More titles drop Windows XP support. Industry finally makes progress.

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Well, according to the Steam Hardware Survey [http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey], 84% of people using Steam are on Vista/Win7/Win8, which is 88% of people using Steam on Windows (after you remove the OS X/Other categories). XP's share is also dropping more quickly than any other category. I'm going to go ahead and guess that that's probably not entirely accurate in terms of all computers in the world that run Windows, but in terms of the ones that people are going to be running games like the ones mentioned in the OP, it's probably not too far off. If it were, they wouldn't be finally cutting support for it in new games.

And it's not just games that aren't supported. Lots of new hardware doesn't work fully/at all on older OSes at this point. There just aren't drivers or OS-level support for things that didn't exist yet when XP was released. You can use an SSD in XP, but you don't get TRIM, which kind of sucks. You get a hack/workaround instead that isn't as effective, but what do you expect? There weren't exactly SSDs in 2001.

Welcome to the future, guys. It's awesome, and it already happened a few years ago while you were busy protesting that you wanted no part of it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Well, according to the Steam Hardware Survey [http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey], 84% of people using Steam are on Vista/Win7/Win8, which is 88% of people using Steam on Windows (after you remove the OS X/Other categories).

And that's among people who actually buy their games on Steam rather than those who decide that they should just have them for free because they wanted them. Or bought them on Origin/GoG/Impulse

 

[devotedsniper]

As much as i love windows xp i could never go back to it, 7 (and 8) are a much better OS, there faster, more stable and still supported by Microsoft. While yes a lot of old software has issues running on 7 but you could always use the workarounds or run a Virtual Machine to run those pieces of software.

In my opinion once directx 9 is finally dropped that's when we will see real progress in terms of graphics, don't get me wrong i'm not a graphics whore but it would be nice to see some more progress, although my hard drives my disagree there getting full.

a) buy another external XD

b) i'm glad you mentioned DX9. I can't wait for the new gen of consoles so game devs don't have any excuses developing for outdated hardware. Face it people, DX11 is just BETTER

Can't wait for Unreal4 either.

hah er i may have to resort to that or a network store as my full tower desktop has no more spare spaces for hard drives, not to mention my motherboard and pci expansion card have no spare SATA ports.

And yes DX9 is the thing thats holding us back mostly because as far as i know it's what the 360 uses?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

This isn't 1990 any more. There is no real reason for everyone to spend a huge amount of money every year in order to drive gaming forward. That is only for a few nutters who care too much about some super obscure new graphical technique.

 

[ResonanceSD]

This isn't 1990 any more. There is no real reason for everyone to spend a huge amount of money every year in order to drive gaming forward. That is only for a few nutters who care too much about some super obscure new graphical technique.

Who the hell actually upgrades every single year because they need to?

No one. No one does.

The current gen of GPUs, even the last gen, will stay usable for at least 5 years.

 

[Jandau]

following the furore a few weeks ago when XCOM:EO came out without supporting 2001's Windows XP,

Eurogamer reported a while ago http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-26-assassins-creed-3-pc-system-requirements-chop-windows-xp-support



That hilariously, AC3 and Black Ops 2 would also not support Windows XP out of the box.

Which, in my increasingly humble opinion, is a step forward for the industry.


I mean, minimum spec for AC3 on PC is an 8600GT (2006), but still, baby steps, game industry, baby steps.

Right, progress! Because as we all know, the consoles all run DirectX 10 or higher, right? Right? Oh wait...

Unless we're talking about PC only titles, the games are still built with their underlying engines and technology based around what is essentially DX9. The PC versions might be able to have extra DX10 modes, but the whole DX9 architecture is still in there.

Next thing to note is that there is a difference between "Doesn't support XP" and "Doesn't work on XP". For instance, take Dishonored [http://store.steampowered.com/app/205100/?snr=1_7_suggest__13]. The game's minimum requirements list Vista, but the game works perfectly fine on XP. And do you know why? Because it was built for DX9 so it could work on the consoles!

Before you point to XCOM, bear in mind that it too works on XP. The game's Vista-or-higher requirement was artificially imposed and can be bypassed, as evidenced by this thread [http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=33049516#post33049516].

So until we move on to the next console generation the mainstream AAA gaming industry will still be using DX9-level technology (at least if they want to release on consoles) so the games will probably work on XP. Sorry, no progress for you until Microsoft and Sony get off their lazy arses...

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I don't really mind but I certainly don't think its a step in the right direction. I don't want this escalating to having to buy a new PC all the time to keep up with games. Thank god for consoles.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I don't really mind but I certainly don't think its a step in the right direction. I don't want this escalating to having to buy a new PC all the time to keep up with games. Thank god for consoles.

again with the same idea? XP is more than a decade old. Do you still use anything else from 2001 with the same regularity that isn't a car and expect it to be catered for by everyone in the world

No one I know who isn't a professional gamer insists on the latest hardware. And even most of them don't.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I don't really mind but I certainly don't think its a step in the right direction. I don't want this escalating to having to buy a new PC all the time to keep up with games. Thank god for consoles.

again with the same idea? XP is more than a decade old. Do you still use anything else from 2001 with the same regularity that isn't a car and expect it to be catered for by everyone in the world

No one I know who isn't a professional gamer insists on the latest hardware. And even most of them don't.

