why is my graphics card suddenly unsupported

Daran_Cousland

I don't have a single game that fails to run because of my graphics card. World of Warcraft still runs. Guild Wars 2 still runs. Borderlands, Skyrim, Prototype, and you get it I play a lot of games but the point it I'm not a tech newb. There is absolutely no reason your game should not run if you have professionally skilled and trained programmers working for you. I hope you didn't fire them to make your shareholders happy, because something like this will have a lasting impact on your company's reputation.

SirAndy

I understand their move to DirectX 11. What i don't understand is why they didn't keep the OpenGL rendering part for the PC.

They could have simply switched anyone with an older card to OpenGL and be done with it.

wayfarerx

SirAndy wrote: »

I understand their move to DirectX 11. What i don't understand is why they didn't keep the OpenGL rendering part for the PC.

They could have simply switched anyone with an older card to OpenGL and be done with it.

I imagine it was so they could shave another column off their support / testing matrix. Can you imagine what the JIRA backlog looks like at ZOS? If I was a project manager there I would be cutting anything I could.

WatchYourSixx

What is your graphics card? Does it support DX11? If not, then ESO no longer supports it. The reason for this is because they want to create a top notch environment for which players can enjoy. They felt they could achieve this in a more efficient way by removing the limitations of DX9, and DX10. Essentially they had to write code for 6 different platforms: DX9, DX10, DX11, Mac, PS4, and XBOX1. They reduced it down to only 4, and now will spend less time going "ok, what do we need to write thats different from 11 into 9 and 10?" From personal experience, that can be a helluva challenge dealing with that.

With using just DX11, their performance across the board can be more normalized and adjusted to provide a better gameplay experience, as well as use better memory allocation, and many other features that are exclusive to DX11, that Dx9 and DX10 do not have.

SirAndy

wayfarerx wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

I understand their move to DirectX 11. What i don't understand is why they didn't keep the OpenGL rendering part for the PC.
They could have simply switched anyone with an older card to OpenGL and be done with it.

I imagine it was so they could shave another column off their support / testing matrix. Can you imagine what the JIRA backlog looks like at ZOS? If I was a project manager there I would be cutting anything I could.

@wayfarerx

But they need OpenGL anyways to run ESO on the MAC/Linux.

A good project manger would know that and would also know that maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more.

wayfarerx

SirAndy wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

I understand their move to DirectX 11. What i don't understand is why they didn't keep the OpenGL rendering part for the PC.
They could have simply switched anyone with an older card to OpenGL and be done with it.

I imagine it was so they could shave another column off their support / testing matrix. Can you imagine what the JIRA backlog looks like at ZOS? If I was a project manager there I would be cutting anything I could.

@wayfarerx

But they need OpenGL anyways to run ESO on the MAC/Linux.

A good project manger would know that and would also know that maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more.

While I agree in theory with "maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more," OpenGL on Mac is an entirely different universe than on PC. Apple provides the OpenGL API on Mac and does the heavy lifting when it comes to mapping that API onto the cards that they bundle with their machines and they do so in a pretty consistent fashion. On PC it's up to the graphics card vendor to supply the appropriate OpenGL bindings. So while it may be similar from a code perspective (if you skip all the crazy OpenGL extension stuff), the testing footprint on PC is simply massive.

Reverb

Your graphics card is old and outdated. ESO may be the first game you play that stopped supporting it, but it won't be the last. Many of the games you mentioned are also rather old. I'm glad you still enjoy them, because in another 1-2 years, it's very possible that those older games will be your only options, until you upgrade your rig.

SirAndy

wayfarerx wrote: »

While I agree in theory with "maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more," OpenGL on Mac is an entirely different universe than on PC. Apple provides the OpenGL API on Mac and does the heavy lifting when it comes to mapping that API onto the cards that they bundle with their machines and they do so in a pretty consistent fashion. On PC it's up to the graphics card vendor to supply the appropriate OpenGL bindings. So while it may be similar from a code perspective (if you skip all the crazy OpenGL extension stuff), the testing footprint on PC is simply massive.

Err, you haven't done much OpenGL programming, have you? The comment about the different vendors for the PC shows your lack of real work programming experience.

I've worked on several projects that had one code-base that compiled and ran on PC/Mac/Linux using OpenGL for rendering. The differences in initializing the OpenGL context and assigning it to a rendering window literally fit into 5 lines of code for each platform.
After that, it's all the same, regardless of what platform you're running on.

