XCOM: Not compatible with Win XP.

Recommended Videos

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
Saviordd1 said:
NiPah said:
Saviordd1 said:
Who...cares?

Seriously, just get Windows 7
Or just not get XCOM, smart move on limiting the market for a game that has limited appeal already. I do agree that no one cares, now if it was a game that people cared about then people would actually complain.
You don't claim that websites not supporting extremely old versions of flash is "Limiting the market" why? It's outdated.

XP IS OUTDATED. When will everyone get that and move on, yes, vista was shit, 7 wasn't; XP is old and out of date; please stop complaining when games don't support it.
Not complaining, I honestly have 0 interest in XCOM, all this means is I won't buy it if it comes out for $10 during the Steam winter sale.
Also why would I claim anything about websites not supporting old versions of Flash? It's a two minute free download to view them and even then all you get is fancier ads and cluster fuck websites that cater to the tablet market, not to mention we were not talking about it.
(For a fun fact I'm running an older version of Flash, sadly I cannot view MySpace on it, otherwise I can view every other website)
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,597
3
43
tippy2k2 said:
Seriously? That's pretty impressive. Now again, I'm not a PC gamer so excuse my ignorance here:

From what I heard from the interweb, Crysis was supposedly the benchmark of PC gaming when it came out (was your computer 7 years old at the time or is it seven now? If it's seven now, that's not as impressive since Crysis is 5 years old).
Haha, it would have been 8 years old in a month from now, so at the time it was two years old. Crysis, however, as you said, was a benchmark of PC gaming. Many modern games don't reach its requirements to run on Maximum settings, and XCOM is unlikely to be an exception.

Anyway, my question is: How much does it cost for you to keep that thing updated enough to run modern games? It just seems like at some point, it would be much cheaper for you to just buy a new rig (which would come with the new Windows) than it would be to sink money into the old system.
To simply run modern games, absolutely nothing. I put an initial investment of about $1000 into it, and it served me faithfully until I decided to upgrade it last year to max out BF3, still running most games anywhere between medium and highest settings. That cost me around $600 for a new CPU, Motherboard, RAM and GPU. Since then I've had a bit of spare money, so I've spent another $500 getting a second Graphics card, a 2560*1440 monitor, an SSD, a new case and a few other bits and pieces.
The price of buying an entire rig is far more than that, however. You could get a pretty poor rig in store for $600, that would struggle to run Deus Ex; HR, or you could pay for something decent and end up spending $1000 to $1500, or even better get an Alienware for between 2 and 4 thousand just because it costs a lot and that makes it sound good, but buying the parts and assembling the computer yourself is often far cheaper.
As an example, $600 at my local computer stores would net me a rig with 4Gb RAM, an i3 CPU [Maybe i5 if I'm lucky], and either inbuilt graphics, or a low end last gen GPU. For that price I managed to get an unlocked i7 CPU @ 3.4Ghz, 12Gb of RAM, a new Motherboard, Liquid Cooling for the CPU and a 560Ti 2Gb. Buying a fully built rig tends to stack on a fairly hefty assembly cost, as well as the price of the case, harddrives, cooling, disk drive, OS, sometimes M&KB - all of which you'll generally have. Its cheaper to scavenge what you already own, and augment it with a few new bits and pieces than it is to grab an entire new setup.
 

chozo_hybrid

What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets.
Jul 15, 2009
3,479
14
43
I'm new to PC gaming, but why does your version of Windows matter in terms of a game? I'd like to be enlightened if possible as this thread is confusing me a little.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,408
0
0
My apple IIe doesn't run dishonored. Join my petition for 5 1/4 floppy disk media. 5000 1.2 MFM format floppy disks shouldn't be too much to ask!
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,660
0
0
Athinira said:
ResonanceSD said:
Athinira said:
XP was a GREAT system for it's time, but here are simple facts:
1)
There is one area where XP beats newer versions of Windows, and that's backwardscompatibility with some older games (or softwares).

