More titles drop Windows XP support. Industry finally makes progress.
- Thread starter ResonanceSD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...but the thing is even if every XP user on the face of the planet magically upgraded to Win 7/8 tomorrow, you'd still be getting "penalised" because pretty much all games (and Assassin's Creed is one of the biggest offenders in this regard) at the moment are just console ports that are designed first and foremost to work on inferior 360/PS3 hardware.ResonanceSD said:
Developers are going to organically drop their support for XP when the new console generation comes out and provides them with hardware and processing options that XP simply can't match.
So really you're making a mountain out of a molehill that's going to get flattened in 12-18 months anyway. Take a deep breath and move on?
It doesn't even have to be a legit copy. As far as I know there are no checks of the licence. I upgraded to Win 8 pro the other day, and my copy of Win 7 was hacked because I had a problem last year that meant I had to re-install the OS, but for whatever reason it wouldn't accept my licence key. So I ended up having to download a cracked copy. I'm not proud of it, but considering it was the exact same software I already owned nobody really lost out.Zipa said:
Not for a gaming PC. Unless you play the most basic of games you can run Windows 8, and considering how cheap it is right now (the offer ends January) now is a good time to upgrade.ResonanceSD said:
I have xp on my laptop whith close to 400gb of games, I have 7 on my desktop and it's great, but I really cant be bothered reinstalling the OS on my 13inch laptop, which is a MBP (13 2010), which means I need to go through bootcamp, even more effort. in the end it's just laziness I suppose, I don't want to spend 2 weeks tracking down all my disc boxes, and re downloading all the updates, for what, a slight speed increase, I am on a 13inch laptop, any game that uses a lot of dx10 features it wont run very well (I was able to get crysis 2 running at 30fps thoug, but it's dx9)
And I know a Lot of other people are in my position too, I have recommended xp to freinds only a few years ago becuase it cost $50 vs $250 for w7, when they barely play games.
I primarily use my desktop, but it's sad I wont be playing games on my laptop
And I know a Lot of other people are in my position too, I have recommended xp to freinds only a few years ago becuase it cost $50 vs $250 for w7, when they barely play games.
I primarily use my desktop, but it's sad I wont be playing games on my laptop
Which is my point exactly. You're saying that it is a bad thing that games are still listing the 8600 as supported. Whether 5 or even 7 years old, the 8600 is still recent enough that, had I bought it when it was first introduced, I would expect it to still run games now, if at a severely reduced setting. You are saying that it is too old now, we should drop it from our minimum requirements. I'm saying that is silly.ResonanceSD said:
Imat said:
The main point of the discussion is that Xp itself should be dropped. The 8600 is a side issue. However, I should think that in 5-7 years, games aren't going to be aimed at my two 580's. They'll be supported, sure, but not everything will run fine. That's an entirely side issue to the topic, however, which says that compatibility with XP should be dropped.
I see what you did there. Made my post out to be worthless, then completely ignored the fact that I proved my point. Well done, sir.ResonanceSD said:
But, if you hadn't noticed, I already covered the XP issue as well. It's not a question of the age of the OS. It is a question of the quality of the OS. XP should be dropped eventually, sure, but for now companies are still making money off of gamers running XP, so they want to support it until that becomes a net loss for them. If the OS were written better, supporting it would be a breeze. And, final point, not everyone has money to spend on a new OS, in addition to the multitude of $60+ games they might want the new OS for. Forcing everyone to upgrade isn't always the best choice, nor is it a sign of progress. Progress would be breaking out of the support for a few years cycle, moving on to the support forever cycle.ResonanceSD said:
Imat said:
The new OS can be had for $30.
Which is less than the cost of most games these days.
Also, if you're hurting for money, then you probably shouldn't be playing videogames, just saying.
Ah, so videogames can't be used by poor people as a means of escaping their realities for a precious few moments. Good to know they have become an exclusive club for the prosperous. I'll have to inform some of my friends.ResonanceSD said:
Anywho, it seems clear you're pretty set in your ways on this issue. People should be forced to get new computers every few years because, even though it doesn't have any affect on you personally, you don't want companies to make money by providing a way for folks with older computers to play their games. I don't agree with that sentiment at all, but to each his own.
Some reasons for dropping XP support now is that developers will now be working on games for the next generation. These games will be DX10 or DX11 based (for the Microsoft console at least) and will not be able to run on XP no matter what you do. Therefore developers aren't wasting resources on XP machines. Along with that is any games released from now on will need to be supported with patches which means developers would need to have XP based machines for development and testing for the next two years or so. Large companies almost always refuse to keep using an OS once support is dropped because once MS stop fixing security holes any machine using XP will be a sitting duck for malicious attack. XP support ends in 17 months. Therefore major post release support for anything on XP will end then too.
SpAc3man said:
DX11 hopefully, if any of the AMD 7xxx series chips are being used in consoles. (relatively unlikely)
Dat Tessellation.
And this is on an "old" 5xxx series card.
On the new GTX 690 it looks like this.
The big rumour going around at the moment is that the Orbis (PS4) will use an AMD A10 APU which has a Radeon 7660 DX11 integrated GPU and there is also a rumour of the possibility of an additional dedicated GPU based on the Radeon 7670. The next Xbox is rumoured to have a GPU based on the Radeon 6670 which is effectively the same GPU as the 7670. They just put it on a new PCB and sold it as the 7670.ResonanceSD said:
The Wii U, despite having more GPU grunt than the PS3 and XB360 is using an AMD R700 derived GPU which is from the Radeon 4000 series so is limited to DX10.1
Yeah, the issue with that would be waiting to see if AMD is still in business by then.SpAc3man said:
(http://seekingalpha.com/article/978681-graphics-wars-analyzing-the-steam-hardware-survey-numbers?source=yahoo)
and from here
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
we can see the % of people still using DX9 video cards on Steam.
Just over 4.5%.
Not supporting older system doesn not on it's own equal progress. It has everything to do with saving money though, and as long as that money is put into making things better it MAY help the medium progress.
Most titles nowadays are cross-plattform and as such have to support ~7 year old consoles anyways. They will still be held back plenty on a technological level.ResonanceSD said:
Well if they ditch the high end desktop market and stick to servers and low to mid range they will be fine.ResonanceSD said:
That stat is actually very sad considering the number of games we still get that are DX9 only.
My DX10 GPU doesn't get the love it deserves.