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

[Cannibal Johnson]

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.

 

[ResonanceSD]

A full license for a copy of windows 7 costs $179. You pay $60 for a new game title that you will probably play for less than 100 hours.

Give it a rest.

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?

 

[Tyler Trahan]

Bioshock was a brilliant case of setting up atmosphere and developing a compelling and deep story. It is emotionally powerful and fun to play.

No, it's not fun to play because the gameplay is painfully shallow and boring.

It would have worked as a movie, but as a game it's below average at best.

... 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 friend

 

[llubtoille]

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.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Bioshock was a brilliant case of setting up atmosphere and developing a compelling and deep story. It is emotionally powerful and fun to play.

No, it's not fun to play because the gameplay is painfully shallow and boring.

It would have worked as a movie, but as a game it's below average at best.

... 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 friend

Reviewer score is 96. *user* score is 81.


Game review sites will give high scores to almost anything AAA developers make.

 

[veloper]

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.

 

[Zipa]

A full license for a copy of windows 7 costs $179. You pay $60 for a new game title that you will probably play for less than 100 hours.

Give it a rest.

Windows 8 costs $40 , as long as you are running a legit copy of your old OS you are good to go.
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

 

[AD-Stu]

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...

 

[Nazulu]

Bioshock was a brilliant case of setting up atmosphere and developing a compelling and deep story. It is emotionally powerful and fun to play.

No, it's not fun to play because the gameplay is painfully shallow and boring.

It would have worked as a movie, but as a game it's below average at best.

... 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 friend

That's funny to say after pointing out the high reviewer score like it's a strong defence.

I reckon it was a pretty good game too, but the game play and the repetitive dark corridors were the weakest part of the game for me as well. Because of the game play, I don't want to ever play it again.

Edit: Oh yeah, not to get off topic. Games really have been holding back on a lot of bits and pieces I used to see in older games any way. Some of the most busiest games I played are still relatively old games, so I have no idea what is being held back on XP.

I think graphics should be toned down a bit any way so developers/publishers don't have to be so concerned about appealing to everyone.

 

[Circusfreak]

I agree with you in theory, in practice I'm afraid I might one day have to "upgrade" to windows 8. Concidering Microsofts current direction I'm quite hesitant to call abandoning xp a good thing.

 

[Imbechile]

However the majority of people found the game itself to be fantastic, hence it's average score being a goddamned 96.

You mean the same way that the majority of gamers found COD to be the best game ever?

Dont mistake opinion for fact my friend

Isn't it funny that my opinion is not fact, but the opinion of other people is fact?

I'm sorry, but my opinion is fact, in this case. Compared to other FPS-RPG hybrids like Deus EX or System shock 2, Bioshock's gameplay is painfully shallow and boring.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

I'm sorry, but my opinion is fact, in this case. Compared to other FPS-RPG hybrids like Deus EX or System shock 2, Bioshock's gameplay is painfully shallow and boring.

And this is where you go wrong. You may like Deus Ex or System Shock 2 better than BioShock. You may have a hard time understanding why people could like BioShock better than those two games. That does not mean your opinion becomes fact, that isn't how objectivity works.

 

[RicoADF]

Simply put, its an old and outdated os that's holding gaming and software progression back unless they drop it and those that won't let go (like a bunch of old people holding onto their VHS players).

Edit: darn thought someone had posted below my last post, can a mod please merge them?

Why you gotta talk shit on VCR's man? I'll have you know some of the movies I own never got a DVD release.


(Oh God I'm OLD PEOPLE!)

I converted any I had to DVD or hdd if they weren't avaliable, though few aren't by now

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

*snip*

XP can only use DirectX 9. Development APIs are currently at DirectX 11 but absolutely nothing is currently taking advantage of it because of Windows XP and the two consoles. XP can also only use Dual-Core Processors and up to 4 GB of RAM. Yes, that's still utilizing more than the consoles are capable of, but it's also ancient in terms of PC hardware where we're up to the most expensive gaming PCs coming equipped with 32 GB of RAM, dual-DirectX 11 GPUs, and quad/hex-core processors.

Mid-line gaming PCs tend to have DirectX 10/11, 6-8 GB of RAM, and a dual/quad-core processor. XP can't support any of that anymore. Yes, at the very minimum, XP would probably be just barely enough, because most processors aren't taken full advantage of anyway so a dual-core is still good for most games, and the GPU load can be eased greatly by changing around resolution and other options, but there's a point where that 4 GB limit is going to come back and bite XP, because PCs use significantly more RAM than consoles do.

Complaining that XP is losing support is like complaining that the PS2 has lost support. The PS2 was a great system, it lived long past its prime, and I'm sure people didn't want to "upgrade" from it when the PS3 first came out, but eventually people just stopped making games for it.

I'm really confused that this post didn't get more attention. It addresses many good points quite well.