And if you run compatibility mode with Win7, even that disappears.
Unfortunately not. There are a lot of games that either don't run (or runs suboptimally/with glitches) in Windows Vista and 7, even with compatibility mode, and where it's difficult - or sometimes impossible - to locate an alternative fix on the internet. Compatibility mode isn't a universal solution unfortunately.
While true, the question becomes if you think maintaining a system that can run some subset of old games but not new ones than that is your prerogative. In my experience, most games can be made to run in some capacity or another. The old infinity engine games were quite problematic as the game suffered from severly low framerate in spite of the fact the system in question packed something on the order of 30 times the raw processing power (of which the game could reasonably access about 6 times what I used previously). Fiddling with direct X and running the game in windowed mode resolved the problem in full. Not perfect, but sufficient to play the game until the novelty of replaying an old favorite wore off.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
What do you expect? It was released in 1994. I mean, I always like it when games are updated to run on later systems, but...

...ohhhh. Ohhhhhh. You mean the new one. X-COM: Enemy Unknown. As apposed to the original game, X-COM - UFO Defense: Enemy Unknown. ...yeah. No. Dat's not confoosing at all
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
Best windows ever? Bahahahahahahahahaha! I remember well the wailing and gnashing of teeth that came with XP's launch and the hate for it up to 5 years later. All the guff & nonsense I've heard said about Win7 is the same guff & nonsense I heard about WinVista, WinXP, Win98 and Win95. Each of those (well, except vista, that was truly awful) was called the "best ever" for at least the first few years of the next os's life.

More on topic: Get over it and upgrade already. XP is a long-since-dead operating system. I've been running Win7x64 since day 1 and I've had no problems running anything except for some games from companies who make shit console ports, and aside from anecdotal stories from online forums (mostly people with systems too old and low powered to run the newer OS) I've never met anyone IRL who's had a problem with it.
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
Xan Krieger said:
I also use XP and I'm saddened that Company of Heroes 2 won't run on it. Hope they plan to make that compatible with XP. I do plan to get windows 7, it'll just probably be in a year or two.

Well then, I guess you'll be able to play CoH2 in a year or two then.

Twilight_guy said:
What a decade old OS won't run your game and you're forced to upgrade? THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED OR HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER AND I AM DISAPPOINT!
I can't believe my PS2 can't run ME3. Seriously man, that really got to me.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,146
0
0
chozo_hybrid said:
I'm new to PC gaming, but why does your version of Windows matter in terms of a game? I'd like to be enlightened if possible as this thread is confusing me a little.
Windows XP is no longer supported by the hardware manufacturers, this limits what hardware it can run on (or run well on) as it's no longer being properly updated/supported. Examples are video cards no longer fully (or at all) supporting it, it not supporting more than 4GB of RAM (which is required for most modern games), not fully supporting multicore processors (like the i5/i7), and not having the newer versions of Direct X (10 or 11) which games run off.

Simply put, Windows XP wont be able to run newer games in the very near future if its not already the case. The argument from some people is that most games (atleast for now), dont use Direct X 10 or 11 due to them being compatible with consoles that only use DX9, however they forget that the PC version needs to support the processor, newer cards and RAM which XP either wont use well, or wont support at all. Also, the PC version if ported correctly, shouldn't be running on 9 anyway as its made to utilize the advancements in the hardware. The fact theres a console version doesn't guarentee that the PC version isn't using the advancements of the newer DXs.
 

ascorbius

Numberwanger
Nov 18, 2009
263
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
ascorbius said:
How many people here are looking forward to windows 8? and having the "Get with the times Man!" comment when a similar thing happens...? Just sayin'
Win 8 is the Vista Cycle. Win 9 is the XP Cycle. Think of it that way. You can safely jump from XP -->7-->9? without worries. Going from ME--> vista --> Win X will just make you cry.


Oh, and no one is forcing the Windows 8 upgrade on anyone here. The topic is Win XP
I agree, XP is the subject, but it can't hurt to look at it from another view point.

Also, as with investments - Previous performance is no indicator of future success or failure. Not all alternate OS versions will be bad. Afterall in its day DOS 6.2 and Win3.1 was good, as was Win95 and Win98.. only ME was rubbish.

I was a stickler for Windows 98 for the longest time until I was forced to upgrade to WinXP - Causing MANY of my games to stop working - Fail to install etc.. Only now with Good Old Games can I actually play them again after they've been "Fixed" to work with Windows 7. I've had to purchase them again though, but I digress.

Not everyone likes to stay at the cutting edge when they have games they love and may not be able to play.. it's also true the other way, someone who's not using the Current OS can't really complain that new games won't run on their system. With New OS's come new APIs, new ways of doing things and although DirectX does a good job of remaining backwards compatible, it phases out technological dead ends after a while which some older games may have relied on.

