PDA

View Full Version : XP compatibility only is wrong



ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 10:13
I guess you already know it eidos/square, you're not dumb, but why on earth would you alienate half your customers?

I just checked the steam survey. I think it's safe to consider steam's customers as gamers, not casual (mainly), which means for most fo them they keep their computer to a decent level to play their games. We're not talking about mom at the market buying popcaps-like games.

there is the latest steam hardware survey

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

Now, the first line you can read is most popular system, win XP 32 bits, with almost half the customers having it, 44% !!

I mean damnit, how can you consciently cut by 2 your eventual sales. Don't tell me it's to push gaming, and computer blabla, we all know DX10 is bullshi*, almost nothing that can't be done with DX9.

A few line below you can find a line called "DirectX 10 Systems (Vista with DirectX 10 GPU) ", your potential customers then.

Number is laughable, not even 6%.

I don't know what you were thinking guys, but imho your shooting yourself in the foot.

So what is it really? Money from microsoft hoping to get some windows sale for this only game? Nah, that would be naive.

Trying to prove PC sales are so low that you can drop it next time? why even bother.

partnership with ati/nvdia to get some sales?

To me you couldn't be more wrong about this decision, which doesn't mean I won't play it, because I really want it to be good, and my system meet the specs, but don't expect sales eidos, really don't.

Hope you understand, not really english :p

Liberaliter
24th Feb 2010, 10:18
i think dx 10 and dx 11 offer far more then dx 9, but dropping XP support completely is a bit silly. Maybe in a couple of years when more people have vista/windows 7, but now lots of people still use vista and I agree, sales won't be as high.

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 10:23
I edited title but it's still the same...

emptying cache doesn't change....weird.

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 11:56
what everybody is reading but no one reacting? come on

Don Agucho
24th Feb 2010, 12:24
I agree with what you have stated here, I think it's a ridiculous decision, probably based on lies and Microsoft intervention. Or... every PC game that seems much heavier than Just Cause 2 is still running on Windows XP, I guess Avalanche is just too lazy too invest more into a good and accessible PC version.

If the PC version turns out to be a sucky port after all, I will get the game on PS3.

I still use XP and I will not change that, as it is still the most stable platform out there.

A serious confusion towards Avalanche... :confused: You guys became a lazy console dev after all?

cha0s
24th Feb 2010, 12:38
You are wrong. Most of those 44% still using XP WONT be buying the game because there PC's are incapable of playing it. Eidos/square/avalanche wont be losing out on many sales at all. Adding support for the ancient DX9 on pc would have costed alot and taken up the devs time, resulting in a lesser product. This way we get a better game.
Keep up the good work, dont listen to the whiney folks with their 10 year old OS who are too stubborn to upgrade to a vastly superior OS.

Big Isy
24th Feb 2010, 12:39
I said it was pretty silly to unsupport XP in the Specs thread and even went so far as to give the percentage of XP users on steam. Kotaku agrees with it being a step in the wrong direction for what was otherwise a game that's done everything right since last E3. article here. (http://kotaku.com/5478830/just-cause-2-wont-support-windows-xp)

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 12:44
You are wrong. Most of those 44% still using XP WONT be buying the game because there PC's are incapable of playing it. Eidos/square/avalanche wont be losing out on many sales at all. Adding support for the ancient DX9 on pc would have costed alot and taken up the devs time, resulting in a lesser product. This way we get a better game.
Also the consoles run in DX9, and as the PC version wont this means it really isnt a port right?

Keep up the good work, dont listen to the whiney folks with their 10 year old OS who are too stubborn to upgrade to a vastly superior OS.I'm under win7, and I love it.

Though i'm not selfish, and I think it's wrong. Now if we can't talk on a forum...

chickenchief
24th Feb 2010, 12:54
We have to start using newer technology sooner or later. The Dev's cant keep using old software forever.

compatible
24th Feb 2010, 12:54
imagin if no1 pushed towards the motor car we will still be using horse and cart some1 has to start bye not supporting xp so that others will follow , us as humans need new things to keeps us going, its programmed into us , its like moving from xbox to xbox 360 or ps1 to ps3 , these changes have to happen so evolution can be formed, new technology and new programs need to happen so we don't get stuck at one point in time,and to cap of my little tripping lesson with humans growth. i cant wait im fully loaded with DX10.

