Games restricting themselves or gamers restricting them? PC

[commiedic]

So I have been noticing since DX10 released in 2006 and DX11 released in 2009 that there are still very few DX10/11 games out. Then I started opening my eyes to why this is. One thing I found out is that many gamers are still using Windows XP. Windows Vista came out in 2007 and Windows 7 in 2009. Still though people are using XP which is restricted to DX9. Then I realized that after brink came out people are still using Radeon 4000 series which uses DX10.1 and lesser cards. Further restricting them to old technology. They are happy with this too.

Of course I won't say that developers are not the problem either. So far Homefront and Shogun 2 both promised DX11 usage and failed to bring it out on release. Shogun 2 just released it. While a lot of the current DX11 games are upgraded older games.

Do you think that the reason DX11 is not getting utilized as much as it should because developers see a lot of their consumers still not running DX11 Software and hardware, or do you think that developers are just not releasing games that support DX11 because of the time and money?

 

[Wintermoot]

maybe allot of people don,t want to upgrade they do this so they can maximize their profit.
(although dev,s can also force players to upgrade by removing DX9/Radeon 4000 support)

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

It's easier on the wallet to not upgrade, that is for sure.

Battlefield 3 is the first big title to really push people to upgrade since it doesn't support Windows XP and uses DX11.

Games need to stop releasing the game without DX11 and then adding support, that is just backwards. You should always start from the top and then work your way down with stuff like that, but they are scared of alienating players.

To answer the question though, no DX11 isn't getting used as much as it should, but I think with BF3 pushing forward that could start to change.

 

[Netrigan]

I tend to ride the back of the tech-curve. I upgrade when there's a reason to upgrade, not just because there's something a little prettier available.

As for operating systems, I tend to upgrade when I build a new computer. The one time it wasn't, it was due to my XP becoming corrupt and refusing to boot and realizing that I had ridden XP almost as long as humanly possible... this was only about a year ago.

 

[Woodsey]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

 

[allinwonder]

True PC games usually support at least three generations of DirectX. I can only remember 2 games that intentionally remove support for lower version of DirectX. One is Battlefield, forcing DirectX 8; another is Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, which is partly a console port.

 

[commiedic]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

That is true. Didn't think of that. Still the question holds for PC exclusive games.

 

[Woodsey]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

That is true. Didn't think of that. Still the question holds for PC exclusive games.

What PC exclusives don't take advantage of DX10/11 (especially 11, 10 never really took off), exactly?

There aren't that many PC exclusives. Not ones high-profile enough that they need to worry about their polygon count, at any rate.

 

[Fooz]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

yeah it basically is this

its annoying aswell, i have a really good computer, and so far, nothing has challenged it

 

[commiedic]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

That is true. Didn't think of that. Still the question holds for PC exclusive games.

What PC exclusives don't take advantage of DX10/11 (especially 11, 10 never really took off), exactly?

There aren't that many PC exclusives. Not ones high-profile enough that they need to worry about their polygon count, at any rate.

Well most games exclusive to PC use a few elements of DX11, but not all of them. The only one I have seen that uses tessellation is Shogun 2 and it took them 2 months to finally get that out. I don't know of any other games that use tessellation. Starcraft 2 doesn't use DX11.

 

[Woodsey]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

That is true. Didn't think of that. Still the question holds for PC exclusive games.

What PC exclusives don't take advantage of DX10/11 (especially 11, 10 never really took off), exactly?

There aren't that many PC exclusives. Not ones high-profile enough that they need to worry about their polygon count, at any rate.

Well most games exclusive to PC use a few elements of DX11, but not all of them. The only one I have seen that uses tessellation is Shogun 2 and it took them 2 months to finally get that out. I don't know of any other games that use tessellation. Starcraft 2 doesn't use DX11.

Metro 2033 used it, PC was the lead platform.

 

[Zaik]

As long as games are made around being able to run on the consoles, putting in Dx11 stuff is extra money spent with no real return.

I mean really, how many people are going to not buy a game because it only runs DX9? Some, but not nearly enough to matter.

Once Windows XP isn't supported anymore, it'll probably be used more. Still, if you only use your PC to play games and you don't particularly care what stuff looks like, there's honestly zero reason for you to shell out cash for Windows 7. Once games start requiring more than 4GB RAM minimum you would definitely have to upgrade, but not before then.

