Nvidia and AMD lock ‘n’ load new drivers for Wolfenstein II

Today's the day for Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. If you're planning on spending your weekend shooting up sci-fi Nazis, pause just a moment to grab a new driver for your graphics card. Both Nvidia and AMD have new drivers out specifically for the game, so unless you're a true-blue gamer using integrated graphics, it's time to upgrade your software.

Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

Nvidia's GeForce Hotfix Driver 388.10 specifically addresses a game crash on Kepler GPUs (those on GeForce GTX 600- and GTX 700-series cards). However, it's possible that the newer driver might help users with recent graphics cards avoid any hangups or hitches that might arise in Machine Games' new Blazkowicz epic. The guys in green say that there will be another Game Ready driver release for the game early next week, too.

Destiny 2

On red corner, we have AMD's just-released Radeon Software version 17.10.3. This release specifically addresses stability issues in a certain mission of Destiny 2, as well as a crash bug for Vega users in Wolfenstein II. AMD doesn't call its driver a hotfix, but the new versions's list of fixed and known issues appears to be otherwise similar, if not identical to, that of the Radeon 17.10.2 drivers.

You can pick up the 388.10 hotfix on Nvidia's customer service page. If you're after that Radeon 17.10.3 software instead, head over to the company's download site to grab it.

Comments closed
    • Rza79
    • 2 years ago

    Benchmark results: [url<]https://goo.gl/8Dp6Gq[/url<]

    • Voldenuit
    • 2 years ago

    The 388.10 drivers are causing video artefacts during playback when using nvidia CUVID through LAV for me. Win10 x64, 1080Ti. Have tried updating to the latest K-Lite codec pack, problem remains.

      • End User
      • 2 years ago

      [quote<]To be sure, these Hotfix drivers are beta, optional and provided as-is. They are run through a much abbreviated QA process. The sole reason they exist is to get fixes out to you more quickly. The safest option is to wait for the next WHQL certified driver. [/quote<] [url<]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1027449/announcing-geforce-hotfx-driver-388-10-for-wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus-released-10-26-17-/?offset=1[/url<]

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      did you do a clean driver install via the DDU method?

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSiJkMnDcg4[/url<]

    • Topinio
    • 2 years ago

    Neither 17.10.2 nor 17.10.3 works at all on my Windows 10 Pro 1607/RX Vega 56/E3-1270 v5 system. Cannot even get to Radeon Settings :-/

    Edit: annoying, because I bought the damn game.

    • mcarson09
    • 2 years ago

    I’ll get it when it price drops to $30 in December and any really bad bugs are fixed. $60 is way too much for Single player.

      • Firestarter
      • 2 years ago

      Why should single player games be cheaper? There’s way more time and money involved in creating single player story and gameplay than just setting up an environment where other players have to fill in for that. Look at PUBG for example, now try to imagine a single player battle royale game that is anywhere near as fun and engaging. How much time and money would they have to invest in creating an AI interesting/entertaining enough to replace humans? How hard would critics pan the single player game if it only ever offered one map as PUBG does now? Even if they managed that, it still wouldn’t have a story and cinematics like people expect from AAA single player games.

        • RAGEPRO
        • 2 years ago

        Which is exactly why EA is dropping single-player development (and developers) and moving to multiplayer-focused models for all of its current titles.

        From a purchaser standpoint, consider it this way: I’ve gotten about twelve-hundred (that’s 1200) hours of gameplay out of [i<]Warframe[/i<]. Would I have played it that much if it were single-player? Absolutely not. Nevermind that it's technically a free game; I've spent around $225 on it. That comes out to around $0.19/hour give or take. So let's look at a game like [i<]Wolfenstein II[/i<]. It has no multiplayer, but it has a full single-player campaign as well as a "killboard" mode. My good buddy Josh has finished all the content in the game on the hardest difficulty; he has 19 hours in the game. That's $3.15/hour of entertainment, which isn't much better than a movie ticket. Yeah, it's a disgustingly pragmatic argument, but humans are just a lot more variable and interesting than even the very best procedurally-generated level design and AI opponents can be. Ultimately multiplayer games are just a better value for the money, and that's the argument for why single-player games should be cheaper even though they're (in some ways) more difficult to make. However, there's also the fact that single-player games are much simpler technologically. When you're not trying to sync everything over a network it simplifies the entire game design dramatically. It also allows you to be a lot less concerned about things like balance. So, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as "single-player games are harder to make." After all, Skyrim only has "one map" (allowing that buildings, while technologically speaking are "separate maps", are only that way because of how the game engine works).