AllRange
24th Feb 2010, 12:59
Look at the system requirements here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=100426).
XP would slow such a system down, so it would be quite senseless to use this old OS. You won't get happy with it

cha0s
24th Feb 2010, 13:06
@compatible exactly
PC gaming is about getting the best experience and most out of the game, running at higher resolutions which more graphical effects. To do this we upgrade, modify and maintain our systems every year. If you are still running XP or using a DX9 only card then you are not a PC gamer and should stick to your 5 year old consoles.
Or maybe im just a crazy person:nut:

Big Isy
24th Feb 2010, 13:24
This is pretty funny. We have a genuine criticism about something regarding the game and people are up in arms over it. Its a legitimate thing to say, that the game would sell better with XP supported. Yes, XP is old now but the vast majority of users on steam, arguably the biggest digital distributor of PC games, are still using XP. This tells us that XP users are playing games on their rigs.

I can get the argument that PC gaming would be stagnant if we didn't move the hardware forward, including OS's. But I feel that if Crysis and other stunning games can run on XP, surely Just Cause 2 could have? Again, I don't know the precise decision behind it, I'm just voicing my opinion. I care because I want the game to sell ridiculously well. Heck, I'm not even getting it on the PC, I plan on the 360 version. I'm just concerned for the smaller PC gaming base.

chip5541
24th Feb 2010, 13:38
XP is a good OS but it is also an old OS (10 years). There comes a time when the market needs to push technology.

From an Avault thread


XP wasn't too bad, but it is almost 10 years old now. In my opinion it is time to move on to Windows 7 and DirectX 11. Most of us skipped Vista / Dx10, but now is really the time. I'm glad that some developers are taking steps to propel this conversion forward.

http://forums.avault.com/showthread.php?980-No-Just-Cause-2-for-Windows-XP

Kha0swolf
24th Feb 2010, 14:54
Did they ask those same users if they had a console system in a complimentary survey? More than likely about 80% of those gamers have a system that can run it. Otherwise they wouldn't be very core.

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 15:15
XP is a good OS but it is also an old OS (10 years). There comes a time when the market needs to push technology.

From an Avault thread



http://forums.avault.com/showthread.php?980-No-Just-Cause-2-for-Windows-XPit sure is an old OS, but that old OS is loved by half your potential customers. And eidos just turned the back on them.

Exept a few fan boy here, who will move from xp to win7? (not talking about the crappy vista her).
I mean dev should AT LEAST make it compatible with DX9, while trying to push the enveloppe.

It's just as if stalker or the latest AVP were DX11 only, just imagine. Again it's avalanche/eidos' call, but financially speaking I think it's wrong

I wouldn't bother to tell you that if XP was like 5-10% of the market, but we're talking about half of the apple here

nismo280zx
24th Feb 2010, 17:10
Not supporting xp isn't the mistake, the mistake is partnering with steam as they don't support win 7 64bit. The funny part is that the new gaming rigs come with it and any true gamer wants a 64bit os due to it's obvious memory benefit and steams track record with any 64bit os is sketchy.

XP was awesome but it was windows who decided not to give xp the new dx versions, they are strategically phasing it out. And seeing as that I'm guessing not many of the people upset about this have any idea of what it would take to code this game for dx9 compatibility. It's about getting the game ou before end of fiscal year and then potentially patching later.

compatible
24th Feb 2010, 17:18
Not supporting xp isn't the mistake, the mistake is partnering with steam as they don't support win 7 64bit. The funny part is that the new gaming rigs come with it and any true gamer wants a 64bit os due to it's obvious memory benefit and steams track record with any 64bit os is sketchy.

XP was awesome but it was windows who decided not to give xp the new dx versions, they are strategically phasing it out. And seeing as that I'm guessing not many of the people upset about this have any idea of what it would take to code this game for dx9 compatibility. It's about getting the game ou before end of fiscal year and then potentially patching later.

Take part in steam BETA today , and i think it does and will support 64bit os ,

check it out : http://store.steampowered.com/news/3501/

Cearless
24th Feb 2010, 18:06
Also what you must remeber is that the real money is in the consoles so if they push the computer tech out there not really losing "half" there market

BuxGunny
24th Feb 2010, 18:12
Lol my friend is setting up a thread at hardware(dot)info for other people to help me upgrade to play Just Cause 2 with a budget of 200 euro..... hope people will help me with this as i will NOT delete my pre-order..... i will play the game this year! on my OWN system.. with windows seven.. cu im gonna upgrade anyway....

