This is the Laws of Physics ... On Drugs [Just Cause 2] - by Scots Taffer
PigLick on 8/2/2010 at 08:00
why you little....:mad:
Eldron on 24/2/2010 at 13:54
Bad as in people who might have bought it are most likely on XP, good as in that they're developing technology around using features in dx10 that actually does something other than eyecandy.
The gpu on the 360 does have some specific features that goes beyond dx9, and in the best of worlds they can utilize features to do things faster.
bets are they're just saving time not having to write the dx9 codepath for those given features and that microsoft pats them on the back.
WingedKagouti on 24/2/2010 at 14:51
Quote Posted by Eldron
Bad as in people who might have bought it are most likely on XP,
The (
http://gamingbolt.com/2010/02/19/just-cause-2-will-not-support-windows-xp/) source I could find also noted that ~44% of (
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/) Steam users were on XP. Those stats show ~49% as DX10 capable, with an additional ~27% being DX10 capable with an OS upgrade. Being based on Steam, there's a decent chance that most of the PCs involved are in the hands of gamers.
If those stats are somewhat accurate, then it's not a bad decision. Near 50% in immedate audience with more than 75% available with an OS upgrade isn't that horrible. Especially when you consider the amount of money they'd need to code and test a DX9 version, it's probably more than the lost sales from not supporting DX9.
june gloom on 24/2/2010 at 15:02
And at the very least, with Windows 7 seeming to be far and away a massive improvement on Vista, an upgrade doesn't seem so bitter a pill.
gunsmoke on 25/2/2010 at 11:33
My gaming PC has XP SP3 installed, but I own Vista (it is on my laptop). I guess I could put Vista on one of my harddrives and boot into it for that game. More work than a typical game, but not out of the question if the game is good enough.
catbarf on 25/2/2010 at 11:53
I don't see why people complain about games being DX10 only and wanting to stick with DX9. XP is nine years old- imagine someone trying to use Windows 3.1 in 2001. Technology's going to progress and Windows 7 addresses the whole upgrade-is-a-downgrade complaint.
Matthew on 25/2/2010 at 15:31
As an aside, that's an interesting example to take given that Windows 3.11 was still actually officially supported by Microsoft in 2001 - up until 31/12/2001 as a matter of fact. XP on the other hand has already ended its mainstream support period in April of last year.
The question however was more one of wondering what percentage of the market is currently still using XP, and of those how many are of the 'I'll wait for SP1' mindset regarding Windows 7, versus how supporting it might have cost more for the developers. It makes no difference to me in any event as I already have Win7, but it's interesting to speculate.
Jason Moyer on 26/2/2010 at 02:37
If Just Cause were Mass Effect 3 or something, I'd consider upgrading to Windows 7 for it. As it stands, I still have no real reason to change my operating system from XP.
Al_B on 4/3/2010 at 01:10
Quote Posted by Matthew
As an aside, that's an interesting example to take given that Windows 3.11 was still actually officially supported by Microsoft in 2001 - up until 31/12/2001 as a matter of fact. XP on the other hand has already ended its mainstream support period in April of last year.
Tecnically, Windows 3.11 was still available until November 2008 ((
http://blogs.msdn.com/jcoyne/archive/2008/07/09/it-s-the-end-for-3-11.aspx) in embedded markets) and XP extended support will last until 2014. In many respects I wish they'd pull the plug sooner - at least on IE6.