If a project manager told me i had to support 3 separate code-bases because of 15 lines of code that differ, i'd be seriously questioning their experience.

wayfarerx

SirAndy wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

While I agree in theory with "maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more," OpenGL on Mac is an entirely different universe than on PC. Apple provides the OpenGL API on Mac and does the heavy lifting when it comes to mapping that API onto the cards that they bundle with their machines and they do so in a pretty consistent fashion. On PC it's up to the graphics card vendor to supply the appropriate OpenGL bindings. So while it may be similar from a code perspective (if you skip all the crazy OpenGL extension stuff), the testing footprint on PC is simply massive.

Err, you haven't done much OpenGL programming, have you? The comment about the different vendors for the PC shows your lack of real work programming experience.

I've worked on several projects that had one code-base that compiled and ran on PC/Mac/Linux using OpenGL for rendering. The differences in initializing the OpenGL context and assigning it to a rendering window literally fit into 5 lines of code for each platform.
After that, it's all the same, regardless of what platform you're running on.

If a project manager told me i had to support 3 separate code-bases because of 15 lines of code that differ, i'd be seriously questioning their experience.

First off, I'll admit to not being an expert at graphics programming. It's been a few years and most of my experience was in a non-professional, hobbyist setting. So I may be a bit behind the times.

However, I'm not at all referring to the boilerplate to set up a graphics context. Of course that's like 5-15 lines of platform-specific code covered on page 1 of every "Learn to Make Video Games!" tutorial out there, no biggie. What I'm referring to is the support matrix implied by supporting OpenGL on PC.

Apple comes out with maybe 8-10 different models of laptop/desktop a year. Not only do all of those models have very specific hardware profiles, but Apple acts as a single gatekeeper to how OpenGL is implemented and supported on those machines. This makes for a very slim support / testing matrix for OpenGL on Mac.

PC is entirely different. You have many different chips on many different cards with different drivers of varying quality across multiple versions of Windows all crammed together with lots of other intermingled hardware components. The support / testing matrix is an order of magnitude larger than on Mac. Then add the fact that most PC hardware manufactures put more effort into supporting DirectX than OpenGL and you're left with quite a quagmire when it comes to supporting OpenGL on PC.

If a project manager told me that supporting OpenGL on PC, in addition to DirectX, would not seriously impact testing and QA timelines I would be just as suspicious of their competence.

SirAndy

wayfarerx wrote: »

PC is entirely different. You have many different chips on many different cards with different drivers of varying quality across multiple versions of Windows all crammed together with lots of other intermingled hardware components. The support / testing matrix is an order of magnitude larger than on Mac. Then add the fact that most PC hardware manufactures put more effort into supporting DirectX than OpenGL and you're left with quite a quagmire when it comes to supporting OpenGL on PC.

If a project manager told me that supporting OpenGL on PC, in addition to DirectX, would not seriously impact testing and QA timelines I would be just as suspicious of their competence.

Let me give you some real world commercial development experience here:

- OpenGL is very well supported across hardware manufactures. The DirectX > OpenGL argument simply does not hold up once you actually start digging into implementing both.
- You already have a larger testing matrix since everything you attributed to OpenGL is also true for DirectX when it comes to PC GPUs, drivers and OS versions.
- In reality, implementation differences for the same OpenGL function on different hardware are rare. You are much more likely to run into issues if you are using extensions that aren't widely supported, but if you do, you probably know that anyways in which case you already implement a fallback to a function/extension/workaround that does not require said extension.

wayfarerx

SirAndy wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

PC is entirely different. You have many different chips on many different cards with different drivers of varying quality across multiple versions of Windows all crammed together with lots of other intermingled hardware components. The support / testing matrix is an order of magnitude larger than on Mac. Then add the fact that most PC hardware manufactures put more effort into supporting DirectX than OpenGL and you're left with quite a quagmire when it comes to supporting OpenGL on PC.

If a project manager told me that supporting OpenGL on PC, in addition to DirectX, would not seriously impact testing and QA timelines I would be just as suspicious of their competence.

Let me give you some real world commercial development experience here:

- OpenGL is very well supported across hardware manufactures. The DirectX > OpenGL argument simply does not hold up once you actually start digging into implementing both.
- You already have a larger testing matrix since everything you attributed to OpenGL is also true for DirectX when it comes to PC GPUs, drivers and OS versions.
- In reality, implementation differences for the same OpenGL function on different hardware are rare. You are much more likely to run into issues if you are using extensions that aren't widely supported, but if you do, you probably know that anyways in which case you already implement a fallback to a function/extension/workaround that does not require said extension.

