Is FM being hold back by low specs?

[nb9]

Sorry but the low specs argument has never held up for me.

Let's not give SI an excuse for blatently neglecting a part of the game that they shouldn't be. The game has decreased in graphical quality over 10 years, that's pretty inexcusable for me.

If your PC cannot run it, then there will be graphical options within the menus to make it run smoother.

[muzza_m]

7 hours ago, John Joe O'toole said:

I don't think so, I'm happy with how it is. OG players don't really care about the graphics, you cant have it too demanding as people on low end machines will struggle to play therefore reducing income. 

As others have said, this is a non-issue. There are plenty of toggles and options (2D for example) for players on lower end machines.

Not an excuse to limit those on higher end machines.

I mean come on, the minimum specs state a graphics card that was released in 2008. Over a decade old.

[CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon]

On 23/04/2020 at 09:52, saihtam said:

It is is evident that

.....

Lot of talk is that SI is good that they are able to bring to low end PC this game

Well, I've played since the start, but in all fairness, as an adult with a wife and kids there's no time to sit at a desktop and play this.

My FM buying days are over the minute it can't be played to a decent graphical standard on a laptop. It's one of the few games you can happily play with a laptop and the simulation nature of it makes it perfect for a laptop too, everything else requires a GPU. 

Ultimately if I want high end graphics I'll play  something on a Desktop or Console, but my Dell XPS 9310 with Intel Iris XE runs the match engine on high quite happily.

My next laptop may well look at AMD's integrated GPU's as an improvement on Iris XE, but what I won't be doing is buying FM if I need to buy a laptop with a GPU. Real life with responsibilities doesn't permit sitting at a desktop all day or spending a boatload just to cram a dGPU into a laptop and having to listen to loud fans to play a largely text/data based simulation.

I'd like to see graphical improvement, but not at the expense of needing a dGPU to play the game.

Edited October 23, 2022 by CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon

[muzza_m]

1 hour ago, CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon said:

Well, I've played since the start, but in all fairness, as an adult with a wife and kids there's no time to sit at a desktop and play this.

My FM buying days are over the minute it can't be played to a decent graphical standard on a laptop. It's one of the few games you can happily play with a laptop and the simulation nature of it makes it perfect for a laptop too, everything else requires a GPU. 

Ultimately if I want high end graphics I'll play  something on a Desktop or Console, but my Dell XPS 9310 with Intel Iris XE runs the match engine on high quite happily.

My next laptop may well look at AMD's integrated GPU's as an improvement on Iris XE, but what I won't be doing is buying FM if I need to buy a laptop with a GPU. Real life with responsibilities doesn't permit sitting at a desktop all day or spending a boatload just to cram a dGPU into a laptop and having to listen to loud fans to play a largely text/data based simulation.

I'd like to see graphical improvement, but not at the expense of needing a dGPU to play the game.

No disrespect meant but in all fairness it sounds like your lifestyle and comittments aren't really suited to playing FM.

1. It requires quite a lot of time in my experience.

2. What is the difference between playing on desktop vs laptop? Do you somehow have more time when playing on a laptop?

3. Even with graphical improvements it wouldn't require a top end machine. No-one is asking for FIFA graphics. We just want some improvements.

4. There is always toggles and 2D for those with low end machines. You shouldn't expect support for everything just because you don't want to upgrade your device.

[John Joe O'toole]

2 hours ago, muzza_m said:

As others have said, this is a non-issue. There are plenty of toggles and options (2D for example) for players on lower end machines.

Not an excuse to limit those on higher end machines.

I mean come on, the minimum specs state a graphics card that was released in 2008. Over a decade old.

Yep, fair enough - now you say it, I can see what you mean with the toning down options for low end users. 

 

Im quite happy with the graphics in all honesty, especially on high settings I cant complain.

 

 

[forameuss]

I'd be more critical of the graphics if the game behind it was a lot closer to perfect.  There's so many more areas severely lacking to go after something which is just...fine.  It represents the match engine well enough. But outside of matches the game still has pretty considerable problems that need a lot of time and care.  The match visuals just don't.  They need work, absolutely, but buying a more sparkly glitter probably isn't going to make much difference if you're pouring it over a puddle of cold sick.  At least mould that cold sick into something better before you do.

[bluehefner]

I really don't care about the graphics but i'd love the game performance to scale with better hardware.

There's a 125k player limit in place no matter how good your machine, now if i own an AMD threadripper and we can safely ignore that message then either remove the text telling me there's a limit or actually tell me as a high spec owner that i can actually load 250k players (for example) with no issue, or code your game to utilize better hardware.

Let me see the benefits of 128gb ram over 64gb ram, let me see the benefits of an AMD threadripper over an i9 9900k, and if those benefits already exist then tell me.

