.

And yet I think it still looks very acceptable.

[Archived Post]

Hell, the most graphically intense MMORPG I know of is Age of Conan, and that runs just fine for me in DX10 on maxed settings.

[Archived Post]

Indeed, don't use WoW as a reference. Pretty sure that'll run on a wrist-watch.

Use ****, Crysis, CoD4 or 5, etc. Like I said earlier in this thread, **** runs very smoothly on my system with everything maxed. CO barely gets over 25 and that's only if I disable the UI which isn't really an option.

The various forms of flight are the only option for travelling over MC. Anything else just lags waaaaaay too much. Particularly SJ is impossible.

-edit due to the post above mine-
I've been playing WoW for almost 5 years now, great game. But using it as a benchmark for a pc's graphical strength is no longer viable. And never really was.

And yet I think it still looks very acceptable.

Hmm... valid point.

How about Bioshock? Is that acceptable? My computer takes a little while for it to load up, but then it runs it nice and smooth.

I would add CoX but I guess that falls into WoW. Odd part is that I actually upgraded my computer to play CoX on max settings, even though WoW ran fine.

But yeah, back to the point. I can run Bioshock just fine. And that is a rather pretty game. (I don't own any of the other games, and will admit to being totally clueless as to what I should or should not use as a reference.) CO is pretty on max, or even recommended, settings but I'm playing on LOW... LOWEST even. I'm thinking that's a problem.

[Archived Post]

Bioshock is a decent point of reference I guess. If you can run that on full your pc should be able to handle CO pretty good.

But these performance issues are either due to the game (UI looks like a culprit) and/or due to problems with CO vs Ati/Nvidia drivers.

Wouldn't worry too much about your pc being the problem. Cryptic has to fix this.

[Archived Post]

Granted, the new computer - which should arrive around the 16th of this month, and be the first PC that I have owned outright, woo hoo! - will be a Vista machine. But it'll be running a 64-bit version of Home Premium SP1, with 8GB of RAM behind it's quad-core processor. And another 1GB on the video card, as well.
[...] I would say with your new system you should be fine if not then your system is not set up right.
lol, how does this even relate to the topic at hand
At a guess, I think he was replying to my earlier post.





I can run this game completely maxed without shadows in 1920x1080, WoW without shadows on max, Guild Wars completely maxed, and EVE Online completely maxed with great FPS. In Champions I get a huge hit when there is a raid of say 20 champs vs mega destroid, but otherwise it's a solid 30-40fps.
I can run WoW balls to the wall maxxed out, no problem, and get good smooth visuals. Even on an Epic land mount, in Northrend.

I don't know about CO or GW, nor do I care to download either to try. :)


The point of me saying all this, although on the lowest settings it might look like Guild Wars level graphics, [...]
No, on the lowest settings it looks worse than GW, by lightyears.

[Archived Post]

Everyone has a free month, until you start paying a subscription you don't even have room to complain honestly. You clicked accept on the EULA so boom, you've accepted there will be bugs and issues, so no they don't have to and won't give you money.

I'm also laughing my ass off at the fact that you said this isn't Warhammer online, which looks slightly better than WoW while Champions looks closer to Age of conan.
In fact...by paying 50$ for your game give you the right to complain....but well, I don't have any FPS problems...but we don't have to wait to be paying monthly fees to complain...we already paid 50$ for the game itself...

I do have network problems with CO though....

[Archived Post]

Bioshock is a decent point of reference I guess. If you can run that on full your pc should be able to handle CO pretty good.

But these performance issues are either due to the game (UI looks like a culprit) and/or due to problems with CO vs Ati/Nvidia drivers.

Wouldn't worry too much about your pc being the problem. Cryptic has to fix this.

That's looking like a distinct possibility to me as well.

For some strange reason, whenever I open my Options window, my FPS goes down by a good 20 or so frames.

[Archived Post]

Yes that was a post about his earlier post, I just noticed a lot of people were complaining about the FPS. It is not just system bound it has a lot to do with the shader graphics of this game..Cell shaded looks nice but over runs your shadow and openGl so some people with a high end video card still gets bad rates is your $50 9500 GT card has a core clock at 400 wile a spec heavy $200 video card is at 933 huge diffrence in performance. Even though those cards may seem like a good deal save the extra money and get a higher end card.

