Games moving away from windows xp and what it means for the industry

[Blitzvogel]

I think BF3 will be the beginning of the big exodus from XP and DX9 support. It's pretty much the first "super big seller" title to ditch DX9 completely and go specifically DX11. Hopefully it will encourage other PC devs to follow suit. I can't wait to get BF3 and see how it flies.

 

[Via]

I was using XP until August.

I like the new effects of DX11; Metro 2033 is certainly fun to fawn over in DX11. But the gameplay and atmosphere is the same in DX9.

I dutifully waited to install Crysis unitil I had DX10/11, and it looks very nice. Nothing to fall over and die for, just very nice. I played the demo in DX 9 and had pretty much the same impression.

 

[Maximilian]

i know, wouldn't it be terrible to tell your kid "sorry kiddo you can't have it". Good thing you've got that copy of w7-64 when I was your age I had to work for my PC and video games.

Child abuse :thumbsdown:

 

[blackened23]

I don't think it matters anyway, 90% of the game sales will be from consoles. Its pretty easy to deduce this when rage has sold 405,369 for x360, 243,949 for ps3, and 70k for pc (including DD).

The PC is there for residual sales only, pretty much....its not like they're driving much of their customer base away.

 

[Mike Gayner]

I don't think it matters anyway, 90% of the game sales will be from consoles. Its pretty easy to deduce this when rage has sold 405,369 for x360, 243,949 for ps3, and 70k for pc (including DD).

The PC is there for residual sales only, pretty much....its not like they're driving much of their customer base away.

LOL

 

[zinfamous]

Holy shit! I'm still pissed I can't play today's games on Win ME!!

 

[Sulaco]

I'm a techie and I understand that technology progresses, but even I get a bit put off by the "pressure" to constantly upgrade.

In this case, I don't think being told to upgrade from a 10 year old OS qualifies as "constant upgrades"

Even most consoles (minus the PS1) don't have lives anywhere near that long.

I can't expect Microsoft or game developers to support XP from a business standpoint anymore than I can expect Nintendo to still support the GameCube.

 

[Via]

Rage is misguided - Don't hate on the users who see no reason to upgrade, hate on the industry that gives no reason to upgrade.

They threw their lot in with consoles years ago, and a 10 year-old OS that runs most everything decently is the result.

Don't get me wrong - Windows 7 is cool, and I'm glad I have it now. But it hasn't changed my life.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

people that choose xp over either vista or win 7 deserve the ridicule they get. old computers are bad computers, and bad computers are worthless.

 

[Via]

people that choose xp over either vista or win 7 deserve the ridicule they get. old computers are bad computers, and bad computers are worthless.

What's your definition of a bad computer?

I was running an 8800 Ultra with an X2 6400+ and it ran everything at 1680x1050.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

What's your definition of a bad computer?

I was running an 8800 Ultra with an X2 6400+ and it ran everything at 1680x1050.

when it no longer performs at a satisfactory level, or doesn't perform a task at all.

it may run everything you tried, but it didn't run modern games very well. there's a very large selection of games that it's more than a match for, but that's not the present or the future.

 

[paperfist]

I wonder how many people pre-ordered BF3 (not knowing it doesn't support XP) and when they go to install it are going to say, "WTF is going on here, it won't install. PoS!"
"

 

[Via]

when it no longer performs at a satisfactory level, or doesn't perform a task at all.

it may run everything you tried, but it didn't run modern games very well. there's a very large selection of games that it's more than a match for, but that's not the present or the future.

To be clear - being XP, it was DX9.

But it maxed Metro 2033 at 1680x1050 and looked great. I think Arcania was the only game that I gave up on because of visual reasons.

 

[thespyder]

XP reached end of life as a gaming platform when MS decided not to allow it to run DX 11.

Um… Wrong. Graphics are not the end all and be all of games today. XP is still a more stable platform than Windows 7 and it is WORLDS better than Vista.

People that are still using XP probably haven't upgraded anything else in their computer so their hardware is probably going to be outdated anyway.

Therefore they wouldn't even be able to run the game if it supported DX 9. Honestly those people might as well get a console.

The games they do have are probably limping along at some low resolution and minimal settings.

I am not sure where you got this idea. XP supports almost every single technology advancement in the PC arena over the last 20 years or so. DX11 is almost the sole exception and that was an intentional decision by Microsoft to force PC users to upgrade.

Bottom line is you can have a fully up to date machine with the latest and greatest and still run XP. You just can’t run Dx11, which considering the pitifully few games that even today support Dx11, isn’t a bad thing.

Also keep in mind that the gaming industry today is wholly shackled to the consoles, which only run Dx9. As long as that remains to be the case, game developers are not going to be in a rush to abandon Dx9 anytime soon.

MS announced that years ago, why has it taken developers so long to move to dx11?

See above.
In short, Vista was HORRIBLE for gaming. Far to heavy and clunky. And as a gaming platform, it was 100X worse than XP, not to mention the stability factor.

Also, console limitations prevent there being a rush to adopt Dx11 since 90% of the gaming market today is console based.

What does BF3/DX11 have to do with Valve/Others/DX9?

WinXP is about as obsolete as Win95 was when WinXP first came out. Time to Upgrade.

Um, No. Not in the slightest. XP is a good solid platform and unless you are dead set on Dx11 or creating virtual machines, there is nothing that Windows 7 can do that XP 64 can’t. And developers are still developing with that platform in mind.

As i have been beat to the punch by multiple posters it was the flop that is Vista that slowed adoption.