Also let me up the limit on the amount of matches that are stored from previous seasons.

Surely that last one is a piece of cake to implement, warn me on the dangers of upping it (based on my specs) but let me have the freedom to do it.

Edited October 24, 2022 by bluehefner

[SC00P0NE]

Once they implement a modern engine, they will realize that 3d graphics are an amazing and never ending way to sell coming iterations.. Just create a launcher to choose between "toaster mode" & dx12 or whatever...

Edited October 24, 2022 by SC00P0NE

[CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon]

On 23/10/2022 at 18:15, muzza_m said:

No disrespect meant but in all fairness it sounds like your lifestyle and comittments aren't really suited to playing FM.

1. It requires quite a lot of time in my experience.

2. What is the difference between playing on desktop vs laptop? Do you somehow have more time when playing on a laptop?

3. Even with graphical improvements it wouldn't require a top end machine. No-one is asking for FIFA graphics. We just want some improvements.

4. There is always toggles and 2D for those with low end machines. You shouldn't expect support for everything just because you don't want to upgrade your device.

No disrespect taken, but I'll be the judge of what my lifestyle and commitments allow me to spend my limited free time on.

1. It does, but that shouldn't preclude people who have a global role, a family and various charity commitments. Gaming isn't exclusive to feckless wastrels and the unemployed lol

2. It's useful to use the laptop on the train, the laptop when working on the desktop, or the laptop on the sofa when the little one wants to watch something less than enthralling.

3. I'm not against improvements, I agree that many things could be improved, but it's important to understand that SI themselves know what the spread of hardware is, and for such a niche game are not likely to exclude anyone where possible. It's not the kind of game that attracts people with high end rigs who tend to lean toward more graphically intensive and first person based games.

4. I don't expect support for everything, indeed from an overview perspective I sometimes use 2D for a better analysis, but as many have stated, they don't expect to significantly upgrade a device for a traditionally data and text based game,

I don't think SI are holding back, I just don't think the match engine graphics are the most important part of a data driven simulation.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[phd_angel]

Great topic. This is about the business of gaming and the role of technology in it. A senior executive from SI would be ideal to elaborate on this. From my experience in the tech industry (from a marketing perspective), I can see several main factors to explain why FM's hardware requirements have not significantly increased over the years:

1) audience profile: it does seem that FM has two major audiences: older affluent men who only play FM, and cash-strapped teens who can't afford last generation machines. This means that most FM players will have mid-tier gaming laptops, and that's where FM will have to stay.

2) hardware guidance: as noted, SI leadership listens to Steam and other industry partners on what are main types of computers in the market. This gives an idea of the range of specs where the majority of gamers would fall. Last-generation machines would be outliers, and FM development seems to cater to the majority inside the Bell curve. More broadly, as a major trend, unless you are in the high-income super gamer niche, computer sales and hardware upgrade trends have been flat for many years now... Another good reason for FM not get ahead of where most consumers are.

3) budgeting of FM software development: SI senior team probably plans development in line with budgets and revenues: expecting X million of copies to generate revenues large enough to cover costs with development, marketing and overhead. This means allocating X number of backend, front-end and full-stack developer hours to work on improving and/or building game features along a yearly schedule. They just can't keep adding new "revolutionary" systems, thus hardware needs remain at similar levels.

4) platform legacy: once you decide to build your technology over a software/hardware interface platform, you are stuck in this platform for a number of years. You can't keep changing it every couple of years. I don't know what platforms FM is build on, but I guess that two platform switches might have occurred on FM technology: one circa 2005, and another circa 2015. So, we might see a few more years until the next technology jump.

These factors could explain why FM's hardware requirements have not significantly increased over the years...
 

Edited October 26, 2022 by phd_angel

[CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon]

On 25/10/2022 at 04:19, phd_angel said:

Great topic. This is about the business of gaming and the role of technology in it. A senior executive from SI would be ideal to elaborate on this. From my experience in the tech industry (from a marketing perspective), I can see several main factors to explain why FM's hardware requirements have not significantly increased over the years:

1) audience profile: it does seem that FM has two major audiences: older affluent men who only play FM, and cash-strapped teens who can't afford last generation machines. This means that most FM players will have mid-tier gaming laptops, and that's where FM will have to stay.

2) hardware guidance: as noted, SI leadership listens to Steam and other industry partners on what are main types of computers in the market. This gives an idea of the range of specs where the majority of gamers would fall. Last-generation machines would be outliers, and FM development seems to cater to the majority inside the Bell curve. More broadly, as a major trend, unless you are in the high-income super gamer niche, computer sales and hardware upgrade trends have been flat for many years now... Another good reason for FM not get ahead of where most consumers are.