          • NTMBK
          • 2 years ago

          There’s way more games out there than I have time to play; hell, Assassin’s Creed Origins, Wolfenstein II and Super Mario Odyssey came out on literally the same day. If I had time to play them all, I would love to! I care more about what I get out of the time I spend. I’d rather have 10 hours of fantastically crafted campaign than 100 hours of repetitive grind.

            • mudcore
            • 2 years ago

            Who disagrees with your last statement? Last I checked no one. Nothing about what RAGEPRO said is contrary to that sentiment.

            There’s no inherent increase/decrease of “enjoyment-per-hour” in multiplayer vs single player games. It’s usually a by-game basis or a personal preference. Or nor does it decrease just because a game is long vs short. The Witcher 3 has 200+ hours of gameplay in it and every last minute was more rewarding, IMO, than Wolf II. They both had a $60 price tag on launch but only one justified that price. I enjoyed the Titanfall 2 campaign way more than Wolf II and that game also has multiplayer… it was also $60 and a better value.

          • Voldenuit
          • 2 years ago

          [quote<]Which is exactly why EA is dropping single-player development (and developers) and moving to multiplayer-focused models for all of its current titles.[/quote<] They're also dropping single-[i<]payer[/i<], because they want you to buy microtransactions and DLC for all their games.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            That kind of BS is why I’ve retreated into retro gaming. I don’t want toโ€”and won’tโ€”pay repeatedly for a game or for a chance at winning something in a game. It’s ridiculous free-to-play.

            Are there modern games out there today that don’t do that kind of garbage? Almost assuredly, but I won’t ever support micro-transaction “loot boxes” and I’m resolved to not buy games that implement them. Might as well buy a lotto ticket. I definitely won’t play multiplayer games with that kind of mechanism for anything that affects gameplay because it becomes “pay to win”.

            • LostCat
            • 2 years ago

            Some “loot boxes” people rail about are stupid and I don’t even know why anyone would pay for them. It just seems like people complaining just to have something to complain about, rather than anything that legitimately affects gameplay.

            (And yes, I’m talking about Destiny 2 here, though it’s probably not my only example.)

            • derFunkenstein
            • 2 years ago

            There are two types of loot boxes in games these days:

            * The kind that offer random cosmetic things like skins or new models. Silly but harmless to the gameplay. Not many people will buy stuff like this but nothing is broken.
            * The kind that offer in-game upgrades. This turns the game (that you’ve already paid $60 to purchase) into a pay-to-win scheme. This breaks gameplay and this a multiplayer-experience-ruining decision that bean counters conjured up just to get a few more bucks and the cost of a fun experience and a happy community.

            It’s that second one that keeps me out of a lot of multiplayer experiences. There will always be grinders competing to get everything unlocked, and that’s fine, but offering that fully leveled-up experience for money just breaks the game.

            • nanoflower
            • 2 years ago

            I don’t have an issue with loot boxes/micro-transactions that are based on cosmetics. Games like Team Fortress have survived for years making money solely on cosmetic micro-transactions that don’t change the game. It’s when the games move to micro-transactions that change the game (better weapons/items/cheats) that I have a real problem.

            As many people have said before there’s a real incentive to the developers to make a game harder for people that don’t buy the ‘loot boxes’ so they have an incentive to spend money to avoid the long grind. It’s something that is easy to see with a big company like EA but it can impact even companies that aren’t as money hungry as EA (oh, how I long for the early days of EA when the company was all about finding great games and introducing them to the public.)

            • nanoflower
            • 2 years ago

            Microtransactions and the ease with which they can cause people to continue to part with money long after the initial purchase is what EA is after. MP games make it easier to get people to part with money to get better items/weapons and , of course, cosmetics than SP games. That’s the real reason for EA to focus on the MP functionality. It’s the search for more money.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        He isn’t saying that games should be cheaper, he’s just saying that for a single player game, $60 is too much for him. Perfectly valid point. He’s also wary of brand new games that generally are missing a few important bug-fix patches. Also a perfectly valid point.

        Your point is well taken too. In reality, AAA games should cost about $90 now since game development has gotten way more expensive but game prices have remained at $60 for something like 12-15 years, maybe longer. Instead of raising the base price we get microtransactions and “games as a service.” Neither situation is ideal, but yeah, it’s the reality we live in now.

        • YukaKun
        • 2 years ago

        Not necessarily.

