• Major upgrades completed! Please report any issues you spot in here

FIFA 09 PC discussion thread

I think it basically implies that we won't be getting next-gen FIFA on PC for a while, though.

I'm sure they could make a game somewhat resembling the next-gen gameplay at least, but it might not be worth the effort to them. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Anyway... less of this negativity now... I'm really enjoying this game! Scored a cracker with Ronaldinho last night which I'll try to upload soon.
 
Um, okay first post here I think, but I just had to make a point to you guys who're slagging off the programmers of the game. It'll be a wee bit technical, though.

There are a couple of differences that set the consoles like the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 apart from most PCs- these would be the existence of an OS (like Windows) and the processor architecture.

If you look at the specifications of, for example, the Cell and Xenon processors belonging to the PS3 and Xbox360 respectively, you'll notice that they have completely different architectures. They're geared more towards speed of processing than simply multitasking, which is what most desktop processors are for. This alone makes a great difference in terms of AI, as the console CPUs will be many times faster than most desktop CPUs.

Next up is the presence of the operating system. Any normal Windows configuration will have hundreds and thousands of things going on beyond the 'background applications' that you can see in your Task Manager. This means that your processor is busy running Windows, which comprises largely of the kernel and the shell, as well as security processes. When you run a game, your processor will have an even greater load, as it has to split power between keeping Windows (and the interpretation of the program a game is written in) running, while translating graphics code (not textures) and file locations and programming code (C or Python or Java, whatever you can find). Not to put a negative spin on things, but it severely cripples most desktop CPUs compared to console CPUs.

Now, combine the setbacks most desktop CPUs have compared to consoles, and you can see why it'd be so difficult to really simply port the console versions over. You'd need way more than 2 cores to calculate the physics of the ball, collisions, the way the net moves and the animations of players the way consoles can do it. Of course, you could run them if you had a quad-core processor which was fast enough, but that already excludes an overwhelming majority of the potential market. Not all FIFA players are 'gamers', there are those who have simply average PCs which wouldn't be able to handle such complex calculations. It'd be myopic to think they should develop the game specifically for people who can afford high-end computers.

Personally, I'd rather sell the game to a million people who can run a less-complex-but-still-fun version of FIFA than perhaps a thousand or two who play it at High, 1920x1080, AAx16 and AFx16.
 
dotslack said:
Um, okay first post here I think, but I just had to make a point to you guys who're slagging off the programmers of the game. It'll be a wee bit technical, though.

There are a couple of differences that set the consoles like the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 apart from most PCs- these would be the existence of an OS (like Windows) and the processor architecture.

If you look at the specifications of, for example, the Cell and Xenon processors belonging to the PS3 and Xbox360 respectively, you'll notice that they have completely different architectures. They're geared more towards speed of processing than simply multitasking, which is what most desktop processors are for. This alone makes a great difference in terms of AI, as the console CPUs will be many times faster than most desktop CPUs.

Next up is the presence of the operating system. Any normal Windows configuration will have hundreds and thousands of things going on beyond the 'background applications' that you can see in your Task Manager. This means that your processor is busy running Windows, which comprises largely of the kernel and the shell, as well as security processes. When you run a game, your processor will have an even greater load, as it has to split power between keeping Windows (and the interpretation of the program a game is written in) running, while translating graphics code (not textures) and file locations and programming code (C or Python or Java, whatever you can find). Not to put a negative spin on things, but it severely cripples most desktop CPUs compared to console CPUs.

Now, combine the setbacks most desktop CPUs have compared to consoles, and you can see why it'd be so difficult to really simply port the console versions over. You'd need way more than 2 cores to calculate the physics of the ball, collisions, the way the net moves and the animations of players the way consoles can do it. Of course, you could run them if you had a quad-core processor which was fast enough, but that already excludes an overwhelming majority of the potential market. Not all FIFA players are 'gamers', there are those who have simply average PCs which wouldn't be able to handle such complex calculations. It'd be myopic to think they should develop the game specifically for people who can afford high-end computers.

Personally, I'd rather sell the game to a million people who can run a less-complex-but-still-fun version of FIFA than perhaps a thousand or two who play it at High, 1920x1080, AAx16 and AFx16.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, its an interetsing post.

Your last paragraph lets it down a little though, why 1920x1080? We'd be happy with 1024x768.

