Anyone else have a problem with the DX11 move?

Celas_Dranacea · March 2016

I was living in the dark ages and thankfully, was at a point where I could upgrade my comp. I totally understand folks who are bummed tho - I was initially crushed when I realized I couldn't play anymore.... This is gonna be a whole new game for me w good graphics!

VincentBlanquin · March 2016

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Avianographer · March 2016

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Yes, the Nvidia GeForce 540M is DirectX 11.0 compatible. Whether or not you can run the 64-bit client depends on your operating system.

Avianographer · March 2016

Giraffon wrote: »

Any kind of change to system requirements for the game should be direct e-mailed to all active accounts well in advance.

While I completely support the move to DirectX 11 requirements, I also agree that this should have been communicated much more effectively. It if was sent out three months ago to all registered users (and included in the welcome e-mail for new accounts), I doubt there would be nearly the outrage today.

Avianographer · March 2016

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO wrote: »

Seriously, you really do want to look at the link I posted earlier. I'll do you a favour and post it again.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

For those that can't be bothered to click on it, I'll give you a summary. DX11 ruled for October, November and December and probably for the previous months as well. Want to guess which was in the lead for January and February?

Go on, have a guess....

You're close but not quite there...

Yes that's right, DX8 or lower.... DX9 hardly anyone has got.

That is a very strange anomaly in the data. It seems completely unreasonable to me that 80% of Steam users would have DirectX 11 compatible GPUs in October, but only 16% of them would in February. I'll see if I can reach out to a contact at Valve about this, but I doubt she'll have any more incite than I do.

Ghost-Shot · March 2016

Napoleonicus wrote: »

The part I don't quite get is... why should I not have access to the things I bought and paid for? They shoulod stillwork fine. Not having access to TG I'm fine with, but I still paid for the rest.

Because that's not how an MMO works, you don't get to have bits and pieces its kind of an all or nothing thing, upgrade your system and you will have access.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · March 2016

FakeAlGore wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

Any kind of change to system requirements for the game should be direct e-mailed to all active accounts well in advance.

While I completely support the move to DirectX 11 requirements, I also agree that this should have been communicated much more effectively. It if was sent out three months ago to all registered users (and included in the welcome e-mail for new accounts), I doubt there would be nearly the outrage today.

They told us this was coming a year ago. They updated the min specs in October 2015 to say dx11 and above only.

Greeblie · March 2016

[snip]

Moderator edit - post edited for referencing moderated content

dimensional · March 2016

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

FakeAlGore wrote: »

Giraffon wrote: »

Any kind of change to system requirements for the game should be direct e-mailed to all active accounts well in advance.

While I completely support the move to DirectX 11 requirements, I also agree that this should have been communicated much more effectively. It if was sent out three months ago to all registered users (and included in the welcome e-mail for new accounts), I doubt there would be nearly the outrage today.

They told us this was coming a year ago. They updated the min specs in October 2015 to say dx11 and above only.

Correct, you had a year to prepare.

idk · March 2016

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Honestly,

With as many people having issues as i have seen(its far more then i would have expected), im beginning to question this move.

As can be read here

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ff476876(v=vs.85).aspx

DirectX 11 is fully backwards compatible with DirectX 10.1. In theory they could:
1. use DirectX 11 so we all get the benefits of performance improvements.
2. Setting the feature level to 10.1 thus all us DirectX 11 people get the improved game performance while not locking out the DirectX 10.1 people.

Microsoft created feature levels for this very reason. Even DirectX 12 has feature levels built in and DirectX 12 games will run on DirectX 11 hardware by simply setting the feature level to 11.2 or 11.3 for compatibility while still getting the performance benefits of DirectX 12. This is how AMD 7000 series and Nvidia 700 series cards support Direct X 12 in the 1st place since those cards came out long before DirectX 12 was even developed.