        Single-player elements don’t need a lot of development and can be scripted to a degree. I don’t disagree that is hard to do and getting an engaging experience is not a trivial endeavor, but Multi-player has elements that are way harder to get right around network and infrastructure, which have higher longer term costs in a lot of ways the SP doesn’t. You need fully dedicated teams for communication, maintenance and support duties during the life cycle of the MP component of the game. The release of patches is also way different for MP games, since you are expected to provide a 24/7 service, but in SP you’re not; you just release when you see fit. I can think of a lot more reasons why, but All the elements of a SP campaign, can also be part of the MP (Cooperative experience, for example).

        Cheers!

          • mcarson09
          • 2 years ago

          This game uses the same engine as Doom and has vulkan support. That didn’t have to provide anything for the game except a new script. All the assets from the first game are used character wise. This game for the most part is a cash grab.

        • ludi
        • 2 years ago

        I think you’re only comparing the up-front cost, which for single-player has been blown out of proportion by massive investments in name-brand voice actors, motion-capture, and cinematic cut-scenes that show off the developer’s tech resources but don’t always add to a solid single-player experience.

        Multiplayer can be cheaper up-front but requires long-term maintenance of server infrastructure, point updates, administrators, etc. But it’s also a cash cow for SaaS microtransactions so guess where all the effort goes.

      • mudcore
      • 2 years ago

      Beat it yesterday. I got it via the Vega 64 bundle along with Prey.

      Took 9 hours to complete Wolfenstein II, took around 30 for Prey. So people complaining about your comment when it comes to “but SP games cost so much to make” are presenting a weak argument. Wolf II just doesn’t have much content. What was there was gunplay that’s exactly like the previous titles and a story that tries so damn hard to make you “feel” but is so overloaded with cliches and gaps in its plot it should have stuck to the story style more like the previous ones.

      I’d give it a 6/10.

      EDIT: Also anyone even remotely considering it should know there’s so much headbobbing in game by default its vomit inducing. There’s a workaround with some Doom 2016 dll and ini files that I highly recommend. I didn’t think I was actually even going to be able to play it before finding that.

      • DancinJack
      • 2 years ago

      You mean December 2018, right? If you think a game is going to drop 50 percent in a month and a half, you’re very confused.

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        The first game was discounted 3 months after release to $30 on steam.

      • Waco
      • 2 years ago

      So buy a key on Kinguin for $36.

        • mcarson09
        • 2 years ago

        I found it for cheaper.. they really need to fix the game issues instead of releasing a patch that forces a minimum driver. Nobody should buy the game for full price right now.

          • Waco
          • 2 years ago

          Runs just fine at 4K for me. :shrug:

    • End User
    • 2 years ago

    I’ve been playing Wolfenstein II on my GTX 1080 using the 388.00 drivers. So far so good. I’ll wait until Nvidia releases their next Game Ready driver before I update.

      • End User
      • 2 years ago

      Whoops. the 388.10 drivers fix the capped at 60 FPS G-SYNC bug I saw when playing on my 1080.

      • freebird
      • 2 years ago

      Someone is in a down voting mood… any left for me??? I’ll be downloading it today and trying it out on my OCed, undervolted Vega[super<]56[/super<] with 64 Air Bios. ...and the game code came with the Vega bundle so that should be worth double the down votes... ๐Ÿ˜€ Oh no, now the contrarians have now shown up and UP voted me... that's not what I asked for... but I guess you can't always get what you want... [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFkOvTe3q9E[/url<] but at least my "New Colossus" has downloaded. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • End User
        • 2 years ago

        I’m hoping the person who down voted my first post is the same person who up voted my reply.

          • LostCat
          • 2 years ago

          nevermind I’m tired ๐Ÿ™‚ zzzbonk

        • Blytz
        • 2 years ago

        Lemme know how you go, I’m gonna have a run at it later but I don’t have the bios switch done, just the undervolting.

        I read somewhere one of the crimson drivers has hang issues in it.

        edit to clarify I thought it was the .3 drivers that had an issue as well

      • mcarson09
      • 2 years ago

      Have you tried the 388.13 drivers? I am running the game without the patch that forcing the later driver version and I playing the game 381.65 and not having issues so far. I don’t have a g-sync though.

    • travbrad
    • 2 years ago

    Will the next one be Wolfenstein 3: D?

      • Sargent Duck
      • 2 years ago

      I see what you did there.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 2 years ago

      VR exclusive.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This