Werre not saying its an easy port, just that it shouldn't be too complicated as in terms of language its all compatible. I have doubts that FIFA 09 on console is even close to pushing the processing limit, if it is then fair enough that makes a difference.

You mention net animations and player animations which are present for every object in the arena. I would argue that reducing the model complexity and the new collisons in favour of more AI aspects would be a better trade (eg simpler nets from a few years back, static crowd). EA clearly place a lot of emphasis on appearance - not just with FIFA but in general, I would rather they concentrated on substance or at least found better balance.
 
dotslack said:
Um, okay first post here I think, but I just had to make a point to you guys who're slagging off the programmers of the game. It'll be a wee bit technical, though.

There are a couple of differences that set the consoles like the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 apart from most PCs- these would be the existence of an OS (like Windows) and the processor architecture.

If you look at the specifications of, for example, the Cell and Xenon processors belonging to the PS3 and Xbox360 respectively, you'll notice that they have completely different architectures. They're geared more towards speed of processing than simply multitasking, which is what most desktop processors are for. This alone makes a great difference in terms of AI, as the console CPUs will be many times faster than most desktop CPUs.

Next up is the presence of the operating system. Any normal Windows configuration will have hundreds and thousands of things going on beyond the 'background applications' that you can see in your Task Manager. This means that your processor is busy running Windows, which comprises largely of the kernel and the shell, as well as security processes. When you run a game, your processor will have an even greater load, as it has to split power between keeping Windows (and the interpretation of the program a game is written in) running, while translating graphics code (not textures) and file locations and programming code (C or Python or Java, whatever you can find). Not to put a negative spin on things, but it severely cripples most desktop CPUs compared to console CPUs.

Now, combine the setbacks most desktop CPUs have compared to consoles, and you can see why it'd be so difficult to really simply port the console versions over. You'd need way more than 2 cores to calculate the physics of the ball, collisions, the way the net moves and the animations of players the way consoles can do it. Of course, you could run them if you had a quad-core processor which was fast enough, but that already excludes an overwhelming majority of the potential market. Not all FIFA players are 'gamers', there are those who have simply average PCs which wouldn't be able to handle such complex calculations. It'd be myopic to think they should develop the game specifically for people who can afford high-end computers.

Personally, I'd rather sell the game to a million people who can run a less-complex-but-still-fun version of FIFA than perhaps a thousand or two who play it at High, 1920x1080, AAx16 and AFx16.
Click to expand...

i understand what your saying mate but console cpu's are not as fast as core 2 processors which you can get now for £60 just for a intel core 2 chip.

in cpu, its not all about ghz. teh way core 2 is designed put the last gen cpu's to shame. why do you think AMD are in a bad spot? because they simply cannot make a cpu better then core 2 till this day and thats how fast and efficient core 2 is.

Dont forget, the xbox 360 archiecture is basicly direct x 9. the reason for that is that MS wanted to make cross porting as easy as possible. if fifa was only a ps3 game then i can understand the porting difficulty between the two but the 360 is more or less a mini pc.

Almost every dell pc available in there online site, all have some form of core 2 cpu in it. Also diddnt you know that the graphics card has its own cpu and can therefore take the load off the cpu? Most games out today including crysis warhead, are heavily GPU dependant. GPU's are becoming as powerful if not more then the modern day cpu's

check out intels new offering called i7. its around 40% faster the the fastes core 2 cpu out there in general apps but with gaming it dont make a single difference mate as most games rely on the gpu. you could stick the cheapest core 2 u can find and it will be enough to even run crysis warhead.

Look at crysis warhead and gta4. the amount of physics and calculations in that make fifa09 next gen look like tetris. Heck the new far 2 looks far more animated and dynamic then fifa.

edit: here is a link comparing the cpu of the ps3 to a cpu of a power mac G5 cpu running at only 1.6gh as aposed to 3+ghz the ps3 is running at:

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

The problem is that though the main CPU is PowerPC-based like current Apple chips, it is stripped down, and the Altivec support will be much lower than in current G5s. Unoptomized, Apple code would run like a G4 on this hardware.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well... was just giving an extreme example, really, hahaha.

Thing is, you see, the complexity of the AI is directly related to the collisions and model complexity. The AI has to calculate when what will collide, and which part of the model will do so, and this requires a minimum amount of detail and complexity of -both- the model and collision systems. Therefore they are both directly related; the simpler the models and collisions the simpler the AI. Net animations are really the least of our worries, to be honest!