As I said, this I don't mind. I simply don't want this to evolve into games only accommodating the newest hardware. It probably won't but there is a chance. I would probably still be on xp today if my old laptop didn't break anyway.

 

[ResonanceSD]

As I said, this I don't mind. I simply don't want this to evolve into games only accommodating the newest hardware.

Yeah I'm pretty pissed off that Halo 4 won't run on my first gen XBOX either.

But PC devs should totally be expected to cater to everyone.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

Well, it was bound to happen eventually, can't really say I'm surprised. I can't even really say I'm displeased, it only makes sense.

I guess it's time to make the move to 7.

 

[V8 Ninja]

...So you're basing the progress of an artistic medium off of abandoning old technology?

Well, that's a bit of a limited view. =/

 

[ResonanceSD]

...So you're basing the progress of an artistic medium off of abandoning old technology?

Well, that's a bit of a limited view. =/

When the development of a medium is actually restricted by technology, as it's based on technology? I call that 100% accurate.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

As I said, this I don't mind. I simply don't want this to evolve into games only accommodating the newest hardware.

Yeah I'm pretty pissed off that Halo 4 won't run on my first gen XBOX either.

But PC devs should totally be expected to cater to everyone.

Are you deliberately being stupid? I don't care if it doesn't work on hardware that is several years old. But this is a step in the direction of me having to buy a piece of hardware only for it to be outdated and useless a year later.

 

[ResonanceSD]

As I said, this I don't mind. I simply don't want this to evolve into games only accommodating the newest hardware.

Yeah I'm pretty pissed off that Halo 4 won't run on my first gen XBOX either.

But PC devs should totally be expected to cater to everyone.

Are you deliberately being stupid? I don't care if it doesn't work on hardware that is several years old. But this is a step in the direction of me having to buy a piece of hardware only for it to be outdated and useless a year later.

Because XP was released last year. You're right. Because DirectX 9 is still fresh off the..keyboard? Yeah, that too. Why would this scenario ever eventuate?

 

[V8 Ninja]

...So you're basing the progress of an artistic medium off of abandoning old technology?

Well, that's a bit of a limited view. =/

When the development of a medium is actually restricted by technology, as it's based on technology? I call that 100% accurate.

I honestly don't see how Windows XP is "Restricting". Granted, I can believe that Windows 7 does some things slightly better, but most power is still limited to computer hardware rather rather than computer software choice/configurations.

 

[ResonanceSD]

...So you're basing the progress of an artistic medium off of abandoning old technology?

Well, that's a bit of a limited view. =/

When the development of a medium is actually restricted by technology, as it's based on technology? I call that 100% accurate.

I honestly don't see how Windows XP is "Restricting". Granted, I can believe that Windows 7 does some things slightly better, but most power is still limited to computer hardware rather rather than computer software choice/configurations.

People have to spend time making sure everything works perfectly on multiple operating systems

These people have to be paid.


Removing this as an issue lets the developer spend money elsewhere.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Windows 7 is scarcely 3 years old so any PC from mid 2009 and earlier had no good option other than XP

Errr... whuh?

They've had 3 years to upgrade their OS. That's long enough.

Nah. They've had since 2006 to upgrade from XP. The notion that they can keep using an 11 year old system is quite laughable, really, and I for one welcome the games that ditch support.

To be fair, Vista was such a pile of carefully handpicked slime that it's impossible to fault someone for staying miles away and clutching their XP for a while. However, there is no reason not to use 7 anymore, as it's initial problems are now gone.

Vista was nowhere near as bad as people say. It can be kinda system hoggy, yes, but it's really not that bad. Its 64 bit incarnation, for example, was much better supported than XP 64 bit.

 

[hatseflats]

Are you deliberately being stupid? I don't care if it doesn't work on hardware that is several years old. But this is a step in the direction of me having to buy a piece of hardware only for it to be outdated and useless a year later.

Wait, what? Dropping support for 11 year old software gives precedence to having to buy new hardware every year?

That doesn't make the slightest of sense.

 

[Jason Rayes]

*reads through the thread with some bemusement* Wow I didn't realize so many people were in love with XP. It's like some kind of Luddite movement for the new millennium.

"You young whippersnappers and your new fangled operating systems with NUMBERS in the title. You'll have to pry my XP from my cold dead hands. I only even made the concession for XP because they stopped supporting DOS. I miss my command line interface" *Sobs quietly and rides home in a horse and cart because FUCK CARS*

Look, a new version of Windows coming out, and support stopping for an older version has been a part of Windows since the Windows OS has existed. Railing futilely at the march of progress is just that, futile. Keep using XP if you like, I have no problem with you doing so, just don't get angry when your outdated technology is no longer supported.