Battlefield 3 no XP support

Rack · 15 Jul 2011 at 08:27

I'm still on an e6600 2gig ram and a 4850 so DX10 makes no sense to me, I can't afford to be halving my framerates like that. I really think games should still support it, while it's long in the tooth it's good enough for Crysis and I really can't see how BF3 looks so much better than that game that I need to be left behind.

But in this case at least I've been holistically left behind. Even if it supported XP I'd still need a 64bit version, 4gigs of RAM, a better processor and a new graphics card. With JC2 I was really annoyed by the sophistic "XP is 10 years old" argument because there was really no other reason why I'd need to upgrade and the game offered no performance or graphical enhancements for it.

Martini1991 · 15 Jul 2011 at 08:59

To all those saying "XP supports everything".
If I load Windows XP to install, it BSOD's. It simply doesn't seem to support my machine.
Wish all those on XP would shut up moaning, upgrade to W7 or don't, I don't care, just don't moan about your choice.

FARGO · 15 Jul 2011 at 10:28

I'm still using XP and DX9 and will be until I can afford to build a new computer. I'm not at all frustrated by the limitations imposed - if anything BF3 is another motivating factor for me to save up and build a new machine.

I can understand some people feeling "alienated" or "let down" by the requirements needed but I'd rather the company focused all its attention on creating something with new technology - something special.

MissChief · 15 Jul 2011 at 13:18

Rack said:
I'm still on an e6600 2gig ram and a 4850 so DX10 makes no sense to me, I can't afford to be halving my framerates like that. I really think games should still support it, while it's long in the tooth it's good enough for Crysis and I really can't see how BF3 looks so much better than that game that I need to be left behind.

But in this case at least I've been holistically left behind. Even if it supported XP I'd still need a 64bit version, 4gigs of RAM, a better processor and a new graphics card. With JC2 I was really annoyed by the sophistic "XP is 10 years old" argument because there was really no other reason why I'd need to upgrade and the game offered no performance or graphical enhancements for it.

So games should still support DOS, Windows 3.11, 95, 98, XP, ME and every other OS ever? just to allow you to not upgrade?

Tombo · 15 Jul 2011 at 13:46

Crysis was originally 9 and had 10 added later on I thought (before demo and release obviously) It's not about can't be done in DX9 just dev time.

Klo · 15 Jul 2011 at 13:55

Tombo said:
Crysis was originally 9 and had 10 added later on I thought (before demo and release obviously) It's not about can't be done in DX9 just dev time.

Crysis came out in 2007. This is 2011, and the BF3 technology is considerably beyond Crysis technology.

Klo · 15 Jul 2011 at 14:01

Rack said:
I'm still on an e6600 2gig ram and a 4850 so DX10 makes no sense to me, I can't afford to be halving my framerates like that. I really think games should still support it, while it's long in the tooth it's good enough for Crysis and I really can't see how BF3 looks so much better than that game that I need to be left behind.

But in this case at least I've been holistically left behind. Even if it supported XP I'd still need a 64bit version, 4gigs of RAM, a better processor and a new graphics card. With JC2 I was really annoyed by the sophistic "XP is 10 years old" argument because there was really no other reason why I'd need to upgrade and the game offered no performance or graphical enhancements for it.

Then don't play the game? If you don't think upgrading is worth it, don't blame the developers for pushing technology. When Windows XP came out, I doubt you were using Windows 3.1, so why is it suddenly an issue now?

Squark · 15 Jul 2011 at 14:50

Klo said:
Crysis came out in 2007. This is 2011, and the BF3 technology is considerably beyond Crysis technology.

Also BF3 has been built from the start to incorporate and utilise DX11 features, rather than just patching a few pretties in after the fact.

Tombo · 15 Jul 2011 at 15:07

Psst. my point.

Ravenger · 15 Jul 2011 at 15:13

It's far easier to write games in DX10/11 than DX9, due to the pipeline improvements made in DX10. There are things in DX9 which are tricky to do, or which suffer from poor performance compared to doing the same thing in DX10/11.

It's also far easier just to dump DX9 and concentrate on DX10/11 so you don't have to support legacy hardware and OSes, which simplifies both your codebase, and your tech support after the game is released.

Hellsmk2 · 15 Jul 2011 at 16:26

~>Dg<~ said:
Davepen yeah i get the advancing thing but the thing is how do you know that is the whole reason why dx9 was not added

your taking what dice have said as gospel games companies never lie

it may well be down to advancement but nobody only dice know if its the real reason.

could be problems with the newer engine running in dx9 which would cause more problems than its worth to ratio of sales money earned from dx9 customers so its not worth adding it for that sole reason . i think this is the real reason its not added and not the cause its advancement lark.

you would not alienate 20 percent of your customer base with out very very good reason.