Moreover, the graphics and CPU are quite different matters too. The amount of detail is related to texture size, and this is why GPUs (the CPUs of graphics cards) are focused on transferring data as fast as possible; also why they're many times faster than desktop CPUs.

However I do get your point, but it'd be impossible to replicate current-gen console games with current-gen PCs. Games like DMC4 and World in Conflict are obviously different kinds of games; the physics in WiC is way more generalised etc. while DMC4 is scripted gameplay through and through. What happens in FIFA08/09 for Xbox360 and the PS3 is much more free-form, in a way it's sort of a physics sandbox. If you try out games like Phun (google it) which model physics in 2D, you'll find that it runs slowly on single-core computers and then some. Imagine a 3d simulation instead; that actually requires an exponential amount of processing power.

Edit: jonneymendoza, you must realise that the benchmark you're looking at severely limits the PS3's real power.

"Geekbench also isn’t able to exploit the eight vector processors on the Cell processor. Any program designed and optimized for the Cell processor should be a lot faster than one designed for a generic processor (like, say, Geekbench). So while the Geekbench results might seem disappointing, keep in mind that Geekbench can’t exercise the PlayStation 3 to its full potential."
Click to expand...

Moreover, the PS3 is -not- meant for desktop use, it's a pure gaming/entertainment machine. Again, this benchmark isn't even tailored for the Cell processor, unlike FIFA.

"It’s clear that the Cell processor isn’t all that impressive as a general-purpose CPU; if it’s not executing code designed to run on the Cell processor, it’s generally slower than a PowerPC G5 @ 1.6GHz (the baseline processor for Geekbench)."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dotslack said:
Well...
Click to expand...
its hard to find benchmarks;)) but at the end of the day a 2-3 year old pc can run fifa09 on medium settings with the same collision detection gameplay and AI that the console version have.
like i said gta4 plus many RTS games are more demanding then fifa 09 :)

EA just making excuses.
 
Not that I want to quibble or anything, but jonney, trust me (and Wikipedia), the Xbox360 and PS3 both run different code. Got it? Means that some instructions don't translate so well. What's more, in the PS3 even the benchmarker noted that a lot of work is done by the Synergistic Processing Units as well. Keep in mind that games for these consoles are coded- and therefore developed- solely with these consoles in mind. With their specific instruction sets optimised for the consoles you'd be hard-pressed to get the same kind of performance from a PC.

Using GPUs to process physics does give some hope, though, as both nvidia and ATI have started to focus on them, like PhysX on the nvidia cards.
 
dotslack said:
Not that I want to quibble or anything, but jonney, trust me (and Wikipedia), the Xbox360 and PS3 both run different code. Got it? Means that some instructions don't translate so well. What's more, in the PS3 even the benchmarker noted that a lot of work is done by the Synergistic Processing Units as well. Keep in mind that games for these consoles are coded- and therefore developed- solely with these consoles in mind. With their specific instruction sets optimised for the consoles you'd be hard-pressed to get the same kind of performance from a PC.

Using GPUs to process physics does give some hope, though, as both nvidia and ATI have started to focus on them, like PhysX on the nvidia cards.
Click to expand...
360 games are coded in c# under DIREC X enviornment which is the same as the pc.

the fact of the matter is that they actually code and get some of it done on an actual pc but late optimise it for the 360 hardware.

take a look at final fantasy 12 or is it 13? well teh new FF game coming out on the 360/ps3. the creatures said they programed it for the pc first and then ported it over the console.

i am a c# and java programmer. in java for example there is java for mobile and java for desktop. porting from desktop to mobile is abit like porting from console to pc and its pretty easy.

atm im porting a java app into c# and thats not too difficult either u just got to know the limitations of each device and then code it accordingly.

for example:

if(pc is less then 2 cores on the cpu){
take out some of the stadium effects,Dumb down the AI and remove somefancy animations
}
else{
Use teh same collision detection, physics,AI and animations has the 360 version
}

people tend to forget how scalable pc's are
 
Well, if you're a programmer you should know that it definitely is a million times more difficult to make games more scalable that way. Trust me, desktop CPUs are made to be general-purpose, while console CPUs have specific purposes.

It's like a big, strong man and a small, quick man- both can probably throw a 3kg weight, but the big strong man will definitely throw it much further, because he's made that way.