Im all about progress, my AMD cards run the game fine. However this whole thing just feels ZOS not doing a proper hardware survey. If 30% or more of your paying customers would be locked out by such a change it makes no sense to boot 30% of your paying customers, not if you want to stay in business....id say its reasonable to assume easily 30% of their playerbase can't play now(most of them probably don't even know why)...thats just bad for business no matter how you shake it...thats a huge potential loss of revenue that really makes no sense.

Instead, a better way to go about this would have been to delay this change until the Dark Brotherhood update, collect hardware surveys from their playerbase(by collecting hardware information and uploading it to their servers) and then sending emails and messages twice a month between now and Dark Brotherhood conveying to their user base the system requirement change.

This whole thing was very poorly communicated and it just may end up costing them big time in the money department.

Until then and until this change is better communicated, ZOS simply needs to patch the game and set the DirectX feature level to 10.1 and then make steps moving forward over the next few months to communicated better to its customers that they are EOL support for cards that are not DirextX 11.0 or greater feature level...it makes sense from the standpoint of moving forward with technology, and it makes sense from a business and revenue standpoint. This changes was foisted on its community with very little open communication from ZOS, the fact the PTS worked with it and now the live one doesn't makes this even worse...

you can't do business this way and be successful....ZOS needs to do the right thing for its community and set the feature level to 10.1(DirectX 11 is fully backwards compatible) and better communicate moving forward that hardware upgrades will be required for future updates.

I appreciate your argument which even you admit is based on an assumption (your conditional of a 30% threshold).

I do challenge your second assumption that this change has locked out at least 30% of the player see. Based on the number of threads and total posts I've seen in the threads it does look like the numbers affected by this are rather small though it's unfortunate for them.

If more than 30% of the player base was in fact locked out it would be hard to find a thead about anything else in the forums. Doubt 10% of the player base are affected by the DX changes.

It has seemed rather quiet for such a monumental change.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · March 2016

They dont need to do anything over the next few months. I would hazard a guess if you cant afford a $50 video card you probably arent spending money on crowns either. Move forward I say.

VincentBlanquin · March 2016

FakeAlGore wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Yes, the Nvidia GeForce 540M is DirectX 11.0 compatible. Whether or not you can run the 64-bit client depends on your operating system.

i cant run that 64exe file, i crashed immeadiatelly. win7 is the problem?

Divinius · March 2016

I still feel that anyone who plays games on PC should fully expect (and be prepared for) the inevitability of needing to upgrade their rig routinely.

That said, I can also admit that ZOS could have been much more active about informing and reminding people that ESO was going to be dropping support for DX9 than they were. Yes, they mentioned it, but they could have made regular announcements in multiple locations, multiple times over the course of the last year, including the expected dates when support would be dropped. For the completely non-savvy PC users, they could have even made a small program that players could download and install to confirm that their system was ready.

They could have included notes on the launcher, login screen, forums, etc. saying "Hey, sometime around March 2016 we will be updating the game such that you will NEED to have DX11 support on your system. To check to see whether your system is ready, please download and install our 'DX11 check' program, and run it."

Granted, even if they did ALL of that, there would STILL be people that wouldn't have paid attention to it, and still be complaining now that they couldn't play anymore. But it may have significantly reduced the issues.

Honestly though (and I'm really not trying to bash ZOS here), given this company's track record for communication and good decision-making skills, can anyone really say they are surprised that the information presented was minimal?

I'd say the blame is 50/50 here. ZOS could have been more diligent about ensuring that their players knew what was coming, but any PC gamer should also know to keep an eye out for changing system requirements, especially those running with seriously outdated rigs.

Shader_Shibes · March 2016

Divinius wrote: »

That said, I can also admit that ZOS could have been much more active about informing and reminding people that ESO was going to be dropping support for DX9 than they were. Yes, they mentioned it, but they could have made regular announcements in multiple locations, multiple times over the course of the last year, including the expected dates when support would be dropped. For the completely non-savvy PC users, they could have even made a small program that players could download and install to confirm that their system was ready.

They could have included notes on the launcher, login screen, forums, etc. saying "Hey, sometime around March 2016 we will be updating the game such that you will NEED to have DX11 support on your system. To check to see whether your system is ready, please download and install our 'DX11 check' program, and run it."

Granted, even if they did ALL of that, there would STILL be people that wouldn't have paid attention to it, and still be complaining now that they couldn't play anymore. But it may have significantly reduced the issues.

Honestly though (and I'm really not trying to bash ZOS here), given this company's track record for communication and good decision-making skills, can anyone really say they are surprised that the information presented was minimal?

I'd say the blame is 50/50 here. ZOS could have been more diligent about ensuring that their players knew what was coming, but any PC gamer should also know to keep an eye out for changing system requirements, especially those running with seriously outdated rigs.

This 100%. Other than the announcement a year or so ago and something on early TG patch notes? i have seen NOTHING mentioned about it from ZOS. Quite easily they could of put it repeatedly on the launcher, made a sticky on top of the forums, or even sent a generic email to everyone. Poor show from ZOS imo. I'm not QQ from personal pov, but i can feel for some that have limited funds for upgrades, so inevitably can't play a game that maybe they have spent best part of 2 years playing.

WalkingLegacy · March 2016

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

FakeAlGore wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Yes, the Nvidia GeForce 540M is DirectX 11.0 compatible. Whether or not you can run the 64-bit client depends on your operating system.

i cant run that 64exe file, i crashed immeadiatelly. win7 is the problem?

Probably, what version of W7 are you running? Right click my computer from the start bar and click properties.

32bit W7 = 32bit ESO client
64bit W7 =64bit or 32bit ESO client

Krayor · March 2016

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS stated that DX9 was holding the game back from where they wanted to take the game in the future, it was not capable of rendering the graphics they want to bring to the game. So what you're saying is that players shouldn't get improvements and a better gaming experience because we should remain beholden to graphics capability from 14 years ago. I say HECK NO to that idea!

Don't buy that rhetoric. This game always had DX 11 support and DX 9 support was never going to prevent that. This is purely a cost cutting move, plain and simple. It is a poorly timed and monumentally stupid move on ZoS part.

[snip]

Moderator edit - post edited for insulting/rude remarks

WalkingLegacy · March 2016

Krayor wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

ZOS stated that DX9 was holding the game back from where they wanted to take the game in the future, it was not capable of rendering the graphics they want to bring to the game. So what you're saying is that players shouldn't get improvements and a better gaming experience because we should remain beholden to graphics capability from 14 years ago. I say HECK NO to that idea!

Don't buy that rhetoric. This game always had DX 11 support and DX 9 support was never going to prevent that. This is purely a cost cutting move, plain and simple. It is a poorly timed and monumentally stupid move on ZoS part.

[snip]

Ignorant? Ignorance is coming into the PC world and expecting your low end GPU from 2008 to run a game in 2014/2016.

A playstation 3 GPU from 2006 is more powerful than a lot of peoples GPUs that are being posted here.

DX9 is Windows XP era. Windows XP is 100% cut off from microsoft support and to meet PCI Compliance you have to be fully away from those vulnerabilities. This is a smart decision regardless of how anyone sees it.

This is how PC Lifecycles work.

Moderator edit - post edited to match moderated content

Rakkul · March 2016

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

FakeAlGore wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Yes, the Nvidia GeForce 540M is DirectX 11.0 compatible. Whether or not you can run the 64-bit client depends on your operating system.

i cant run that 64exe file, i crashed immeadiatelly. win7 is the problem?

Probably, what version of W7 are you running? Right click my computer from the start bar and click properties.

32bit W7 = 32bit ESO client
64bit W7 =64bit or 32bit ESO client

Running the 64 client with Windows 7 no problem.
Make sure you have the latest Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64).

You can download it here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=14632

VincentBlanquin · March 2016

Rakkul wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

FakeAlGore wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

guys my video card is ge force gt 540m. can i run 64client and dx11? notebook....

Yes, the Nvidia GeForce 540M is DirectX 11.0 compatible. Whether or not you can run the 64-bit client depends on your operating system.

i cant run that 64exe file, i crashed immeadiatelly. win7 is the problem?

Probably, what version of W7 are you running? Right click my computer from the start bar and click properties.

32bit W7 = 32bit ESO client
64bit W7 =64bit or 32bit ESO client

Running the 64 client with Windows 7 no problem.
Make sure you have the latest Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64).

You can download it here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=14632

i have this package, 64bit version. dx11 installed too. 64exe still crashing on start

win 7home premium - service pack1

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · March 2016

I dont see where a cost cutting move is a bad thing. If hardly anyone uses the old tech why keep supporting it.

RinaldoGandolphi · March 2016

@Giles.floydub17_ESO

For the sake of not having a long quote.

I take my information form what i leanred in Marketing before i became an IT Professional and Analyst

The link below is the best example of what i can give you that was taught to me by marketing professionals with decades of experience. I was lucky enough to become very close friends with 2 people who were older then me that grew up poor, im talking poverty poor, that are now self made millionaires that own successful business, and even though both of their business are completely different there are common themes that makes them successful.

The Cost of Bad Customer Service

A typical business hears from 4% of it's dissatisfied customers.

96% NEVER voice a complaint
91% NEVER come back

Source: “Understanding Customers” by Ruby Newell-Legner

This is something that is missed by a very large group of people. Large multi-billion dollar companies employ marketing people and actually set aside X amount of dollars per yer to give freebies away to dissatisfied customers as a cost of business just to keep that customer. Your right that the the amount of people complaining on here is small, but a very small portion of ESO playerbase even gets on here. For most if the game stops working they just simply stop playing it, stop paying, and move on. Its no different then my Natural Gas contract, if im unhappy i simply switch providors at the end of the term, i rarely tell them why i just simply switch. Years of research has gone into this and sucessful companies actually set aside a ton of money per year just to give out in freebies because as point 2 will show:

It is 6-7 times more expensive to acquire a new customer than it is to keep a current one.

Source: White House Office of Consumer Affairs

Its costs way more money in resources in marketing, advertising, bringing the product to market, selling the product to a new customer, etc then it is to keep a current customer, It is always 100% more profitable to keep current customer which is why customer service, giving away freebies, etc is such a part of successful companies. I was unhappy about a can of Del Monte Pinepaples, and they sent me coupons for 5 more cans free just to give them the opportunity to keep my business. this is why this is done...because it far cheaper to give away freebies then get a new customer is also far more expensive.

And to point 3

For every customer who bothers to complain, 26 other customers remain silent.

Source: White House Office of Consumer Affairs

Simply put, many people just got up yesterday and found a game they could no longer play...for the majority of them it wasn't a mega important part of their life, not important enough to go though support so they just simply shrugged their shoulders, and are already moving on to something else..this is how the 95% casual works, they are not going to waste hours of frustration on customer support over a game..the game is fun leisure time, if it no longer works they will find another leaisure and another company will get the money ZOS could be getting, and they won't voice this displeasure at all though normal channels.

There are 75 points in total but i only touched on a few

https://www.helpscout.net/75-customer-service-facts-quotes-statistics/

Long story short, if any business plans according to that kinda list your easily looking at 90% customer retention which is going to result in making very good profits while still getting new customers with much less effort. Read those 75 points and think about how this has all shaked out...from a marketing standpoint this is a total nightmare....a big one..

Atreyix · March 2016

Mr_Nobody wrote: »

If something, a company should always do its best to increase the performance, not decrease it. Even if an unintended failure happens, its unacceptable.

At the current scenario, it is beyond unacceptable since PTS was up for a month and the issues were known.

The targets this company has need to be reviewed and redecisioned. I am speaking from a company's perspective. They tried to reach the target of Time and got it, meanwhile lost nearly everything else.

Idk how Riot deals with their stuff now, but a few years ago if something went wrong they would put all of their resources to remove the issues and increase the quality of the game play. That includes giving free in-game currency for their side failures.

Zos does everything pretty much the same, except the other way around.

Successful company:

1) Plans to create something
2) Creates something (alpha)
3) Tests Alpha
4) Creates something else (beta)
5) Tests Beta
6) Tests Beta again, collects customer feedback (pts?)
7) Fixes Beta to meet the best possible customer feedback
8) Triple checks if everything is working fine
9) Releases
10) Waits for customer feedback and puts all needed resources to fix major (UNKNOWN) issues ASAP

Zos:

1) Plans to create something
2) Creates something
3) Creates an Alpha/Beta altogether PTS server where customers can give their feedback
4) Feedback? Wut? Whats that?
5) Checks forum for major complaints/issues with an exception of the Templar threads
6) Fixes MINOR issues
7) Releases
8) Promises to fix all of the Major issues which were known 1 month ago during testing
9) ...? 1)

Sounds like an intentional destruction of a company.

Laughed at the "except for templar threads"

Krayor · March 2016

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Ignorant? Ignorance is coming into the PC world and expecting your low end GPU from 2008 to run a game in 2014/2016.

A playstation 3 GPU from 2006 is more powerful than a lot of peoples GPUs that are being posted here.

DX9 is Windows XP era. Windows XP is 100% cut off from microsoft support and to meet PCI Compliance you have to be fully away from those vulnerabilities. This is a smart decision regardless of how anyone sees it.

This is how PC Lifecycles work.

Ignorance in this thread is epitomized in your post. Not realizing that a good chunk of people who play games on PC are not going to be tech savvy, and have old systems, is exceptionally ignorant.

Hardware technology moves much faster than application technology. The above is the reason for this. Those who are saying this kind of change is the norm are full of it. This kind of change rarely happens, and for good reason.

Alienating a chunk of your userbase is plain stupid. I feel for those who have been affected by this blunder.

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO · March 2016

FakeAlGore wrote: »

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO wrote: »

Seriously, you really do want to look at the link I posted earlier. I'll do you a favour and post it again.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

For those that can't be bothered to click on it, I'll give you a summary. DX11 ruled for October, November and December and probably for the previous months as well. Want to guess which was in the lead for January and February?

Go on, have a guess....

You're close but not quite there...

Yes that's right, DX8 or lower.... DX9 hardly anyone has got.

That is a very strange anomaly in the data. It seems completely unreasonable to me that 80% of Steam users would have DirectX 11 compatible GPUs in October, but only 16% of them would in February. I'll see if I can reach out to a contact at Valve about this, but I doubt she'll have any more incite than I do.

I totally agree and any developer that sees the early months would think it was safe to just go for DX11. But DX8, I can't remember when that was about let alone any game that required it.

@Giles.floydub17_ESO I agree with you, but the weekend is the main peek for people gaming and that's when things are going to really kick off.

@WalkingLegacy A lot of people still use XP as it is far more stable for what they use it for. Microsoft even extended support for XP because of this. A lot did go to win 7 though which was DX10/DX11 and this is where people have more then likely been caught out. And as Win 7 is being supported by Micorsoft then it would have made sense to up it from DX9 to DX10.

@Krayor is probably right in that it is nothing more then a cost cutting exercise. The bean counter might not be too happy though when he sees next months balance sheet.

Ra'Shtar · March 2016

I actually think this was a nice upgrade they can now start to optimize the game better so high end graphics cards can be used 100% and not just 30% like they are now, also they should switch from the spaghetti code they have to allow better bug fixes.

stewart.leslie76b16_ESO · March 2016

Ra'Shtar wrote: »

I actually think this was a nice upgrade they can now start to optimize the game better so high end graphics cards can be used 100% and not just 30% like they are now, also they should switch from the spaghetti code they have to allow better bug fixes.

The could support DX1 and still have a DX11 card running at 100%. They could optimise the game for any version of DX if they want. If ZOS want to have high end machines playing their game then so be it, the problem is though that ZOS now have to deliver to justify having such a machine to play it. They've dropped DX9, now they have no excuses to hide behind. Bet they will still factor in players unable to log on when calculating when they up the CP cap.

Reevster · March 2016

Krayor wrote: »

WalkingLegacy wrote: »

Ignorant? Ignorance is coming into the PC world and expecting your low end GPU from 2008 to run a game in 2014/2016.

A playstation 3 GPU from 2006 is more powerful than a lot of peoples GPUs that are being posted here.

DX9 is Windows XP era. Windows XP is 100% cut off from microsoft support and to meet PCI Compliance you have to be fully away from those vulnerabilities. This is a smart decision regardless of how anyone sees it.

This is how PC Lifecycles work.

Ignorance in this thread is epitomized in your post. Not realizing that a good chunk of people who play games on PC are not going to be tech savvy and have old systems is exceptionally ignorant.

Hardware technology moves much faster than application technology. The above is the reason for this. Those who are saying this kind of change is the norm are full of it. This kind of change rarely happens, and for good reason.

Alienating a chunk of your userbase is plain stupid. I feel for those who have been affected by this blunder.

Microsoft just did it, no support for vista which is what i had , not even a free upgrade to W 10. Ya it sucks but it is what it is, either shut off your computer and go old school ( no tech in your home) or upgrade your system when its needed, this is how it is, no use in arguing over it. Maybe lose a few players but will gain some on the other end if playability is improved.

WalkingLegacy · March 2016

@Krayor you call it ignorance on our part, but you're refusing to understand that equipment has lifecycle, no matter if you affects me, you or everyone. Eventually you will have to upgrade. Vista brought us DX10, W7 brough us DX11 and now we have DX12 and you're still comfortably chilling on hardware they last gen consoles can outdo.

Do you complain to Microsoft as much as ZOS when they kill OS support? How about to the console makers when they push the next console out and slowly kill off their last gen hardware?

@stewart.leslie76b16_ESO XP is dead and gone and to meet PCI Compliance you must be off of it. MS only supported it long enough to get you to the next system or when other software finally pushed you to it

Volkodav · March 2016

FakeAlGore wrote: »

Volkodav wrote: »

You do realize that not that many people use Steam to play ESO.If you dont,your being naive.
And not all people bought their computers after 2010,so the point about their machines having DX11 is also wrong.
Please stop spreading misinformation.

The Steam hardware survey has been used for years by game developers (of which I am one) to judge the average feature level available to their target audience. I am not, in any way, suggesting that a majority of Elder Scrolls Online players use Steam to play their game. For PC games, Steam has a market share of approximately 70% according to Forbes. This means that the majority of Elder Scrolls Online players will likely have Steam installed whether-or-not they use it to play this game. If even 10% of those users report their hardware to Steam, that is a reasonable cross-section of the population.

The Steam hardware survey is also fairly accurate. When it states that over 80% of reporting gamers in October 2015 (the last survey I have full access to) have DirectX 11 compatible hardware, I can trust that it is correct to within a few percentage points. That doesn't mean they have a powerful DirectX 11 compatible GPU (as would be the case with integrated graphics), but it does mean they have a feature-compatible GPU.

You are misconstruing my words. Please do not do that. Use facts, not hyperbole.

I am not misconstruing anything.Please dont insinuate that I am.I am simply eading what you typed and taking for it what I see.
As to the final comment,I took it directly from your words.People can only interpret what you type by what they see.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO · March 2016

I think you are overestimating how many PC users use steam. I never have. Noone I know uses steam or origin etc. We spend a LOT of money too being older gentlemen with disposable income. My opinion steam is mainly kids and guys under 25.