Battlefield 3 will not support XP or DX9.

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think it's a good call. DX9 is getting dated. DX10 even runs smoother now. It isn't the first time a company has ditched the old to utilize the new.

yeah same, ppl really need to move on and go to 7.

erm why?

Because DX 10 usage is common enough to be the standard? Because there have been games produced four years ago using DX 10? Because the feature set of DX 10 is, in fact, superior to those found in DX 9? Because XP has a number of glaring flaws and limitations that where originally theoretical but are now very relevant?

I mean, these aren't reasons a person should upgrade their computer. These are reasons why developers might choose to use the new DX standard. If there isn't a game you want to play that uses the new standard, there is certainly no reason to upgrade.

Now, if you DO want to play games that use the new feature set, then you'll need to upgrade. It's the death march of progress and you can either keep up or stop playing. I don't like having to spend a few hundred bucks on video cards every so often. I certainly don't like dropping hundreds more every 3 - 5 years to get a new motherboard, a larger drive (if necessary), a new processor, new memory and (possibly) a new OS. But I'm willing to do it because I enjoy playing PC games and I have to live with the same choice you do.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

its going to happen, just like when companies started to abandon stuff for just handling xp, shows how bad vista is that another operating system had to come out before xp started to die.

Vista wasn't at all bad, especially when compared to the fiasco that was XP when it launched. There were problems, certainly but having watched the transition as an IT support professional, the problems with Vista were generally relegated to a short list:

1) Vista looked different than XP. There is nothing an end user hates more than having to learn how to do something again.
2) Initially, there was somewhat lackluster developer support in key areas. It took 6 months to get a driver set that allowed SLI to work with my set of video cards.
3) Most people purchase the cheapest computer they find in a store, or at least the cheapest one that "looks" fancy. This meant many early adopters purchased systems that were only marginally more powerful than their XP systems and the performance advantage was destroyed by the higher operating requirements of Vista.
4) People really like to participate in a conversation even if they don't actually know anything useful. After hearing stories about the problems of the Vista launch, the public perception became "Vista is awful" and avoided it like the plague. This eventually became the story of the OS.

Of those problems, only the first is actually the fault of the OS. The fault for the rest goes to various third party companies. Yes, there were other problems along the way, but compared to past OS launches, Vista was exceptionally stable out of the gate.

To me, the Win7 launched always seemed to be an effort to change the story of Vista. Functionally, fundamentally, most of the bits of 7 are right out of Vista. It has virtually the same look and feel as it's predecessor. It has very nearly identical operating requirements. What it does not have is that absolutely cursed name that Vista is dragging around wherever it goes. It seemed more like a relaunch of Vista than a new OS. Sure, they still expected money in return for the upgrade, but truth be told this really didn't affect as many people as you might expect. As of a month ago (the last time I needed to check) you could still purchase a new system from Dell with XP installed. And that is precisely what most people I ever encountered chose to do.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

(to the makers of battlefield 3 who were responsible for this bullcrap)You Suck!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

>snip<

I was actually more refering to financially and in market penetration, no matter how stable a OS is, if the one its supposed to replace survives long enough for the next version, you did something wrong.

And I was simply pointing out the reason why this occurred as far as I've been able to discern. Microsoft can't FORCE a developer to support any particular platform. And the only thing that would get people to budge given what I pointed out was software. This was why several major PC releases required Vista. Not because it needed any of the new features but rather because Microsoft wanted to encourage a higher install base of their new OS.

The failure in this case was less a technical problem than a PR problem. It also seems to be the eternal problem of being Microsoft.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Being an XP user, I am moderatly upset. I wasn't getting this game anyways but I know may other comapnies will now follow suit. Then again, my PC isnt' amazing so newer games aren't likely to run smoothly anyways.

All I've had when I have used 7 was problems. I copied music from my laptop to a USB drive (to put on another computer) and 7 would not find it (the music format being .mp3 mostly), among many other issues.
I am amused that the new features the commercials for 7 talk about were standard features in Linux before 7 came around (the whole "move to the side and snap" thing, for example). I wonder how long it will be before they claim Linux's wobbly windows feature as their own new and unique idea. I'm still waiting for them to add multiple-desktops as a standard feature as well.

 

[DarkBlood626]

well i atleast hope this means it wont suffer the fate of being dumbed down for the casual gamer with there gaystation and shitBOX that has befallen so many before it

Caution rant below

waaa it dosent suport 2000 waaa it dosent suport windows 98 and so on its a push away form stagnation which the consoles have brought us which at best means a 3 or 4 year time lag between syistems that still use DX9 while they charge you for DLC and the ability to play online

 

[Jark212]

I misread it as Battlefront 3, I'm so disappointed...

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Didn't Just Cause 2 on the PC drop XP? It's a good idea. Windows XP is getting really dated at this point. I dunno about DX11 though...