Furthermore, saying that your copy of Windows XP works fine but you want it to still be able to play the newest games is like saying that your cassette player works fine, so why can't more people release music on cassette as well as on CD.
Yes, it works fine for what you're using it for, but there comes a time when the industry has to move forward. You can stay where you are, that's fine, but don't expect to get anywhere near as much support as you once did.

And yes, this could easily be construed as a strawman argument (getting late, and exam studies have fried my brain, so I couldn't think of a better comparison. Apologies), but I hope that people can at least see what I'm trying to say here.

 

[Cette]

Furthermore, saying that your copy of Windows XP works fine but you want it to still be able to play the newest games is like saying that your cassette player works fine, so why can't more people release music on cassette as well as on CD.
Yes, it works fine for what you're using it for, but there comes a time when the industry has to move forward. You can stay where you are, that's fine, but don't expect to get anywhere near as much support as you once did.

I think the really important part here is where do hipsters listening to music on vinyl fit into the analogy?

I like to think that this means there are bunch of people with bad mustaches who refuse to use any program that won't work on a 486.

 

[Imbechile]

that isn't how objectivity works.

Then please explain objectivity to me?

I was comparing the gameplay of two games from the same genre and found that one has less options than the other. Please tell me how the game with the less options isn't objectively shallower?

 

[GamingAwesome1]

that isn't how objectivity works.

Then please explain objectivity to me?

I was comparing the gameplay of two games from the same genre and found that one has less options than the other. Please tell me how the game with the less options isn't objectively shallower?

Less options doesn't necessarily equate to shallower, however, I'm actually inclined to agree with you on the count of BioShock being shallower than the likes of System Shock. I'm just picking apart the fact you're using words in completely the wrong way by claiming that your opinion that Bioshock is "shallow and boring" to be fact, which it isn't. Opinions, by definition, cannot be fact. Opinions are subjective, facts are objective. The fact that this even needs explaining to you is sort of disheartening.

The important thing to keep in mind, is that your findings and feelings about a game are just that, yours. Objectivity is when something is the case independent of anyone's judgement, you have made a personal evaluation and come to a conclusion that is unique to you and you alone, that does not mean your judgement becomes the universally accepted truth.

Your opinion is not fact and never will be. I thought Bioshock was shallower than System Shock, yes. I wouldn't dare claim that to be a fact. Nor would I ever dare to do something as arrogant as declare a game "boring" and then claim that to be fact as well, that's simply wrong. Opinions and feelings are not facts. There is a crucial difference.

You can have your opinion, start calling it a fact however, and you just become wrong.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I'm glad XP is on the way out now. It's been long enough. AAA Games are high end products, and having to test and comply with an 11 year old OS is just a pain. Using XP for a business machine is one thing, but a gaming rig should at least be running Vista. This is the tech world, and a decade is a very long time in tech.

I just updated my PC to Windows 8 Pro. It was a 2Gb download for £25. A full featured modern OS for less than the price of a new game. I know money is tough (I'm FAR from a moneybags, and I'm currently unemployed), but that isn't much money.

The difference is that vinyl sounds richer than the compressed CD format.

Uh oh

http://advancedanesthesiaspecialists.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/open-a-can-of-worms.jpg

Ignore that Audiophiles. One major Geek argument per thread please.

 

[ResonanceSD]

A gaming rig should at least be running Vista. This is the tech world, and a decade is a very long time in tech.

+1 to that, there's no point having top line hardware and using hilariously outdated software to run it. I'd go a step further and say there's no reason to use anything older than Win7 at the moment.

 

[Imat]

A Microsoft OS becomes truly decent after SP1. XP, Vista, 7. So far. 8 may buck the trend, who knows.

Most of the complaints regarding Vista were because people were upgrading to it on computers that couldn't handle it

Anyway,

The very notion that programmers have to spend additional time adding support for an 11 year old OS just because people are too lazy to upgrade because programmers keep spending time supporting their platform because people are too lazy to upgrade because prog-

Is ridiculous. To the XP defenders, when would an appropriate time to drop XP support be for you?

It isn't really ridiculous at all. If the OS was written well, it should be easy to maintain software for it. There are some cases where that isn't true, sure, but for the most part it should work out that way.

And saying people are too "lazy" to upgrade is silly. Some don't want to have to buy a new OS to play a game their compy should be able to handle.

You also complained in the opening post that AC3 supports the 8600. That's a bad thing? "Oh no, now people won't have to shell out hundreds of dollars for a new compy/card. Whatever shall I do, as that affects me in any way, shape, or form..." You seem to think that supporting anything older than a year or two is a bad thing. I know 90% of a certain human population which would beg to differ (You know, the 90% with things they need money for other than a brand new compy every couple years).

Dropping XP support is fine by itself, a goodly amount of time has passed, but saying this is a sign of progress is wrong. This is just something the industry has to deal with from time to time. Progress would actually be the opposite: An OS is developed and written so well that providing support for it is incredibly easy. That would be progress. What you refer to as progress is simply more of the same.