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 18:13
Also what you must remeber is that the real money is in the consoles so if they push the computer tech out there not really losing "half" there marketwhat the hell does that mean. people still buy games on PC. Sure there is piracy, sure there is hardware problem, but it's not by removing the most used OS that you will get sales.

Did you guys check crysis DX10 & DX9? difference is so minor it's laughable. the DX10 argument is weird.

If they really wanted to push they would have implemented dx11.

Don't get me wrong, i'm fine with dx10, but I have the hardware for it.

nismo280zx
24th Feb 2010, 18:22
But crysis didn't launch with dx9 support & not many gamers had adopted a dx10 compatible os at the time.

Here's what will get you, xbox360 uses a superset of dx9 and ps3 uses an advanced OpenGL 2.0 variant.

SooperD
24th Feb 2010, 18:23
Windows 7 is by far the best O/S Microsoft have made to date. Ive used them all from Windows 2000,ME,XP and vista.

Currently running Win 7 64 bit and have never had 1 single problem at all.

Its already been said, and im sure JC2 wont be the last game to do this. Id much rather have a nice polished game designed to use the latest software/hardware than something thats lacking on the PC. For example Fifa 10 on PC compared to Fifa 10 on PS3. Because they have to cater for those who cannot afford to upgrade their machines on PC this version is massivley less visually attractive than on the PS3 which for me (I own PC and PS3) is a major let down.

The problem with PCs is that they always will get better, if you dont have the money or want to keep up with the new technology you should buy a console.

I think this is a very brave move but something i totally support. If people always complain that the requirements are too high, then most developers will make an inferior looking product to keep them happy which then makes us with the high end machines angry because a game can looker better on a console

Enkeixpress
24th Feb 2010, 18:29
Windows 7 Ultimate pwns.. I've been using it for .. 1 year & a half now.. & I'm not going back to Vista.. :)

El Dombo
24th Feb 2010, 18:29
Windows 7 is by far the best O/S Microsoft have made to date. Ive used them all from Windows 2000,ME,XP and vista.

Currently running Win 7 64 bit and have never had 1 single problem at all.

Its already been said, and im sure JC2 wont be the last game to do this. Id much rather have a nice polished game designed to use the latest software/hardware than something thats lacking on the PC. For example Fifa 10 on PC compared to Fifa 10 on PS3. Because they have to cater for those who cannot afford to upgrade their machines on PC this version is massivley less visually attractive than on the PS3 which for me (I own PC and PS3) is a major let down.

The problem with PCs is that they always will get better, if you dont have the money or want to keep up with the new technology you should buy a console.

I think this is a very brave move but something i totally support. If people always complain that the requirements are too high, then most developers will make an inferior looking product to keep them happy which then makes us with the high end machines angry because a game can looker better on a console

Best 2nd post ever ! :wave:

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 18:31
what was I thinking posting in the middle of blind fanboys :D

nevermind, I'll still play it, but it sucks for half the population, whatever you guys with all your legit win7 think :p

nismo280zx
24th Feb 2010, 18:40
I've beta tested windows me,xp,2003,vista,server 2007,& windows7. And I've owned every windows an by far every one has issues, however xp had the fewest by far, vista is a nightmare especially if you end up with one that doesn't update, and windows7 is a good os but does have serious flaws. But then again I test all of my operating systems for the first month I have them so I can determine the flaws lol I'm brutal to a new os. I do think it's time to move on but only if the devs do there jobs and code things correctly

SooperD
24th Feb 2010, 18:42
lol its not about being fan boys.. its about knowing whats best for the PC side of gaming..

If everyone still played on the PS2 then they wouldnt need a PS3.. If everyone were happy with DX9 and the bottlenecks it can cause then they wouldnt make DX10 and onwards.

Its about progression and moving forward.. Like my post said, if progression is out of your reach or you dont want to for whatever reason get a console and then you will always have the best graphics without any worries :)

It could be a welcome kick up the ass for those who slate anything other than XP.. All my friends moaned about vista and now moan about Win 7. Thats because they are used to XP not because its better. Some of you are forgetting what DX10 gives you over DX9 too, the main reason is to provide better speed and less bottlenecks, therefore being able to deliver better graphics at a better framerate. Its not solely designed to make the graphics massively better.

Tarnith
24th Feb 2010, 19:29
So, if I read that correctly the MAJORITY of people have windows vista or 7. They went with the majority vote to give a higher quality to the game, what is so wrong with that? Those who can't afford a new OS most likely don't have a 5750 either.