3) budgeting of FM software development: SI senior team probably plans development in line with budgets and revenues: expecting X million of copies to generate revenues large enough to cover costs with development, marketing and overhead. This means allocating X number of backend, front-end and full-stack developer hours to work on improving and/or building game features along a yearly schedule. They can't just keep any new "revolutionary" systems.

4) platform legacy: once you decide to build your technology over a software/hardware interface platform, you are stuck in this platform for a number of years. You can't keep changing it every couple of years. I don't know what platforms FM is build on, but I guess that two platform switches might have occurred on FM technology: one circa 2005, and another circa 2015. So, we might see a few more years until the next technology jump.

These factors could explain why FM's hardware requirements have not significantly increased over the years...
 

You've nailed that. Particularly point one I think.

[ANDEHLSON]

He didn't really nail it tbh. The problems aren't even just that.

I would like to know where this whole thing generated. Has SI ever specifically stated this?

 

But... Steam surveys?!

I don't know if I'm reading this wrong but according to Steam surveys a gigantic majority of players can play FIFA 20 or newer. An infinitesimal percentage of players would have to settle for FIFA 14 or so.

But my computer is totally trash. I have an integrated gpu.

Any semi/not-so recent igpu can run at least FIFA 18. A recent cheap laptop one (even a bad one like a weaker Intel one) can run 21 or 22. A €300-350 Ryzen laptop (even one from like 4 generations ago - couple years before Covid) might even reach triple digit fps and can also run GTA V and others. A 9-10 year old laptop igpu can run fairly good games (not so recent obviously but might reach up to FIFA 18).

Most people around here defend the whole specs thing saying their PC is trash but end up having PCs capable of way better.

Are the specs holding the game back?

Not really. For starters I'm unsure the minimum specs can be called realistic for the 3D engine nowadays. Up until 2017 or 18(?) or so it seemed more than fine.  But the game seemed to have become a tad heavier a couple of years ago. I've had several laptops (and tested with other people) and even a 4th/5th gen i5/i7u laptop failed to have a 100% fluid experience. The 3D engine stuttered quite a bit on one of them and even the interface, mostly during match time, felt a little laggy at times. Performance can vary quite a bit between different PCs even with similar specs but the same laptop had FIFA 16 at the time and it worked "ok". An older desktop should handle it better but then again.. it'll handle better stuff.

Performance isn't 100% linear like that as I had a much weaker laptop (RIP Core 2 Duo) that somehow wasn't too far off from that laptop's 3D performance so like I said it can vary quite a bit. (it had miserable loading times however)

With the minimum specs you might have a horribly laggy UI (player/staff/scouting search can be painful and the UI/skin/cache/wtv bugs don't help) among other things.

I can also add that the minimum specs for this game are more or less the same as FIFA 14. (or like others mentioned in this thread before FIFA Manager)

The FM community

Not like this even matters due to the last point but:

Sure there may be one or other that fits that special criteria. But people seem to vastly overestimate the number. Check the offtopic forum or reddit and tons of FM players play something else. Some people ONLY play FM but doesn't mean they all have still a 15+ year old PC. That's unlikely anyway really due to malfunctions (15 years any part can be fried by now and a lot aren't worth fixing), incompatibilities, work, kids or even problems with FM (especially on a laptop as it might not be that easy to make the correct GPU be recognized anymore due to drivers, etc.. and those drivers also bring problems as they're no longer aimed at those old laptops, etc...)

 

Conclusion - TL/DR?

FM's 3D engine could be more efficient/well optimized I guess (not the worst ever or anything). With PCs that barely run FM you can run better looking games (yes it includes FIFA). It is what it is.

But If SI doesn't think it's the best course to focus on that it's up to them. But can we quit making excuses for this?

[sander12]

This might be the only gaming franchise I've heard of that reduces the quality of its product for more market-share. Its also a cheap excuse for not fixing things. 

[TacticalGenius]

7 hours ago, sander12 said:

This might be the only gaming franchise I've heard of that reduces the quality of its product for more market-share. Its also a cheap excuse for not fixing things. 

Actually FIFA did this last year. Didn’t give PC the new fancy features of the XSX/PS5 version as they didn’t think their PC fan base had the specs to cope. 

[DMaster2]

No, it's just an excuse to keep the work to the minimum possible between each edition

[FCP_Football]

On 05/11/2022 at 12:08, DMaster2 said:

No, it's just an excuse to keep the work to the minimum possible between each edition

This, it's lazy. It's a shame, Football manager used to be my favourite game. Instead of improving graphics making the AI more sensible they have just added bloat. Now they have removed touch I can't be bothered playing it.