Screw the 20% - they're lagging waaaay behind and their PC's won't be able to run most modern games anyway.

Let's face it, the overwhelming majority of XP users aren't gamers, so why bother catering for a demographic that was never going to buy the game anyway?

Any real gamer would not have a rig with xp as there primary gaming rig. Simple as.

Cycrow · 15 Jul 2011 at 17:27

~>Dg<~ said:
i think its just the simple fact is they could add direct x9 support very easily as it is a very similar engine and the reason they haven't we don't know .

they can spin all the moving forward and other tripe but unless you know why they did it then all other writings is just pure guess work.

by not including dx9 they have lost possibly 20 percent of the pc market straight away that's a very large reason and i would indeed like to know why and how this decision was made to risk such a high amount in sales.

i think its simply down to support and issues maybe out weighing sales ( man power times money spent solving said issues ) not the spin that they are advancing.

no big games company like ea or activision would throw that amount of sales out the window just for the gamers love

what makes you think its so easy to add legacy support ?

you were complaining earlier that DX11 games dont really have much improvements. But this is mainly coz they were still catering for DX9 and essentially tacked on some DX11 features on top for those that can run it.

a proper DX10/11 only engine can be designed from the ground up to take full advantage of the new features that wouldn't have been considered previously

most of the current Dx11 games just had the support added as an afterthrought built on top of a DX9 engine, so its not a true indication of what it can do

Rack · 16 Jul 2011 at 22:31

Klo said:
Then don't play the game? If you don't think upgrading is worth it, don't blame the developers for pushing technology. When Windows XP came out, I doubt you were using Windows 3.1, so why is it suddenly an issue now?

It's an issue because it's premature, the upgrade from DOS to 95 was a pretty big deal. XP still works, there's not a single feature in Battlefield 3 that calls for more. If and when that happens, then that's understandable. Till then, even Vista isn't 5 years old there are plenty of capable systems being pushed to upgrade to an OS that offers absolutely no benefit.

Mr Krugga · 16 Jul 2011 at 22:48

Cycrow said:
what makes you think its so easy to add legacy support ?

you were complaining earlier that DX11 games dont really have much improvements. But this is mainly coz they were still catering for DX9 and essentially tacked on some DX11 features on top for those that can run it.

a proper DX10/11 only engine can be designed from the ground up to take full advantage of the new features that wouldn't have been considered previously

most of the current Dx11 games just had the support added as an afterthrought built on top of a DX9 engine, so its not a true indication of what it can do

True story, just look how well Just Cause 2 is optimised for PCs.

orderoftheflame · 16 Jul 2011 at 22:55

Rack said:
It's an issue because it's premature, the upgrade from DOS to 95 was a pretty big deal. XP still works, there's not a single feature in Battlefield 3 that calls for more. If and when that happens, then that's understandable. Till then, even Vista isn't 5 years old there are plenty of capable systems being pushed to upgrade to an OS that offers absolutely no benefit.

No benefit? Have you tried using 64 bit XP? It's awful. You've got to go with Vista or 7 unless you want constant problems with it.

Not being ram limited is a humungous benefit as far as I'm concerned.

Number_25 · 16 Jul 2011 at 23:18

I don't understand why people are moaning about this, the operating system is 10 years old for crying out loud.

~>Dg<~ · 16 Jul 2011 at 23:36

i think the thing is while yes dx11 is new or newish there is no real reason to not use a option for dx9.

now before all the boo boys cry out ten year old os so what !

its a large percent of the market. pc is a niche market now compared to consoles and so on so to further it your going to disallow one of the biggest groups of players from that platform.

that does not make sense one bit . like said if in business you aim to make money so something in the game is the reason they re doing this not for the love of pc.

look at the amount of pc games that are dx10 or 11 only .

why would you dismiss the leading platform at the moment and for the next year at least ?

before all the ragers jump in and say upgrade your pc i am and will have w7 on it but only to play bf3.

read this post back in two years time and you know that still 90 percent of games will still be direct x 9.

you wont have any different until new consoles arrive and you have a minimum of two years for that minimum.

anyway its been emotional

SkScotchegg · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:15

Just because its not supported doesnt mean it wont work...I've installed loads of software other the years that hasnt been supported by my OS or vice versa and they've still worked.

I bet you anything that BF3 works just fine on XP when its released.

Squark · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:25

SkScotchegg said:
Just because its not supported doesnt mean it wont work...I've installed loads of software other the years that hasnt been supported by my OS or vice versa and they've still worked.

I bet you anything that BF3 works just fine on XP when its released.

You REALLY dont understand

Xp doesn't do DX10/11, only Dx9 and lower

BF3 ONLY runs in Dx10/11

BF3 CANNOT run in XP, it's not a matter of it being 'untested' 'or unsupported', IT WONT RUN

coupe69 · 17 Jul 2011 at 00:33

lolxp