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 19:39
You guys still know their goal is mainly to make money right? Money by pleasing people that's sure, but money-wise it's a weird decision.

Big Isy
24th Feb 2010, 19:41
lol its not about being fan boys.. its about knowing whats best for the PC side of gaming..

If everyone still played on the PS2 then they wouldnt need a PS3.. If everyone were happy with DX9 and the bottlenecks it can cause then they wouldnt make DX10 and onwards.

Its about progression and moving forward.. Like my post said, if progression is out of your reach or you dont want to for whatever reason get a console and then you will always have the best graphics without any worries :)

It could be a welcome kick up the ass for those who slate anything other than XP.. All my friends moaned about vista and now moan about Win 7. Thats because they are used to XP not because its better. Some of you are forgetting what DX10 gives you over DX9 too, the main reason is to provide better speed and less bottlenecks, therefore being able to deliver better graphics at a better framerate. Its not solely designed to make the graphics massively better.

This, I respect. I completely agree too. PC gaming should be about moving the boundaries and limits forward all the time. I just don't think Just Cause 2 is the game that should be barring XP, I don't think it'sa high-profile enough game when compared to the Battlefield/Crysis/Fallout games out there. Don't get me wrong, it'll be fantastic, but is it a well enough known game to have people go out and upgrade their PCs for a couple hundred bucks? I don't believe it is.

Tarnith
24th Feb 2010, 19:43
I guess you already know it eidos/square, you're not dumb, but why on earth would you alienate half your customers?

I just checked the steam survey. I think it's safe to consider steam's customers as gamers, not casual (mainly), which means for most fo them they keep their computer to a decent level to play their games. We're not talking about mom at the market buying popcaps-like games.

there is the latest steam hardware survey

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

Now, the first line you can read is most popular system, win XP 32 bits, with almost half the customers having it, 44% !!

I mean damnit, how can you consciently cut by 2 your eventual sales. Don't tell me it's to push gaming, and computer blabla, we all know DX10 is bullshi*, almost nothing that can't be done with DX9.

A few line below you can find a line called "DirectX 10 Systems (Vista with DirectX 10 GPU) ", your potential customers then.

Number is laughable, not even 6%.

I don't know what you were thinking guys, but imho your shooting yourself in the foot.

So what is it really? Money from microsoft hoping to get some windows sale for this only game? Nah, that would be naive.

Trying to prove PC sales are so low that you can drop it next time? why even bother.

partnership with ati/nvdia to get some sales?

To me you couldn't be more wrong about this decision, which doesn't mean I won't play it, because I really want it to be good, and my system meet the specs, but don't expect sales eidos, really don't.

Hope you understand, not really english :p

Incorrect, please reread the survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
It clearly states 48.94% are DX10 video cards on Vista/7 (out of ALL systems)
This is as of January 2010, I assure you that number is only going to continue rising.

Take another game, Shattered Horizon, it supports DX10 only as well yet very few people are raging about it as much as this forum is.

Big Isy
24th Feb 2010, 19:50
That 48.94% is big but you're forgetting that the remainder of 51.06% could, in theory, be using XP since they're lower than DX10. ( No specifics are given) Either way it's obsolete as the OS sections shows clearly that Win 7 is growing at a steady rate whereas XP is declining. So, Juts Cause 2 might have made the move at a decent time after all. Disregard all my previous posts lol.

nismo280zx
24th Feb 2010, 20:06
Um dx10 not be offered for xp is more about marketing and selling a new os, than it is about performance gains. Think about, what's the fastest way to get regular consumers and gamers off of the most popular and reliable Microsoft os, the fastest way is to offer new graphics on a new os.

To say that xp is not capable of running dx10 is silly considering it's not really a change, considering vista is based on xp to a degree. It's just funny that so many people think that xp can't run dx10, vista&7 execute binary code the same way and the backbone is essentially the same. I just wish someone reliable would reverse engineer dx10 & make it work correctly with putting viruses in it.
Trust me if ie can be made to run on Linux, then dx10 can work on xp

Big Isy
24th Feb 2010, 20:43
DX10 is running on XP, but only through hacks if I'm remembering reading it correctly. There's no official DX10 for XP support.

ChaK_
24th Feb 2010, 21:45
Incorrect, please reread the survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
It clearly states 48.94% are DX10 video cards on Vista/7 (out of ALL systems)
This is as of January 2010, I assure you that number is only going to continue rising.

