More titles drop Windows XP support. Industry finally makes progress.
- Thread starter ResonanceSD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Please, re-read my posts and point me to the part where iv'e laid the blame on the OS or Direct X.Jason Rayes said:
Abandoning XP will have a side-effect of graphics being better, which in turn will increase the time and money that will need to be spent on the graphics.
PS: Companies and publishers are not responsible for the dumbing down. The consumers are, because they are the ones that shape the market.
I honestly don't believe good graphics and good gameplay need to be mutually exclusive. Most games nowadays use proprietary engines so that part of the graphic grunt work is gone, then you have things like Speed Tree and Havok that take care of that aspect of it. Most art assets done for games are done scanned in at a lower res than the original art they come from to make them compatible with consoles and older OS's. Now they don't need to drop that quality when scanning skins etc. As for the consumers leading to the dumbing down of games, there is truth to that, but ask a lot of gamers and you will definitely hear rumbles of dissatisfaction about the stripping out of features. Gamers don't like it, but it's all we're served up, and the suits that make the decisions keep striving for more and more streamlining to reach a larger audience. They have almost reached the point where the larger audience they are aiming for won't be interested anyway, and the core audience that games as a hobby has been alienated. Things like the success of indie games over the last few years, and funding projects like Kickstarter show that what the corporations think the public wants is not necessarily what everyone wants. There are markets for things they consider to be dead genres, which shows they are out of touch with the consumer in certain fields. So it isn't just down to the consumer, the publishers really do have to take some of the responsibility for what they produce.Imbechile said:
PS: As an aside, in today's climate its a miracle even a stripped down version of an Xcom strategy game got made, considering the plan was for an FPS. Perhaps the fact that it has sold well will lead to a sequel that's even better? This is kind of what Im talking about, the publishers were worried about this release because it was a dead genre no-one would buy, right? Wrong.
ok, I have fond memories of XP, even use it occasionaly on one of my dad's workshop thinkpads, but it's not realistic to expect support after a decade, I hear win8 is cheap now, and 7 works very well. XP VM is always an option if you really want to. Personally never got along with Vista (and no, it wasn't on a crap XP Walmart PC, it was on my 2008 big beefy $1400 PC) but I hear it is actually fairly good if you can keep the footprint to a minimum.
All in all, a decade is not an unreasonable amount of time to support something for, it's far more cost-effective for devs to not have to QA and fix on extra OSes.
All in all, a decade is not an unreasonable amount of time to support something for, it's far more cost-effective for devs to not have to QA and fix on extra OSes.
I like backwards compatibility because I still play a lot of old games that refuse to work on Windows 7. Fortunately there is an XP Emulator. I hope no one drops support for windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out, because I always skip every other version of windows.
You should check out what Unreal 4 is doing to game development time. Graphics will no longer be a huge factor for coding.Imbechile said:
Generally when faced with an upgrade, I have to decide whether to gut my current rig or buy a new one. Mostly I buy a new one and keep the current one around as a server and for old school goodness.likalaruku said:
Edit: Admitedly this usually involves putting the graphics card from the current one in the new one, the graphics card in storage in the current one, and the the one in the new one in storage. Just to make things simple.
I'm not sure I played the same game as you. I really had fun with the game and I found the gameplay to be exciting and is one of my favorites of this generation. I thought the game had depth in what powers you choose and how you decide to approach a situation. It is far more deep than your average shooter. Maybe not the same as most rpg games, but certainly has more depth than most fps games. It was also the only game that actually scared me. I've played a ton of horror games and it was set up perfectly.Imbechile said:
I guess people just have their own tastes. A lot of people hated the combat of Mass Effect 1. I loved the heck out of it and I put over 150 hours into the game. A lot of people liked skyrim and uncharted, but I thought they were snoozefests. Many of the top games of this generation I didn't like and found boring.
Besides, Bioshock wouldn't work with anything but a game. It is the immersion and the ability for you to believe you were the character. The emotional parts of the game wouldn't work without that feeling that you were responsible for the events in the game.
Well shit, speaking as a gamer on a budget I'm conflicted. I'm kind of glad that the industry is moving forward on stuff like this. I'm also a little sad because I'm still using XP, I just don't have the money for 7. And shut the fuck up, you don't dictate how much money I have so you have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say "You have enough for Win7". I had to get that out of the way because when I talk about stuff like this so many FUCKING people suddenly know my financial situation and decide that I have enough money for it.
CrossLOPER said:
Windows 7 will have support for the next decade. A game you play for 100 hours gives you less bang for your buck than that, for sure XD
Also, your copy of Windows XP won't be supported by new games. What do you do then?
... is your opinion. However the majority of people found the game itself to be fantastic, hence it's average score being a goddamned 96. Dont mistake opinion for fact my friendImbechile said:
So we're celebrating a reduction in compatibility so developers can save a miniscule about of time and money...
Yay?
If the cost to implement is > revenue from potential sales to XP owners, then it's reasonable business sense.
but making a game playable to fewer people isn't really something I'd consider dancing in the streets about.
especially when all the other system requirements have stayed practically unchanged for the last 3 years or so.
Now maybe if they were dropping PS3 support and ramping up the graphics & gameplay at the cost of a higher general system requirements, then that'd be something I could get behind.
Yay?
If the cost to implement is > revenue from potential sales to XP owners, then it's reasonable business sense.
but making a game playable to fewer people isn't really something I'd consider dancing in the streets about.
especially when all the other system requirements have stayed practically unchanged for the last 3 years or so.
Now maybe if they were dropping PS3 support and ramping up the graphics & gameplay at the cost of a higher general system requirements, then that'd be something I could get behind.
Tyler Trahan said:
Reviewer score is 96. *user* score is 81.
Game review sites will give high scores to almost anything AAA developers make.
I'm cool with it. If a game requires more than 2GB of RAM or if it requires dx10, then winXP is no option anyway.
It's always been like this: newer releases gradually require better hardware to run.
The last 3 years we've had an unusually long period of stagnation, where your old rig held up just fine, so we cannot really complain.
It's always been like this: newer releases gradually require better hardware to run.
The last 3 years we've had an unusually long period of stagnation, where your old rig held up just fine, so we cannot really complain.
Windows 8 costs $40 , as long as you are running a legit copy of your old OS you are good to go.CrossLOPER said:
And if the lack of start button and menu bugs you then you can download a program that adds it in and makes the PC boot straight to desktop for like $5
IMO you're barking up the wrong tree OP - while XP certainly has its limitations, it still seems to be more powerful than the current console generation and, IMO, if there's anything "holding back" gaming development it's the technological limitations of the current console generation.
For better or worse I expect to see XP support hang around in the gaming industry for a while longer, at least until the new generation of consoles arrive. Because let's face it, PC technological developments don't really matter a damn when most games are developed with consoles first and foremost in mind...
For better or worse I expect to see XP support hang around in the gaming industry for a while longer, at least until the new generation of consoles arrive. Because let's face it, PC technological developments don't really matter a damn when most games are developed with consoles first and foremost in mind...