I don't disagree, my point was that DirectX/PC < DirectX/PC + OpenGL/PC.

Daran_Cousland

a whole lot of nonsense. I should have known I was wasting my time here.

the bottom line is: the product I paid money for is no longer usable. do you think a jury in a court of law would care about these excuses?

SilentRaven1972

https://www.zenimax.com/legal_terms

Section 6:
"ZeniMax may patch, update, or modify a Service at any time with or without notice to You. [...] You agree that ZeniMax will not be liable for any interruption of the Services, delay or failure to perform, any loss of Content (including, but not limited to, UGC, Game Mods and Downloadable Content), and/or Account data (including, but not limited to, Character data) resulting from any causes whatsoever. ZeniMax reserves the right to offer new Services, change and/or discontinue certain Services at any time in its sole discretion."

Section 15 also has a binding arbitration clause for regions outside of the EEA/Switzerland/Australia/New Zealand. So if you're in a court-happy country like the U.S. like I am, then no, a court and jury will not see your case.

There was a lot of warning that they were dropping DirectX 9 support, and plenty of people who got locked out of the game. Most of them are taking a pragmatic approach and finding a way to upgrade their hardware or get new rigs that can support modern games.

JamilaRaj

wayfarerx wrote: »

SirAndy wrote: »

wayfarerx wrote: »

While I agree in theory with "maintaining one code-base is much easier than maintaining two or more," OpenGL on Mac is an entirely different universe than on PC. Apple provides the OpenGL API on Mac and does the heavy lifting when it comes to mapping that API onto the cards that they bundle with their machines and they do so in a pretty consistent fashion. On PC it's up to the graphics card vendor to supply the appropriate OpenGL bindings. So while it may be similar from a code perspective (if you skip all the crazy OpenGL extension stuff), the testing footprint on PC is simply massive.

Err, you haven't done much OpenGL programming, have you? The comment about the different vendors for the PC shows your lack of real work programming experience.

I've worked on several projects that had one code-base that compiled and ran on PC/Mac/Linux using OpenGL for rendering. The differences in initializing the OpenGL context and assigning it to a rendering window literally fit into 5 lines of code for each platform.
After that, it's all the same, regardless of what platform you're running on.

If a project manager told me i had to support 3 separate code-bases because of 15 lines of code that differ, i'd be seriously questioning their experience.

First off, I'll admit to not being an expert at graphics programming. It's been a few years and most of my experience was in a non-professional, hobbyist setting. So I may be a bit behind the times.

However, I'm not at all referring to the boilerplate to set up a graphics context. Of course that's like 5-15 lines of platform-specific code covered on page 1 of every "Learn to Make Video Games!" tutorial out there, no biggie. What I'm referring to is the support matrix implied by supporting OpenGL on PC.

Apple comes out with maybe 8-10 different models of laptop/desktop a year. Not only do all of those models have very specific hardware profiles, but Apple acts as a single gatekeeper to how OpenGL is implemented and supported on those machines. This makes for a very slim support / testing matrix for OpenGL on Mac.

PC is entirely different. You have many different chips on many different cards with different drivers of varying quality across multiple versions of Windows all crammed together with lots of other intermingled hardware components. The support / testing matrix is an order of magnitude larger than on Mac. Then add the fact that most PC hardware manufactures put more effort into supporting DirectX than OpenGL and you're left with quite a quagmire when it comes to supporting OpenGL on PC.

If a project manager told me that supporting OpenGL on PC, in addition to DirectX, would not seriously impact testing and QA timelines I would be just as suspicious of their competence.

Makes no sense, though, because a) ZOS's QA is abysmal anyway, b) nobody asks for that level of support and, especially, c) it has never provided it for OpenGL on PC to begin with, even when it was "supported".

jupiter126

Now I Finally understand why ESO wasn't running anymore... I tried everything, recompiled kernels, changed dependencies, tried 5-6 versions of nvidia drivers, ... nothing worked... seems quite normal now that I know Zeni broke OpenGL support...

Is it suprising if I tell you that if I knew OpenGL support was to be dropped, NEVER would I have invested a cent in ESO...

A year ago I spent over 500$ upgrading my PC so I would be able to play it on my Linux box... that seems quite pointless now...

At this point I feel betrayed, it is difficult to express my feelings using polite words - I will leave the verbal colorfulness to the reader's imagination.

Am I the only frustrated non windows user out there?

Come on Zeni, move your * and fix this * so I can reenable subscribtion !!!

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

Why not just go buy a $30 dx 11 vid card and be back in the game? At some point they have to move beyond 10 year old tech.