Take another game, Shattered Horizon, it supports DX10 only as well yet very few people are raging about it as much as this forum is.It's not because it's internet that I'm raging, i'm cool don't worry ^^

BLaZiNgSPEED
24th Feb 2010, 23:43
I think this step is not a wrong one.
XP is quite old now.
Its like now complaining why a particular game doesn't support in windows 2000 or 98.
Ofcourse there will be a time when even Vista and Windows 7 won't be supported and a new OS will come on the market to replace them.

There are games like Shadowrun which is a Vista exclusive title.
Some games are designed to work better on DX 10 as a whole.

Because even if XP is supported, chances are that the graphics card and processor will also be weak in that particular computer, unless someone had actually downgraded from Vista to XP. Performance will suffer.
This game is huge, from seeing how much action going on, its no wonder DX 10 is the minimum system requirement in this game.

ChaK_
25th Feb 2010, 09:49
that's exactly my point.

Shadowrun was dead 2 weeks after it's release.

Enzoforce
25th Feb 2010, 10:04
For the Vista haters, VISTA DOES NOT SUCK.

I am playing all of my games perfectly fine here, vista home premium 32-bit.

Most of the vista haters don't even have vista, they just say it because others say it.

compatible
25th Feb 2010, 13:31
For the Vista haters, VISTA DOES NOT SUCK.

I am playing all of my games perfectly fine here, vista home premium 32-bit.

Most of the vista haters don't even have vista, they just say it because others say it.


+1
i also am playing on vista home pre 64bit , never had any problem since it came out , and i got it on day one :thumb:

cbrookf
25th Feb 2010, 14:19
Just because 44% still use XP doens't mean 44% of people who use xp were planning on buying the game for PC. So no, they will not be losing 44% sales.

ChaK_
25th Feb 2010, 14:23
the key word was 'potential'

then again 100% of potential apple is more than 56%, but I guess i'm all alone doing math here

Big Isy
25th Feb 2010, 14:25
No you're not! Remember that the 56% you're alluding to includes systems running Vista/Win7 and older pre-XP OS's.

Tarnith
26th Feb 2010, 18:06
Not supporting xp isn't the mistake, the mistake is partnering with steam as they don't support win 7 64bit. The funny part is that the new gaming rigs come with it and any true gamer wants a 64bit os due to it's obvious memory benefit and steams track record with any 64bit os is sketchy.

XP was awesome but it was windows who decided not to give xp the new dx versions, they are strategically phasing it out. And seeing as that I'm guessing not many of the people upset about this have any idea of what it would take to code this game for dx9 compatibility. It's about getting the game ou before end of fiscal year and then potentially patching later.

Well it sure supports my xp pro 64 just fine, what are you on about?
In fact, I just scanned the nets and found out steam has little to NO problems with 7 64, trying to run a FUD campaign?

CloudWolf
26th Feb 2010, 20:03
I really don't care for xp, windows 7 is a blast and the graphics of dx 10/11 are soooo much better than dx 9, xp is 9 years old!!! its old tech

BLaZiNgSPEED
27th Feb 2010, 00:40
I just figured out a mistake in amazons website about Just cause 2.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Cause-2-PC-DVD/dp/B002ZRQ3UC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1267231057&sr=8-5
Platform: Windows Vista / XP
This is a serious mistake and it is simply both misleading & misguiding towards the XP users.:eek:

lionheart1000
8th Apr 2010, 20:04
xp will last till 2016 so I dont understand Eidos' decision. I wont buy it then and I suppose more people with me.
Goodbye Eidos, I'¨d be thinking of you when you go bankrupcy, corrupt you are still.

vr46nh69
8th Apr 2010, 20:19
I guess you already know it eidos/square, you're not dumb, but why on earth would you alienate half your customers?

I just checked the steam survey. I think it's safe to consider steam's customers as gamers, not casual (mainly), which means for most fo them they keep their computer to a decent level to play their games. We're not talking about mom at the market buying popcaps-like games.

there is the latest steam hardware survey

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

Now, the first line you can read is most popular system, win XP 32 bits, with almost half the customers having it, 44% !!

I mean damnit, how can you consciently cut by 2 your eventual sales. Don't tell me it's to push gaming, and computer blabla, we all know DX10 is bullshi*, almost nothing that can't be done with DX9.

A few line below you can find a line called "DirectX 10 Systems (Vista with DirectX 10 GPU) ", your potential customers then.

Number is laughable, not even 6%.

I don't know what you were thinking guys, but imho your shooting yourself in the foot.

So what is it really? Money from microsoft hoping to get some windows sale for this only game? Nah, that would be naive.

Trying to prove PC sales are so low that you can drop it next time? why even bother.

partnership with ati/nvdia to get some sales?

To me you couldn't be more wrong about this decision, which doesn't mean I won't play it, because I really want it to be good, and my system meet the specs, but don't expect sales eidos, really don't.

Hope you understand, not really english :p

Blame Microsoft for not supporting DX10 in XP. DX9 is dead and Vista was crap. If Vista was any good, this issue would be irrelevant. Vista sucked, so you stayed on XP and DX9. XP and DX9 are finished, even thought you can still check your e-mail.

vr46nh69
8th Apr 2010, 20:24
xp will last till 2016 so I dont understand Eidos' decision. I wont buy it then and I suppose more people with me.
Goodbye Eidos, I'¨d be thinking of you when you go bankrupcy, corrupt you are still.

2016? Are you insane? XP was released in October 2001. Do you really expect to use an OS for 15 years? You just summed up this thread in one sentence.

Dellers
8th Apr 2010, 20:26
Windows XP is 9 years old. NINE years! DirectX 9 is also pretty oldschool by now. Someone had to stop support that old dinosaur XP.

Jaga
8th Apr 2010, 20:39
There are numerous reasons for moving to the next platform of a technology. Sometimes convenience, sometimes new features or performance, sometimes to keep up with hardware technology.

XP has been out, in one incarnation or another, for the better part of eight and a half years now (yes, you read that right - 8.5 years old). It was released in October of 2001. That is a huge time to remain on the market, despite multiple large service packs.

While I too recognize the fact that Vista wasn't all it was cracked up to be, there had to be a point at which developers say: "enough is enough, we're missing out on new technologies and possibilities, and the old programming interfaces are holding us back". More evidence of this: DirectX 9.0 was released in 2002, not long after the debut of Windows XP. Back then, they could only have dreamed of the current GPU capabilities and what games would be attempting to do.

I too love XP - up until Windows 7, it was the clear winner for best MS operating system ever. That reign is over now, and it is time to move on from the old technologies. Despite having it's flaws, Vista does work, and Windows 7 holds the new position of most preferred O/S on a new machine. And it can handle the new programming for high-powered GPUs and rendering that games need.

Don't complain that Just Cause 2 won't run on XP. If anything, complain that DX10/11 were never made to run with XP, though it does seem a bit silly to be developing new graphic layers for an O/S that is approaching 9 years in age. Just Cause was built to be run on DX10/11 and what comes after.. and that limits what Operating Systems it will run on, and what graphics cards support it.

I personally believe the developers made the right decision with this - move forward and embrace/utilize the new technologies, make your engine do everything it is capable of doing with today's hardware. Make your game shine graphically, since the premise for it is largely eye-candy to begin with.

I've tested JC2 on hardware which is 2.5 to 3 years old, and it runs like a champ, even at medium widescreen resolutions, on Windows 7. That tells me they did something right, and the game looks fantastic as well.

Moral of the story: it had to happen - you can't keep throwing resources at aging technologies and hope to win in a very competitive market.

vr46nh69
8th Apr 2010, 20:44
I just figured out a mistake in amazons website about Just cause 2.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Cause-2-PC-DVD/dp/B002ZRQ3UC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1267231057&sr=8-5
Platform: Windows Vista / XP
This is a serious mistake and it is simply both misleading & misguiding towards the XP users.:eek:


Not anymore. LOL. You must have scared them into changing it.

Platform: Windows Vista / 7

Prokofiev
8th Apr 2010, 20:50
For the XP proponents I hope you are still holding onto 10lbs cell phones, green screen PDAs, CRT TVs and PS1 - because that is the decade you love and belong in.

For those of us who LIKE technology, we don't have a problem.

vr46nh69
8th Apr 2010, 20:52
For the XP proponents I hope you are still holding onto 10lbs cell phones, green screen PDAs, CRT TVs and PS1 - because that is the decade you love and belong in.

For those of us who LIKE technology, we don't have a problem.

Especially with Newegg.com. If you can't afford a PC on that site, you need to stop playing JC2 and go back to work.

ImprovizoR
8th Apr 2010, 22:18
It had to happen once. We can't live in the past anymore. Xp is old and obsolete. I don't care how many people are using it, if I were a developer I would have made the same choice.

Dradien
9th Apr 2010, 03:56
For every couple of people who sit here and complain about XP not being supported with your half baked ideas and ridiculous notions about lost profit, there are at least 100 of us who are happy about this and laud their move. Technology needs to keep moving forward. Keeping on supporting an 8 year old OS is nothing short of stupid. Also, computers with four gigs of RAM are becomming more common, and XP can't address more then 3.5 (unless you're using 64Bit OS...but who seriously actually kept that around, the driver support was terrible) Gigs.

Sorry about the rambling, but tech has got to move on. Are you one of them people like ***** about the lack of PS1 games coming out?

vr46nh69
9th Apr 2010, 04:13
For every couple of people who sit here and complain about XP not being supported with your half baked ideas and ridiculous notions about lost profit, there are at least 100 of us who are happy about this and laud their move. Technology needs to keep moving forward. Keeping on supporting an 8 year old OS is nothing short of stupid. Also, computers with four gigs of RAM are becomming more common, and XP can't address more then 3.5 (unless you're using 64Bit OS...but who seriously actually kept that around, the driver support was terrible) Gigs.

Sorry about the rambling, but tech has got to move on. Are you one of them people like ***** about the lack of PS1 games coming out?

half baked ideas...lol 4GB more common!!!!! 4GB standard!!!!! XP was great until last October....7 Rules. If you cannot run it, upgrade. If you can't afford an upgrade right now, accept your reality and upgrade when you can. The future is now and it is cheap as dirt at Newegg. AMD 955/965, AM3 Mobo, 4gb 1333...screamin' and cheap as a thai hooker.

RunningBare
9th Apr 2010, 05:37
Don't complain that Just Cause 2 won't run on XP. If anything, complain that DX10/11 were never made to run with XP, though it does seem a bit silly to be developing new graphic layers for an O/S that is approaching 9 years in age. Just Cause was built to be run on DX10/11 and what comes after.. and that limits what Operating Systems it will run on, and what graphics cards support it.This is the part that confused me, JC2 is a port from console, last time I checked console's do not have DirectX 10.

Deadman
9th Apr 2010, 09:31
Yet another one of these threads, hasn't this been done to death yet?
Are people STILL completely misreading the statistics and somehow assuming every single xp machine is capable of running JC2? To argue that those stats mean they've alienated 50% of the market is a major misunderstanding of statistics.
Well guess what, they aren't. Those statistics cover every pc with steam, including my mother's and my sister's, who only have steam so they can play Bejewelled and Peggle, somehow they aren't too phased that they can't get JC2 on their computers.

And no, consoles don't use directx10, but they don't technically use directx 9 either. Xbox has something -similar- to DX9.0c.

This game uses a brand new engine that was built on DX10 software, it's not designed for people with ancient pc's, it's designed to run on the latest and greatest.
If you don't have the latest and greatest, sucks to be you.
If you do, congrats, you can play the latest and greatest games.
JC2 isn't the first game to be DX10 only (that prize goes to Stormrise), and it certainly won't be the last.
If you want to hang on to xp, you are free to do so, hell you are even free to complain about it like an old woman saying back in her day roller shoes had four wheels instead of two. But you are going to miss out on a lot of games, and you'll find that as time passes you have less and less people agreeing with you.
That's the thing about technology, it advances.

MrExplosive
9th Apr 2010, 13:18
This is the part that confused me, JC2 is a port from console, last time I checked console's do not have DirectX 10.

Confusement seems to be your speciality. It was not ported to PC.

Helegad
9th Apr 2010, 14:46
Confusement seems to be your speciality. It was not ported to PC.

Actually, I think you are the confused one. Consoles are not computers. 360 has DX9, 10, and 11 features all packed into it. I'm not sure about PS3.

And I think JC2 was ported, then optimized. That's more than I can say for GTA IV. Oh well, who cares. GTA IV was rubbish.

RunningBare
9th Apr 2010, 14:56
Actually, I think you are the confused one. Consoles are not computers. 360 has DX9, 10, and 11 features all packed into it. I'm not sure about PS3.

And I think JC2 was ported, then optimized. That's more than I can say for GTA IV. Oh well, who cares. GTA IV was rubbish.I think you will find XBox still only has DirectX 9, I've not been able to find anything to confirm Directx 10 or higher.

Ban Strife
9th Apr 2010, 15:38
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to just dual-boot Windows XP and Windows Vista/Windows 7? A friend of mine did that last year, and all seems to be okay.

RunningBare
9th Apr 2010, 16:53
As much as it makes me shudder to support M$ in any fashion, really guys, upgrade to Windows 7, it works and is a very stable operating system, I cannot believe they may have actually got this one right.

Dradien
9th Apr 2010, 18:58
I'm not a Microsoft guy by any means. I have Ubuntu on my Desktop, running M0n0wall on my spare PC (linux based soft router), and had DD-WRT on my router along with linux on my PS3.

That being said, make the jump to Win7. You'll never be happier. I love it.

Also, comparing the consoles programming APIs to the PCs APIs is kind of comparing Apples to Oranges.

vr46nh69
9th Apr 2010, 19:50
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to just dual-boot Windows XP and Windows Vista/Windows 7? A friend of mine did that last year, and all seems to be okay.


That is all this comes down to. Go to the Battlefield Bad Company 2 forums. You need a monster machine just to run the game at a low framerate and it really does not look much better than JC2. All that is needed is a reasonable PC with Windows 7. The only issue is an OS upgrade. As many people have stated here, this game runs on a PC that is 2-3 years old.

Arrowslinger
9th Apr 2010, 20:03
Hey look a pointless thread, not like the game will be reconfigured to run on XP

Failed thread

vr46nh69
9th Apr 2010, 20:43
Hey look a pointless thread, not like the game will be reconfigured to run on XP

Failed thread


Nice English. FAIL

Helegad
10th Apr 2010, 03:38
I think you will find XBox still only has DirectX 9, I've not been able to find anything to confirm Directx 10 or higher.

It does not have DX-anything. It has a combination of DX9, 10, and 11.

Brown_Jenkins
10th Apr 2010, 16:44
Reading on this subject all I got to say is this: Vista support should go out before XP!

So many people are saying that XP have been out for 9 years, but the reason is because Vista sucked so much, cutting the performance of something like 20% from your hardware. MS even had to make XP 64-bit, not even based on the 32-bit version but the Windows Server, because Vista wasn't used by any serious person. Now the only reason people are even using Windows 7 is because it doesn't cut performance as much as Vista, though the actual benchmarks say something like 1-2% better and worse than XP on different areas.

It's by far no reason to "move on", this is how it should be done: You make an OS that's good enough for people to move on, when enough have done so you cut support. You shouldn't cut support in order to make people move on. Being a programmer this really stinks of MS, I remember programming in OpenGL some years ago and I had to do some strange things because MS simply blocked their only competitor to Direct3D above version OpenGL 1.0. It's really not cricket you know.

All in all it's a really sad state of affairs, since it's obvious they can't push enough out of DirectX 10-11 to make people migrate. Crysis even had a mod where you changed two lines of code to make the DirectX 10-settings available in XP. In conclusion, the "step" shouldn't be like this, it should be a high-risk project to make a game so incredible good-looking (i.e. much better looking than Crysis) so people really get an incentive to upgrade. Of course it'll sell horrible, but maybe MS can pay them because it'll be a project that'll boost their Windows 7 sales, like you're imagining they're doing for JC2 :)

They're really not giving anyone any reason to upgrade to Windows 7 other than if you're buying a computer now with a new OS you pick 7 because it's just as good as XP but newer. End rant :p

Datashocker
10th Apr 2010, 17:12
Consoles are not computers.

:lol:

CameO73
11th Apr 2010, 07:54
Crysis even had a mod where you changed two lines of code to make the DirectX 10-settings available in XP.
Not really. Crysis disabled certain effects when you ran it on XP (which they claimed was done to "improve performance on those systems"). With INI tweaking some of these effects could be enabled (since they were DirectX 9 to begin with), but others could not (since they were DirectX 10 only effects). You never got the "DirectX 10 effects on XP" ... but you did get pretty close with manual tweaking.

Btw, I do think Windows 7 is a step up from XP. And I still think Vista was a big mistake from Microsoft (which they corrected with the 'tweaked Vista' called Windows 7).

Deadman
11th Apr 2010, 09:14
[QUOTE=Brown_Jenkins;1361777]Reading on this subject all I got to say is this: Vista support should go out before XP!/QUOTE]

-_-

IT's not a lack of support for a specific windows, it's a lack of support for the old direct x.
Vista supports the new, so does 7, which is why they will continue on.

Basically the crux of the matter isn't games not supporting windows (though really, as I say, directx), it's windows (directxs) not supporting games