They have 250 Geforce EVGA cards for $110 these cards are crap your better off SLIing 8800 GTX cards Also look at what multiplier you have is it 16,32,64 ? if it is 16 only on the GPU then your bottlenecking your card Ram is important on the card even 512 cards are ok if they have high end pixel shadeing and a core clock of at least 533

Download a program called CPUID or known as CPU-Z this will tell you all the iner specs of a computer and you can see how your card fairs against others of its kind.:D

[Archived Post]

Just to reiterate everyone we are aware of the performance issues and we are working on correcting this. Please be patient because as soon as we have a solution we will post with more information.

[Archived Post]

A dev just posted ACKNOWLEDGING THE PERFORMANCE ISSUES!

OH....MY..GAD!

Srsly. i just had a heart attack.

oh wait.. it's already past the 1st.. nevermiind, of course they can comment now. They already have your moneys :D

[Archived Post]

Just to reiterate everyone we are aware of the performance issues and we are working on correcting this. Please be patient because as soon as we have a solution we will post with more information.

Fair enough,

Question, does the supposed 30 free days of game play, occur before you start deducting from the 6 month subscriptions?

If so, than that would be acceptable. As the 30 free days could feasibly be used to improve the performance issues.

So long as it isnt ONE or the OTHER.

[Archived Post]

See I posted and they got back to us they know what it is, its the openGL problem with cell shaded games other games that are cell shaded have this problem. Thing i can not understand is why our card providers never updated or hot fixed these issues with the cards that run in vista or windows 7..... oh well least its being looked at now:)

[Archived Post]

See I posted and they got back to us they know what it is, its the openGL problem with cell shaded games other games that are cell shaded have this problem. Thing i can not understand is why our card providers never updated or hot fixed these issues with the cards that run in vista or windows 7..... oh well least its being looked at now:)

Thing i cant understand is why card providers allow companies like Dell and Sony, to lock down driver up dates, so that you HAVE to do them through the SONY ro DELL site.

I cant just go to ATI and get new drivers for my laptop.. which IMO is wierd.

than again, maybe im just in a complaining mood.

[Archived Post]

See I posted and they got back to us they know what it is, its the openGL problem with cell shaded games other games that are cell shaded have this problem. Thing i can not understand is why our card providers never updated or hot fixed these issues with the cards that run in vista or windows 7..... oh well least its being looked at now:)

Er...... No.

[Archived Post]

Er...... No.

well atleast I got one of them to aknowledge it, other than the old "um if you are having problems try this" thread which until now is really all we had.

Atleast now they came out and said, We know there are problems, were fixing them.

[Archived Post]

Fair enough,

Question, does the supposed 30 free days of game play, occur before you start deducting from the 6 month subscriptions?

If so, than that would be acceptable. As the 30 free days could feasibly be used to improve the performance issues.

So long as it isnt ONE or the OTHER.

If it's anything like other MMOs, you will have an extra month "Tacked on" essentially giving you 7 months of sub time.

Whether it takes from the 30 free days or the 6-month purchased first is irrelevant.

[Archived Post]

I think it has more to do with today being the FIRST, than anything else. Today is the day everyone already bought their retail copies. Cryptic has won.

They release this statement AFTER the game has hit the shelves because it makes more sense to admit theres a problem AFTER people have put up their money already.

Isn't this obvious? I certainly don't believe this is "co-incidence"

[Archived Post]

I think it has more to do with today being the FIRST, than anything else. Today is the day everyone already bought their retail copies. Cryptic has won.

They release this statement AFTER the game has hit the shelves because it makes more sense to admit theres a problem AFTER people have put up their money already.

Isn't this obvious? I certainly don't believe this is "co-incidence"

...Punny.


Why is everyone so damned cynical all the time?

[Archived Post]

I think it has more to do with today being the FIRST, than anything else. Today is the day everyone already bought their retail copies. Cryptic has won.