So did consoles.

 

[ImpulsE69]

^^ What he said. Remember MS is a business. They don't want people to sit on 10 year old OS's simply because they want to sell more. They don't make money of patches. Windows 7 on a whole is nice, but it is no revolutionary step up from XP. DX11 is no reason to upgrade, which is the basis for this topic. Hell, forget XP, most older video cards don't even run DX11, so not only do they need to upgrade their OS they have to upgrade their video card. A 4870 runs most games just fine. Sure it might not be shiny or be 60+ fps the entire time, but it works just fine and is still better than many of the new cards put out. It doesn't have DX11 though..oh no.

For the average user, there is no pressing reason to upgrade.

 

[abaez]

Um… Wrong. Graphics are not the end all and be all of games today. XP is still a more stable platform than Windows 7 and it is WORLDS better than Vista.

No.

 

[thespyder]

No.

Um, need more than that. Are you disagreeing with "Graphics are not the end all and be all of a game"? Or that XP is more stable than Windows 7? Please clarify.

 

[NaOH]

Um… Wrong. Graphics are not the end all and be all of games today. XP is still a more stable platform than Windows 7 and it is WORLDS better than Vista.

I am not sure where you got this idea. XP supports almost every single technology advancement in the PC arena over the last 20 years or so. DX11 is almost the sole exception and that was an intentional decision by Microsoft to force PC users to upgrade.

Bottom line is you can have a fully up to date machine with the latest and greatest and still run XP. You just can’t run Dx11, which considering the pitifully few games that even today support Dx11, isn’t a bad thing.

Also keep in mind that the gaming industry today is wholly shackled to the consoles, which only run Dx9. As long as that remains to be the case, game developers are not going to be in a rush to abandon Dx9 anytime soon.

See above.
In short, Vista was HORRIBLE for gaming. Far to heavy and clunky. And as a gaming platform, it was 100X worse than XP, not to mention the stability factor.

Also, console limitations prevent there being a rush to adopt Dx11 since 90% of the gaming market today is console based.

Um, No. Not in the slightest. XP is a good solid platform and unless you are dead set on Dx11 or creating virtual machines, there is nothing that Windows 7 can do that XP 64 can’t. And developers are still developing with that platform in mind.

So did consoles.

Whatever floats your boat..

 

[Mike Gayner]

Um… Wrong. Graphics are not the end all and be all of games today. XP is still a more stable platform than Windows 7 and it is WORLDS better than Vista.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
AAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAH!

Oh hipsters these days, you guys crack me up.

Bottom line is you can have a fully up to date machine with the latest and greatest and still run XP. You just can’t run Dx11, which considering the pitifully few games that even today support Dx11, isn’t a bad thing.

This is just too funny.

 

[lord_emperor]

XP reached end of life as a gaming platform when MS decided not to allow it to run DX 11.

M$ using DirectX to cement its monopoly... how I hate that software.

 

[thespyder]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
AAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAH!

Oh hipsters these days, you guys crack me up.



This is just too funny.

Whatever floats your boat..

But hey. Thanks for the clarifications, explainations and examples to back up your stance. Much appreciated. I really appreciate a well supported rebuttle to posts.

 

[NaOH]

But hey. Thanks for the clarifications, explainations and examples to back up your stance. Much appreciated. I really appreciate a well supported rebuttle to posts.

I don't really have anything to prove to you nor have the urge to discuss a topic old as sin.

I will quickly throw this out there though.

XP can remain viable when it becomes a stable 64 bit platform (drivers, more memory, programs) - Have fun running out of memory using media production software.

Oh wait, it's at it's end of life for support? nm

 

[ImpulsE69]

Meh, I think they are missing the point. The basis for this topic is about DX11. Taken only on that, I don't believe there is any real reason why XP can't support it except that MS chose to not support it. I am not in any way saying people should stay on XP at this point, but I can certainly see why they do. I can also understand why BF3 doesn't want to have to deal with supporting 3 different directX's, but again, that falls back to MS and the way they market their products.

Most people have a if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality. Just saying "omg you're on an old os dummy" is not really an argument.

Look up futureshock.

 

[Blitzvogel]

XP's multi-core and multi-program capabilities always felt a bit clunky. I remember Vista being nice and smooth about it, and of course Win7 is too. Plus if one program goes to hell in XP, the whole OS goes with it generally. In Vista and Win7, if a program starts to hang up, it doesn't screw up the rest of the OS with it. Vista also helped to push 64 bit out the door, which XP was not doing, and thank God for that.

As for DX10 and DX11 on XP, I'm pretty sure they could've done it. MS has claimed that the APIs are reliant on the way memory and data is handled in the newer OSs, which kind of makes sense, but was a bit of an excuse not to release DX10 on XP. Either way, I think we got a better end of the deal by getting the extra optimizations and features of the newer OSs. Yes, Vista had it's issues, especially if you were a system builder dealing with pre-Vista hardware, but when Win7 rolled around, everything was about set in place since Vista drivers worked in Windows 7. I had my experience with 64 bit driver issues when I bought Vista for my desktop at the time (a custom build), but the first computer I bought with Vista 64 in late 2008, an Asus gaming laptop (I build all my desktops though) ran the OS perfectly. The Nvidia graphics drivers ran beautifully on it, hell everything did.

 

[Lonyo]

But hey. Thanks for the clarifications, explainations and examples to back up your stance. Much appreciated. I really appreciate a well supported rebuttle to posts.

You never gave anything to support your position, so why should people offer up support for their positions?