The only true solution is to keep a PC around for each generation. Win98/WinXP/Win7 etc.. that way you can guarantee that your games will run on something and you'll have something to play new games on... Doesn't sound very practical though.

What's the answer?
Pucker up and accept the winds of change and rely on emulation or on people like GOG to make old games compatible?,
Stay in the past and accept that new games won't work?
or insist that the PC as a platform must remain 100% backwards compatible irrespective of the dead ends it'd have to keep around to achieve that?
 

Aposthebest

New member
Mar 17, 2010
50
0
0
Windows 7 is a worthy successor of the XP. It's about time people moved on.

About that, I'm more concerned that X-Com is not compatible with my region until the 12th instead. DAMN YUNKIES!





*p.s. No offence towards U.S. residents. Just to be clear.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
TheKasp said:
Andy of Comix Inc said:
...ohhhh. Ohhhhhh. You mean the new one. X-COM: Enemy Unknown. As apposed to the original game, X-COM - UFO Defense: Enemy Unknown. ...yeah. No. Dat's not confoosing at all
Well, just to circlejerk a little:

the old X-Coms have the *-* in the title, the new one does not. So not 'that' confusing *hehe*.

XCom: Enemy Unknown <-> X-Com - UFO Defense: Enemy Unknown
I was actually being a little disingenuous. It was actually called UFO Defense: Enemy Unknown, and then X-COM: UFO Defense. It was called X-COM: Enemy Unknown for the PlayStation release, but... who even knows now it was on PlayStation?

I actually have an opinion on the topic at hand. I'm glad I was pedantic and silly instead, that makes me feel like I contributed to the conversation much more constructively.
 

namhorFnodroG

New member
Nov 2, 2011
145
0
0
Well, I guess that Windows XP's lifecycle is just on the edge of death right now. It has been out for quite some time now, It isn't such a big suprise that It's gonna pass the torch I guess
 

Isalan

New member
Jun 9, 2008
687
0
0
I was running XP til about 2 weeks ago when a power cut just toasted my windows install. Lacking an XP CD I ended up using a friends copy of 7. And honestly, better in every way.

And like people say, XP is 11 years old now. Stars have been born and died in that time.

Captcha: Father Uncle. Maybe in your state, captcha.....
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,647
0
0
Fuckin' finally. PC ports that are not compatible with Xp are better optimized for PC because of the native Dx10 and Dx11 support. Something to do with the way shadows are done which makes the game run a lot faster. I forgot.
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
Realitycrash said:
[HEADING=1]NEWSFLASH[/HEADING]

There's apparently a way to get the game running on XP with some elbowgrease if you really want to.

Found a post on the Steam forums that might interest you if you're in this boat.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=33049516&postcount=1
 

Triangulon

New member
Nov 20, 2009
477
0
0
I'm actually going to kind of side with the OP here. I'm not arguing that all new releases should support XP, however this is the first game I have wanted to purchase that will not run on it. The first one. So as far as I'm concerned there is hardly a case of XP support being the exception.

Windows 7 is still £70-80 which is not exactly cheap. Once could buy several games for that. As there are many things more important for me to spend money on than my OS, couple the price tag with the effort required to back up all my files, game saves etc. then is it any wonder I haven't upgraded for ages?

It just seems harsh to me that someone should be ridiculed because they have chosen to use an operating system that although old, is still serviceable.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,776
0
0
Tohuvabohu said:
Realitycrash said:
[HEADING=1]NEWSFLASH[/HEADING]

There's apparently a way to get the game running on XP with some elbowgrease if you really want to.

Found a post on the Steam forums that might interest you if you're in this boat.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=33049516&postcount=1
Awesome. Thank you.
 

ResonanceSD

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 14, 2009
4,536
5
43
ascorbius said:
What's the answer?
Pucker up and accept the winds of change and rely on emulation or on people like GOG to make old games compatible?,
Stay in the past and accept that new games won't work?
or insist that the PC as a platform must remain 100% backwards compatible irrespective of the dead ends it'd have to keep around to achieve that?

None of the above. The answer is to get a new OS, faster than every 11 years. Windows 7 is objectively better than XP.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,659
0
0
I hear you loud and clear.

However, I must admit that, while I still use XP for embedded and pro purposes, my gaming and multimedia life has to take place in a decidedly 7 environment.

Don't get me wrong, I love XP, I hate 8.

But 7 is the mutt's nutts. Trust me.