As of now the PC can't even emulate the PS2 perfectly even though the console is more than 5 years old, what makes you think PCs can run games like they were meant to for consoles?
 
dotslack said:
Well, if you're a programmer you should know that it definitely is a million times more difficult to make games more scalable that way. Trust me, desktop CPUs are made to be general-purpose, while console CPUs have specific purposes.

It's like a big, strong man and a small, quick man- both can probably throw a 3kg weight, but the big strong man will definitely throw it much further, because he's made that way.

As of now the PC can't even emulate the PS2 perfectly even though the console is more than 5 years old, what makes you think PCs can run games like they were meant to for consoles?
Click to expand...

gta4 and far cry 2 spring to mind mate. both on consoles and both coming out on the pc too with far superior physics, graphics and collision detection. have u seen how whole area in far cry 2 looks like when its on fire?

Have you also not seen how the AI works in gta4? the world feels unique and none generic. pedestrains walking at randon times, cars driving various different routes with differen cars at different speeds. dynamic weather happening from sunny to rain in an instance all in one massive city.

so what if pc cant emulate ps2? thats like trying to emulate a ps3 game on a 360. impossible as its already been coded for the ps3. its like trying to run a ps3 code in a 360 machine:LOL:

You would need to create a compiler and translates the console code on the fly to work on another system and thats not how porting is done mate. it takes abit of effort to translate the code into 360 and vice versa but EA are too fucking lazy to do so.

i dont think u understand porting mate. you port stuff from the actually ammending the CODE not creating a emulator/compiler :DOH:
 
What I'm saying is that you can't port the kind of physics emulation and animations, along with the AI found in the consoles over to the PC and expect the majority of people to still play it. Yes, graphics can be scaled, and so can gameplay, but they wouldn't do it because the gameplay needs to remain the same for the majority, for online-gaming reasons as well.

I've no doubt you can get the PC to have graphics and AI like the consoles, but not many people can actually own systems good enough to do that. The AI is the greatest barrier, and like I said it works around the physics emulation, itself something most desktop processors already find trouble with.
 
PhilLUFC said:
That highlights some of my frusrations with the game. The defenders movement is shockingly unrealistic when you cut back.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, yeah. I think it looked better at full speed, but the defender kind of fell asleep after my cutback there! :)

Still, that aspect of the game will be a lot better online. I've been playing with my brother tonight and it's much more fun that way.
 
Wowlman said:
Hmmm, yeah. I think it looked better at full speed, but the defender kind of fell asleep after my cutback there! :)

Still, that aspect of the game will be a lot better online. I've been playing with my brother tonight and it's much more fun that way.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that, when your playing 2 player it vastly improves any footy game, the only issues which will detract then are the dodgy collisions and end result. Had 1 the other day where canavaro was about to clear but his flailing arm nudged ronaldinho's shoulder and the whole anim stopped, next I knew I wa through on goal and scored. Should never have ended up with the ball.

Also now managed to score some near identical goals, think I'm finding FIFA's patterns, so much for hoping the AI was intelligent and free enough to avoid that on PC.

Still have high hopes for this game on PC though, and am still planning on buying it.
 
PhilLUFC said:
Can't argue with that, when your playing 2 player it vastly improves any footy game, the only issues which will detract then are the dodgy collisions and end result. Had 1 the other day where canavaro was about to clear but his flailing arm nudged ronaldinho's shoulder and the whole anim stopped, next I knew I wa through on goal and scored. Should never have ended up with the ball.

Also now managed to score some near identical goals, think I'm finding FIFA's patterns, so much for hoping the AI was intelligent and free enough to avoid that on PC.

Still have high hopes for this game on PC though, and am still planning on buying it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, were your identical goals 1-on-1s slightly to the side of the six-yard box by any chance?

Still, I remember the days of FIFA 96 on the Megadrive where shooting from the corner of the penalty area was a guaranteed goal... it's improved since then at least!

And regarding collisions... they can be irritating, but they're nowhere near as bad as Pro Evo 2008! The constant clashing of players was what stopped me playing that. And the tackling on FIFA 09 is excellent.
 
Those identical goals were similar to the tactic which worked a charm on fifa 98 to 2001. Both across the keeper from pretty much the corner of the D, maybe 5 yrds futher from goal. Both with middling power and bounced pretty much on the line.