They release this statement AFTER the game has hit the shelves because it makes more sense to admit theres a problem AFTER people have put up their money already.

Isn't this obvious? I certainly don't believe this is "co-incidence"


Well I own my own Computer company and I know for a fact that the problem lies in cell shaded games and not just CO there is a way around it however i already got a PM from a dev asking me not to tell people that cause You can hurt your Video card or worse.

So yes it has a whole lot to do with OpenGL and pixel shading on some Cards. Dont belive me then go to ATI or Nivida your self and look up Cell shaded games and see the amount of people with these problems.. This is where the Dev team goes to the Card companys and asks for hotfixes give it a week or two and I am willing to bet my left that we will have a nivida or ati hot fix..:rolleyes:

[Archived Post]

Well I own my own Computer company and I know for a fact that the problem lies in cell shaded games and not just CO there is a way around it however i already got a PM from a dev asking me not to tell people that cause You can hurt your Video card or worse.

So yes it has a whole lot to do with OpenGL and pixel shading on some Cards. Dont belive me then go to ATI or Nivida your self and look up Cell shaded games and see the amount of people with these problems.. This is where the Dev team goes to the Card companys and asks for hotfixes give it a week or two and I am willing to bet my left that we will have a nivida or ati hot fix..:rolleyes:

I hope you're right about the nVidia/ATI hot fix (preferably both) because it's ridiculous how much graphic appeal I have to sacrifice just to get FPS rates that don't make my head implode.

[Archived Post]

I play on my desktop and it work fine on max and I can run it also on my notebook with 1.8 dual core, 3gb ram and 8600 mgt and it work fine. I will wait little bit and I think it will be optimalized.

Your notebook seems better than me and I cant also play. I install new drivers and it works absollutelly perfect. But I must say that I have problems with ati cards everytime :-) But after 2 or 3 months it will be ok:-) Just wait for new drivers.

[Archived Post]

I'm just curious since you are hellbent on cell shaded games somehow taking DIFFERENT rendering routines from your video card than any other game. That's simply not the way it works, but ill entertain the idea.

What other cell shaded games are you referring to? All........1 of them? XIII anyone?

Yeah... again... no.

[Archived Post]

oh wait.. it's already past the 1st.. nevermiind, of course they can comment now. They already have your moneys :D
Pff, they already had $200 of mine over a week ago. They HAVe acknowledged the FPS issue ... they just haven't posted in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the umpteen-billion redundant threads about it.

[Archived Post]

Interesting.. You PLAYED the beta, and still bought a lifetime subscription in CO's current state. Care to share your reasoning? I'm just a little curious why you'd pay for an unfinished product..

[Archived Post]

[...]
Hey, Ilike your idea for a signature image. I may ... "steal" it, in fact. :D


Interesting.. You PLAYED the beta, and still bought a lifetime subscription in CO's current state. Care to share your reasoning? I'm just a little curious why you'd pay for an unfinished product..
Because I played in the OB with a Radeon X600 (w/ 256MB) card, and chalked MY problems up to an inadequate graphcis crd. I already had planned an upgrade - and it got delivered the day AFTER open beta was scheduled to end. I'm more than a little steamed that the card upgrade (to a GTS 250 w/1GB) didn't give me a more playable experience, but I remain convinced it's an optimisation and/or hot-fix-able issue.

And, well, CO has lit a second "time to upgrade out of the stone age, you luddite freak" fire under my backside. On the 16th, I'll have an AMD Phenom X4 2.4GHz quad-core with 8GB of memory, and we'll see what that (and the intervening two weeks' time) does for CO's framerate issues.

[Archived Post]

I'm seeing a lot of people cry foul over something they already knew and worse some throwing good money after bad because they aren't seeing where the problem is.

CO and every MMO known to man do not use more than two cores. Do not buy old 4 core CPUs if you play MMOs, but fast 2 cores. Unless you are loaded then by all means i7 975? with all the bells and go to town. For CO you want 2-4GB of memory, 2 fast cores meaning Phenom II, Core 2 Duo or i7 at 3.2GHz+, any video card 8800GT 512 or better. The game is very much CPU limited, even an i7 @ 3.5 will be CPU capped running an 8800GT 512 @ 1920.