 

[Worgen]

cant really hold it against it since eventually pc needs to move beyond xp, but I wont be getting it since Im still running xp altho I do hope to upgrade to 7 sooner rather then later

 

[Wolfram23]

OT: Yeah, kind of old news but since it's a popular topic, my 2 cents: I hope all developers go this way. Nobody needs DX9 or XP. It's extra work for a game developer to try and make it compatible with old tech, and the last thing we as PC gamers need is developers spending more time and money to make games (by this I mean the ridiculous AAA title budgets need to come down - I still want a good product). If they can cut out 2 months of work in making DX9 work (or longer) then power to them. People always need motivation to upgrade...

I keep getting tempted and try to get more into PC gaming as I do sincerly see it as surperior in alot of aspects however the required investments are just to much for someone like me, and now that they want to me buy a whole new operating system im just not sure if i can take the leap again.

$400 gaming PC (without peripherals etc)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-pc-build-a-pc-overclock,2739.html

 

[Irridium]

Hopefully they just keep the 64-player battles and battlefield commanders. Seriously, if they make it just like BC2 with 32-player battles and squads that can't talk with each other I'll be pissed.

 

[oplinger]

its going to happen, just like when companies started to abandon stuff for just handling xp, shows how bad vista is that another operating system had to come out before xp started to die.

Vista wasn't at all bad, especially when compared to the fiasco that was XP when it launched. There were problems, certainly but having watched the transition as an IT support professional, the problems with Vista were generally relegated to a short list:

1) Vista looked different than XP. There is nothing an end user hates more than having to learn how to do something again.
2) Initially, there was somewhat lackluster developer support in key areas. It took 6 months to get a driver set that allowed SLI to work with my set of video cards.
3) Most people purchase the cheapest computer they find in a store, or at least the cheapest one that "looks" fancy. This meant many early adopters purchased systems that were only marginally more powerful than their XP systems and the performance advantage was destroyed by the higher operating requirements of Vista.
4) People really like to participate in a conversation even if they don't actually know anything useful. After hearing stories about the problems of the Vista launch, the public perception became "Vista is awful" and avoided it like the plague. This eventually became the story of the OS.

Of those problems, only the first is actually the fault of the OS. The fault for the rest goes to various third party companies. Yes, there were other problems along the way, but compared to past OS launches, Vista was exceptionally stable out of the gate.

To me, the Win7 launched always seemed to be an effort to change the story of Vista. Functionally, fundamentally, most of the bits of 7 are right out of Vista. It has virtually the same look and feel as it's predecessor. It has very nearly identical operating requirements. What it does not have is that absolutely cursed name that Vista is dragging around wherever it goes. It seemed more like a relaunch of Vista than a new OS. Sure, they still expected money in return for the upgrade, but truth be told this really didn't affect as many people as you might expect. As of a month ago (the last time I needed to check) you could still purchase a new system from Dell with XP installed. And that is precisely what most people I ever encountered chose to do.

For an IT support professional, you forgot to mention many businesses refused to upgrade to vista. Not to mention it was terrible for mobile devices. this caused Microsoft to extend support of XP to 2014. ...and the fact that vista was not exceptionally stable out of the gate. Unless you're comparing it to ME, which would crash itself. In which case yes...yes vista was very stable.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

It is time to upgrade, XP is seven years old. It is the equivalent to running 95 when XP is out.

Why is it time to upgrade? I just cant see what makes W7 soooo much better than XP that everyone has just got to pull a magnet over there hard drive, so to speak, and throw 7 on it. XP works fine for me, and windows 7 doesnt have any features that make XP seem outdated. So why do I need to buy W7 for roughly 150 euros? Because microsoft wants more money I guess.

But just saying "u need to upgrades bcuz 7 iz newer lolz" doesnt cut it. Half the people in this thread are just bending over, spreading there ass cheeks and screaming "Fuck me microsoft! Fuck me till I bleed!"

So by your logic, if something works fine there is no need to improve on it? Windows 7 is a much better OS than XP, can't say much for vista because I skipped it. Installing an OS is not hard, just get the right drivers and back up important files. Format, install, download, re-install done.

It is old, and old things don't last forever, especially in the computer world. One day soon support for XP will end, and games will be the first thing to go.

"If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Ha! Thats a good one. Oh wait, you're not joking.
Do you understand that if technology developed that mindset we would still be in the stone age? Everything can be improved on, you're just to stubborn to see the restraints of DX9, a program written almost ten years ago, has on PC gaming and the current technology available.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

some of us can't afford to upgrade

damn technology and it's rapid advances!!

Rapid??? XP is over a decade old..

Out with the old and in with the new I say.

 

[thatstheguy]

Considering DirectX 9 is about 8-7 years old (with updates) and XP is almost 10 years old, it's only fair to try to opt into the newer generation. Besides, I'd assume it'd be a while before Battlefield 3 is released anyway.

 

[Hiphophippo]

This just in: Developers chose to not support an Opperating system that's almost a decade old. In other news new 360 game NOT PLAYABLE ON THE ORIGINAL XBOX.

Internet rages in opposition.

 

[Scars Unseen]

These topics are always amusing. I laughed at people that whined when game publishers switching from CD-ROM to DVD, and I do so again now. Just for a little point of reference, Windows XP came out just after the Baldur's Gate series ended. It's kind of old.

This is the sign that the herd is moving on. You can either keep up or not.