 

[kasperbbs]

My card only supports dx10 and i`m not planning to upgrade until its absolutely necessary, i don`t think that dx11 is really worth it, perhaps when the new console generation comes ill consider upgrading, but by that time dx12 probably will be out.

 

[commiedic]

Its because the consoles are DX9.

That is true. Didn't think of that. Still the question holds for PC exclusive games.

What PC exclusives don't take advantage of DX10/11 (especially 11, 10 never really took off), exactly?

There aren't that many PC exclusives. Not ones high-profile enough that they need to worry about their polygon count, at any rate.

Well most games exclusive to PC use a few elements of DX11, but not all of them. The only one I have seen that uses tessellation is Shogun 2 and it took them 2 months to finally get that out. I don't know of any other games that use tessellation. Starcraft 2 doesn't use DX11.

Metro 2033 used it, PC was the lead platform.

this is getting off topic now. Did a little more research and your right as well with Alien Vs Predator remake also uses Tessellation. The fact of the matter is that most PC games are restricted with DX9 properties with DX10/11 enhancements. I am just tired of crappy 2D textures when we have the technology to add realistic dimension to textures now.

 

[Lazyjim]

Well Radeon 4000 is only three years old, and most people don't have the money to constantly upgrade to the cutting edge of hardware.

I have a 4870 and it handles most things just fine. A major reason I haven't upgraded is that there is no need. It will run pretty much every game on relatively high settings, and the advanced Dx10, and DX11 features are underutilized, tacked on, and very often bugged to hell.
If it became necessary for me to get a newer card, I would. But nothing on the horizon looks like it will do that. BF3 might tax my system a bit, but it will still support DX10 so no worries there.

I don't think gamers are holding things back, neither is the hardware. It's the game being made. And why is this? Simple, they are being made from the first day for a very specific set of hardware that it is now around seven years old.

I know it's a really tired saying, but it is actually true. Current gaming technology is being heldback by current gen consoles.

 

[Wolfram23]

So I have been noticing since DX10 released in 2006 and DX11 released in 2009 that there are still very few DX10/11 games out. Then I started opening my eyes to why this is. One thing I found out is that many gamers are still using Windows XP. Windows Vista came out in 2007 and Windows 7 in 2009. Still though people are using XP which is restricted to DX9. Then I realized that after brink came out people are still using Radeon 4000 series which uses DX10.1 and lesser cards. Further restricting them to old technology. They are happy with this too.

Of course I won't say that developers are not the problem either. So far Homefront and Shogun 2 both promised DX11 usage and failed to bring it out on release. Shogun 2 just released it. While a lot of the current DX11 games are upgraded older games.

Do you think that the reason DX11 is not getting utilized as much as it should because developers see a lot of their consumers still not running DX11 Software and hardware, or do you think that developers are just not releasing games that support DX11 because of the time and money?

Don't forget possibly the biggest flop on promises in a while, Crysis 2. After the smash hit and graphically insane Crysis (DX10) they released Crysis 2 in DX9!

 

[Worgen]

It's easier on the wallet to not upgrade, that is for sure.

Battlefield 3 is the first big title to really push people to upgrade since it doesn't support Windows XP and uses DX11.

Games need to stop releasing the game without DX11 and then adding support, that is just backwards. You should always start from the top and then work your way down with stuff like that, but they are scared of alienating players.

To answer the question though, no DX11 isn't getting used as much as it should, but I think with BF3 pushing forward that could start to change.

actually halo 2 was the first game to try and get gamers to upgrade, it only supported vista and it failed since no one wanted vista

 

[psivamp]

You do realize that building a game with DX11 doesn't necessarily mean that it will be better than a game built with DX9c. DX11 folds in tesselation, but that doesn't mean that games built with DX9c can't have tesselation -- it means that the developer had to write that code themselves in OpenCL or some other GPGPU interface. Basically, the tools that have been added in DX10 and 11 are things that developers can do if they put in the effort while still maintaining DX9 compatibility.

The DX11 pathway is also slower for the same output as DX9, then you start stacking on the computationally expensive graphical upgrades that are largely extraneous.

But, I think the driving factor is that gamers don't want to upgrade to Vista/7 and MS is trying to strong-arm them into doing so. Vista was horribly inefficient and so many people stayed on XP. I don't know how 7 stacks up compared to Vista and XP, but until people need to upgrade, many won't.