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

[RicoADF]

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 only had issues at release, and most of them was people using old and unsupported hardware (gasp how dare vista not support old hardware). XP is old and needs to be taken out the back and shot. Anyone still clinging onto it is living in the past and unable to let go of an old and unreliable system.

Capcha - just in time - agreed, computers have been held back long enough by dx9

 

[RicoADF]

I still game on XP. I'm running XP on this computer right now, and I've never had a problem with it. I can kinda understand how its easier for developers, not having to support XP, but I can't see how anyone would be happy that people are being excluded from playing games for no fault of their own. XP is going to be supported until 2014, last I heard, so there's no requirement to upgrade yet, if you don't want to.

Supporting XP requires supporting direct x 9 (it controls the graphics engine, what can be done etc), XP also only properly supports 32bit, which means you can't use more than 4gb of ram, thus restriction system resources. It also doesn't fully support multiple cores, modern hardware and most video cards don't support it either. Simply put, its an old and outdated os that's holding gaming and software progression back unless they drop it and those that won't let go (like a bunch of old people holding onto their VHS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?

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

How about every decade?

Because that's the actual number. Not every year.

 

[Rariow]

Well, sucks for me, I don't plan to abandon XP until my current computer dies and I have to buy a new one with 7 pre-installed (That's looking pretty close) but it's fair. XP is 11 years old. If console developers were doing the same thing, games would still be coming out for the PlayStation 2. XP is bloody amazing, that's why I've stuck with it for 11 years, but I won't throw a hissyfit over game releases not coming out for something that is soon going to be 3 OS's ago.

 

[lacktheknack]

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

There's nothing wrong with games being playable on lower-end hardware.

Progress isn't measured by polygon count. If a game can look good on an old card like that, then that's a good thing. By comparison other Ubisoft ports like Ghost Recon require vastly more resources than they should, meaning that even mid-high end PC's can have issues with them. That's the opposite of good.

The point is that the absolute MINIMUM your graphics card should be is a card released in 2006, and yet people are complaining they can't use the OS they bought in 2001. A bit crazy, is it not?

 

[Cette]

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!)

 

[Jason Rayes]

Yes I can.

They are pushing for better graphics, so even more time will need to be invested in making better graphics, which in turn will lead to the gameplay being neglected.

That is not the fault of the OS or, cutting to what you must be referring to, Direct X. Both Direct X and Windows are simply tools, you cannot blame the tool for how they are used. Blaming the tool is like having someone stab a bunch of people and rather than arrest the murderer, instead capture the knife and punish it. Bad knife, how dare you kill all those people. I say again, the responsibility for the dumbing down of games is the fault of publishers and developers seeking the widest market possible in the name of accessibility. That is the fault of neither Windows nor Direct X.

 

[bobajob]

lulwat?

2006 GPUs?

You like pixellated slideshows?
And you call yourselves gamers.....

 

[AstylahAthrys]

I'll be honest. I had no idea new titles were still supporting Windows XP anymore anyway. Guess you learn something new every day. I can understand businesses still using it, but I'd think that most gamers, namely tech-savvy PC gamers, would have upgraded in some fashion by this point so it would be completely non-issue.

 

[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.

How about every decade?

Because that's the actual number. Not every year.

Windows Vista was released in 2002?

spoiler; it wasn't.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

How about every decade?

Because that's the actual number. Not every year.

Windows Vista was released in 2002?

spoiler; it wasn't.

Hilariously, you said "spend a huge amount of money every year", and thus ALSO implied that Vista came out in 2002. Works both ways, bub.

You didn't even have to use Vista, because XP was still fully supported, and not many people liked it anyways. However, XP support is dropping, and Windows 7 is well loved, so what reason do you have for not upgrading this decade?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Hilariously, you said "spend a huge amount of money every year", and thus ALSO implied that Vista came out in 2002. Works both ways, bub.

You didn't even have to use Vista, because XP was still fully supported, and not many people liked it anyways. However, XP support is dropping, and Windows 7 is well loved, so what reason do you have for not upgrading this decade?

Whatever makes you feel good I suppose.

 

[lacktheknack]

Hilariously, you said "spend a huge amount of money every year", and thus ALSO implied that Vista came out in 2002. Works both ways, bub.

You didn't even have to use Vista, because XP was still fully supported, and not many people liked it anyways. However, XP support is dropping, and Windows 7 is well loved, so what reason do you have for not upgrading this decade?

Whatever makes you feel good I suppose.

Well, don't be stunned when other people want to move on from what makes you specifically feel good, and leave you behind.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, don't be stunned when other people want to move on from what makes you specifically feel good, and leave you behind.

Don't be surprised when people ignore you because what you say in reply to them has no relation to what they say.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, don't be stunned when other people want to move on from what makes you specifically feel good, and leave you behind.

Don't be surprised when people ignore you because what you say in reply to them has no relation to what they say.

I don't understand what you were trying to say, then.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I don't understand what you were trying to say, then.

At least you admit it this time. Progress.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't understand what you were trying to say, then.

At least you admit it this time. Progress.

Snarktastic.

How exactly WERE you expecting me to interpret "whatever makes you feel good", the most incredibly general sentence you could use in that context?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Snarktastic.

How exactly WERE you expecting me to interpret "whatever makes you feel good", the most incredibly general sentence you could use in that context?

People in glass houses etc.

 

[lacktheknack]

Snarktastic.

How exactly WERE you expecting me to interpret "whatever makes you feel good", the most incredibly general sentence you could use in that context?

People in glass houses etc.

Context is for wimps!

All I know is that we're both standing in glass houses, chucking rocks at each other, and we're not even clear on why.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure that I'm standing in a glass house. Care to correct?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Context is for wimps!

All I know is that we're both standing in glass houses, chucking rocks at each other, and we're not even clear on why.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure that I'm standing in a glass house. Care to correct?

All I'm saying to you is that I can't be bothered to explain anything to you because your attitude says it is not worth any effort on my part.