Not sure I agree on PES 2008 collisions, mabe its my style of play but I've had more issues in FIFA than I remember for a long time in PES. The think that annoys me on PES 2008 in the hught number of obscene own goals - actually won a cup tie 5-3 on agregate and only scored 1 goal myself.

FIFA isn't as scripted as it used to be granted - I'm still enjoying it too which I haven't said since 2002 before PES made it to PC with PES3 - and PES 4 was the real turning point.
 
Hi guys, with the breaking news on how both spore and crysis warhead have ****ed of potential customers and resulting to it being pirated more then most games over recent years due to DRM, i now question weather you would go off and buy fifa09 if it had the same sort of DRM thats been infecting both cryiss warhead and spore?

what is DRM?

DRM is a special root kit that Runs in the background of your pc using some of your resources as soon as your pc is turned on and it cant be stopped etc from the task manager. you also cannot delete it untill you reformat your pc.

Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term that refers to access control technologies used by hardware manufacturers, publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices. The term is used to describe any technology which makes the unauthorized use of media or devices technically formidable, and generally doesn't include other forms of copy protection which can be circumvented without modifying the media or device, such as serial numbers or keyfiles. It can also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices.
Click to expand...
Another thing it does, well for games anyway is that it LIMITS the amount of times you can INSTALL the ****ing game. spore and crysis warhead allows you to install the game only 3 TIMES before you have to call EA and beg them to grant you more activations for the game you JUST bought with your hard earned cash. it is not even 100% that EA will even grant you more installation activation.

It seems as though this is the future of all EA pc games at least.
 
Last edited:
Placebo said:
I really don't think you're supposed to be talking about piracy and copy protection on here.......
Click to expand...
edited last sentance as the rest of my post sounds reasonable and only explains what DRM is etc and how its on EA's recent released pc games. should be fine now;))
 
On this DRM debate, as long as it's related to the topic and does not try and condone piracy or ways of circumventing copy protection, which is against our rules anyway then the discussion will be fine. Just be careful. :)
 
Mart said:
On this DRM debate, as long as it's related to the topic and does not try and condone piracy or ways of circumventing copy protection, which is against our rules anyway then the discussion will be fine. Just be careful. :)
Click to expand...

The DRM thing is definitely annoying but not something that would stop me buying a game.

At this time, not buying games out of protest will simply stop people producing PC games if anything. It won't stop DRM.
 
well DRM is not helping the cause though. its not as if the pc game is not hackable because it still is :(

why bother wasting time and money implementing DRM when it doesnt even work and just pisses off potential buyers of a game?
 
jonneymendoza said:
well DRM is not helping the cause though. its not as if the pc game is not hackable because it still is :(

why bother wasting time and money implementing DRM when it doesnt even work and just pisses off potential buyers of a game?
Click to expand...

I would argue that it'll only annoy people who know how to get around it anyway. 99.9% of people are simply not going to install it 3 times. I very much doubt even I will do that - I wipe and reinstall my PC every 6 months or so and I consider that fairly frequent.
 
DRM is the sort of thing that never bothered me until I knew it was there.

It is a concern and something I would prefer not to see in the game but I do understand piracy is a big issue for game makers. If I buy a game (or anything else for that matter) I don't expect to be policed on ts use so long as its legal. If its not legal to install more than 3 times is it legal for places like blockbuster to rent games out?

On an aside, slightly O/T (only on due to the mention of DRM and a football subject matter), I recently downloaded a full 90 minute version of a recent leeds game (legally from LUTV) but it is DRM protected, as a result I am not able to write it to a DVD in order to watch it in comfort - its windows media player or nothing. My point here is until this example I didn't know the files were DRM protected and happily watched highlights in media player but it annoys me to know I cannot use divx player or burn to DVD with nero if I so choose.
 
PhilLUFC said:
DRM is the sort of thing that never bothered me until I knew it was there.

It is a concern and something I would prefer not to see in the game but I do understand piracy is a big issue for game makers. If I buy a game (or anything else for that matter) I don't expect to be policed on ts use so long as its legal. If its not legal to install more than 3 times is it legal for places like blockbuster to rent games out?
Click to expand...

thats the thing. where paying full price in practicly renting a pc game. if there going to limit the amount of times we install it then surely the price of the product should be the same has renting out a game. this sort of DRM is only usefull for renting games. not when you buy it.

if i buy somthing i expect to use it as many times as i want!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom