Futuremark gets business from Microsoft

[AzBat]

Microsoft announced today it's new Games for Windows XP site which includes a Game Advisor and Extras. The Game Advisor is a new web-based tool that uses Futuremark's Performance Analyzer plug-in to find out if any of the 100+ games will run on your machine. It also filters games by genre, age group or ESRB ratings.

Here's the press release:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/nov03/11-10WinXPGamersPR.asp

Here's the web site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/games/

Here's the link to the Game Advisor:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/games/gameadvisor/default.asp

Wouldn't run on my machine since I'm still using Win98SE.

Very interesting news for Futuremark. Funny thing is that there is no mention on their web site about it. Figured they would shout it from the mountain tops.

BTW, Futuremark had previous plans that enhanced the Minimum System Requirements listing on game boxes. They wanted to list mininum and recommended 3DMark scores along with the minimum and recommended requirements. Performance Analyzer was another step in that direction, but it never really caught on, but now that Microsoft has decided to support their vision, I can see it catching on(provided it works reliably). Maybe this is another reason why NVIDIA decided to become a member of the BETA program again.

Tommy McClain

 

[micron]

I tried it and it recommended that I buy an nVidia graphics card

 

[AzBat]

I tried it and it recommended that I buy an nVidia graphics card

Actually if you read closer it didn't recommend buying anything. It just said "The game developer recommends NVIDIA high performance display cards for playing Everquest."

I bet if you were to select a more demanding game, say Half Life 2(press release says its there), I suspect it would say the Valve recommends ATI cards for HL2.

Thanks for the report.

Tommy McClain

 

[micron]

HL2 wasnt an option ...I got different results this time though.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yeah...it depends on the game...

 

[micron]

 

[John Reynolds]

Hey, my system is 1765% over the required minimum hardware to run ToEE (Temple of Elemental Evil). And yet the game still chugs when scrolling the screen.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Hey, my system is 1765% over the required minimum hardware to run ToEE (Temple of Elemental Evil). And yet the game still chugs when scrolling the screen.

You should take these tests with a grain of salt.

 

[cthellis42]

<sigh> That site was confusing me for a bit until I went "Oh, let me run this page on IE, because I figure the MS fucktards broke the functionality for other browers--kindly fellows that they are."

Sure enough, no Mozilla, no Netscape, no Opera... Excuse me while I "exercise" my middle finger for a while.

(At least using Avant browser doesn't make me feel as dirty.)

 

[Brent]

I tried it on my system for Flight Sim 2004. According to this thing my machine is 10,285% above the Minimum PC requirenments for this game. Interesting though they recomend an NVIDIA card for this game, when I know good and well from all my testing the R3xx line runs FS 2004 much faster with better filtering quality.

 

[Entropy]

Advertising masquerading as information again, but unusually insidious due to its OS supplier tie in.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I tried it on my system for Flight Sim 2004. According to this thing my machine is 10,285% above the Minimum PC requirenments for this game. Interesting though they recomend an NVIDIA card for this game, when I know good and well from all my testing the R3xx line runs FS 2004 much faster with better filtering quality.

*cough* B$ *cough*

That game runs better on a TNT than a R350.

 

[Brent]

I tried it on my system for Flight Sim 2004. According to this thing my machine is 10,285% above the Minimum PC requirenments for this game. Interesting though they recomend an NVIDIA card for this game, when I know good and well from all my testing the R3xx line runs FS 2004 much faster with better filtering quality.

*cough* B$ *cough*

That game runs better on a TNT than a R350.

just keep sayin that to yourself

 

[AzBat]

Thanks for the results guys. I agree it gives different results based on different games. But also remember that Microsoft is not making any recommendations. It just tell if you have a machine that meets or beats the mininum system requirements. The "recommends" portion comes directly from the developer. So if the recommendation isn't matching what you have come to expect, then you take that up with the developer instead of Microsoft or Futuremark.

As for the advertising thing, IMHO it's pretty low-key. However, nobody has said what those "Other Requirements" or "superior performance PCs" links say. Also, what about that "To Component Comparison" link at the bottom?

Anyway, looks like a good way for Microsoft to make sure people are satisfied with their gaming experience on WindowsXP. Especially needed because of the game console competition. Would be funny if it had the opposite effect. Making people sick of their slow computer/games and they decide to buy a game console instead.

Tommy McClain

 

[PaulS]

It could actually end up working pretty well for Joe Public, who are often confused about whether X or Y will run well on their system. So long as the system is kept upto date and accurate, it could help a lot - so long as the public is made aware. I can see this getting integrated into a future OS or service pack.

 

[PARANOiA]

I'm amused that it says my Radeon 9500Pro vs Halo is 628%, but the game still runs very poorly. More amusing is that there's no "We suggest [Ati/Nividia]" for this game. Maybe neither party want to touch this one.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I tried it on my system for Flight Sim 2004. According to this thing my machine is 10,285% above the Minimum PC requirenments for this game. Interesting though they recomend an NVIDIA card for this game, when I know good and well from all my testing the R3xx line runs FS 2004 much faster with better filtering quality.

*cough* B$ *cough*

That game runs better on a TNT than a R350.

just keep sayin that to yourself

It wasn't me, it was my nVidiot counterpart who made the statement.

 

[epicstruggle]

<sigh> That site was confusing me for a bit until I went "Oh, let me run this page on IE, because I figure the MS fucktards broke the functionality for other browers--kindly fellows that they are."

Sure enough, no Mozilla, no Netscape, no Opera... Excuse me while I "exercise" my middle finger for a while.

(At least using Avant browser doesn't make me feel as dirty.)

i hate MS for that. I use opera, and it wouldnt show me the stupid link. Then tried using IE and the popup woulnd load.

later,
epic

 

[Simon F]

<sigh> That site was confusing me for a bit until I went "Oh, let me run this page on IE, because I figure the MS fucktards broke the functionality for other browers--kindly fellows that they are."

Sure enough, no Mozilla, no Netscape, no Opera... Excuse me while I "exercise" my middle finger for a while.

I run Netscape but, judging from what has been posted, I don't feel any great loss

 

[Quitch]

I'm amused that it says my Radeon 9500Pro vs Halo is 628%, but the game still runs very poorly. More amusing is that there's no "We suggest [Ati/Nividia]" for this game. Maybe neither party want to touch this one.

I'd say that the program is correct. That's how Halo SHOULD run... but they forgot to take the Gearbox factor into account.