That's the reality, but then the recommended specs say that. I could be wrong but it sure looks and feels like to CoX engine with some additions, meaning performing at a Crytek engine level isn't going to happen.

[Archived Post]

Hi Tiny,

Allow me to answer your question and reply to your post, broken down into sections.

Do I have the best PC, NO no I don't. But this isnt Warhammer online graphics here, were takling about a game that is graphically on par wtih Guildwars to say the best. And My laptop plays both of those game FINE, at max settings by the way. (okay a few options turned down on War, but still only a few)
While I understand that you feel the graphic quality of Champions Online is on par with Guild Wars. The reality is that Champions Online was built with the state of the art software and with many technologies such as cell-shading and advanced shadowing that are found in newer games. This does increase the minimum requirements to play the game, but we feel we have found a good balance between hardware requirements and playability.

I have a 2.10 Ghz dual core, 4 gigs of ram, and an ATI 4650 Mobile card on my laptop. Believe me, the fact is, even a 2.1ghz dual core should be running this game at 60FPS at medium settings, if you have a recent 512mb card. with shadows turned off. The fact that Quad Core 3ghz machines with 1 gig on board memory recent generation GPU's can't play this stable is an attrocity.
In review of our Minimum system requirements (http://www.champions-online.com/faq#14) I can see that your CPU is just above minimum requirements but that the video card looks to be below the minimum required. I did not see where you listed your Video Card's ram, and in searching ATI/AMD site it says it can vary based on laptop model. Also this card is dated from Sept 2008, which as you said is "recent" but even when it was released the reviews I found all said "mid-grade gaming GPU"


So Cryptic team members: Are you going to be offering a refund for lifetime and 6 months subs, for those of us who "whie we would much prefer a fix for the problem, we love your game" just well to put it plainly we can't play

We will continue to make improvements to the game and continue to watch for issues that are related to issues on our side. However, we won't be lowering our system requirements. As explained above, Champions Online is built looking forward. I would recommend you compare the hardware requirements to games being released today.

However, if you truly feel that you want a refund for the 6mth or lifetime subscription, please contact our Billing Department (www.champions-online/support/billing) within the first 30 days of purchasing it, and they will review what options are available for refunding the subscription.

To be honest, I don't want my money back, I just wanna play the game :), even just a quick "were working on it, 3 weeks estimated to fix" or "we atleast know WHATS wrong, were working on fixing it" I just don't wanna spend the money to find out that this is just how its going to be.

Champions Online is like any MMORPG, it is a living and evolving experience. As such, it will continue to change as we implement and polish new features and functions, which are a key in the continuing development of any dynamic play environment.

We hope that you decide to take the journey with us. The journey may have some bumps, but as anyone who has watched our progress knows, we listen to our community and we value your input.

[Archived Post]

Sounds good to me.

Thanks for the reply

My Card has 1gig of Memory on it, by the way.. SO the card is not below minimum requirements.

The processor is just above, and like I said, I realize that is one of the issues.

Thanks again for the reply.

[Archived Post]

right, that's what i'm asking.

So long as it doesnt compound, Some times when you have a " X Month" sub, and a promotional "free month" is given, it over writes, instead of tacing on too.

Your 6mth subscription will start *after* the free 30 days that came with the game purchase. We compound the time, not overlap.

[Archived Post]

Your 6mth subscription will start *after* the free 30 days that came with the game purchase. We compound the time, not overlap.

Thank you again,

You can feel free to clsoe the thread, as the question proposed was most certainly answered, and quickly.

So thank you again, What ever problems I may have with the games performance, are not a reflection on how I feel about the Company.

Cryptic has and I belive always will make quality games. And say what you want about issues, you DO care about your community.

To be honest, I'd give you the cost of a 6month sub, just to support you for that reason.

Maybe its simply time for an upgrade :)

Either way I look forward to playing this game, even if it means I have to wait.

Thank you again.... again

[Archived Post]

Thank you Tiny!

I know I am always on the lookout for a good reason to do hardware upgrades, much to my wife's dismay.. (hehe)

Closing thread per request.