Fair enough, yet you ignore everything else I said, included sourced statistics, well done
He made a relevant comment on part of your post, he wasn't replying to all of it, anyway those stats weren't relevant to his point.
No need for
Battlefield 3 no XP support
- Thread starter Nightglow
- Start date
He made a relevant comment on part of your post, he wasn't replying to all of it, anyway those stats weren't relevant to his point.
No need for
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
Fair enough, yet you ignore everything else I said, included sourced statistics, well done
I ignored your statistics as I already read them when me, and several other people mentioned and discussed within the first few pages of the thread. Hense why I left them, and my comment was specific to the one part of your post I disagreed with.
Have your
back.
You say "oh wait and see they'll have it cracked in weeks to work on DX9 like they did with Halo 2" which is irrelevant to the point.
Halo 2 was never a DX10 game. BF3 is being built for it from the ground up, as people have said many times already here.
It's not a case of "we'll just whip up a quicky fix, to get around the artificial ****-block that's stopping us using it on XP". It's technically not going to happen.
Last edited:
Why is there a 7 page thread just because BF3 doesn't support a 10 year old Operating System
Because people seem to feel offended at the comment of their OS being out of date and that they should upgrade. They feel that Dice have a responsibility to cater to them.
Why use jet planes when bi-planes worked just fine
Why use modern cars when the ones from 1910 worked just fine
It's about development and moving technology forwards. Not just sticking with something because it seems to work all right.
That's simply not true, almost 80% of the Steam users have DirectX 10 compatible graphics cards and if the 20% of them, that are still using Windows XP, have upgraded their Operating System, their systems would be capable of playing BF3.
What I don't understand is that you guys don't comprehend that Battlefield 3 would simply not run well on a graphics card that is not compatible with DirectX 10. Seriously, people, we're talking about Radeon 2000 and GeForce 7000 cards and older here.
Gamers who had high-end cards from these ranges have already upgraded at least once in the meantime, DirectX 10 cards have been almost exclusives for the past 5 years and anyone expecting to play a 2011 game on a card that is as old as the consoles are is kidding themselves.
The issue here is not the users that have incompatible hardware, because they would not be able to play the game anyway, but those that are reluctant to upgrade their 10 years old operating system that has not been available in retail for the past 3 years.
I MEAN WTF, Windows 7 Professional Upgrade for Students costs £38 only, you get a full licence with it if you already own Windows XP, Home Premium Upgrade for anyone is £80 or less, £70 for the Full OEM 64-bit and the Family Pack with 3 Upgrade licences is £115.
Last edited:
No wonder everyone ignores you're statistics as they're wrong because you can't read.
This is the page you're looking for
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
As of June 24.47% dx 11
As of June 67.03% dx 10
So no it alienates less than 10% of steam users by their graphics cards (they would need to update their os though), and that might just be the peggle/other casual gamers that would never buy bf3 .
Right, my bad.
The statistics I've been looking at are from May 2010
By now almost all users have upgraded their hardware to Dx10/11 which is not surprising considering the time GeForce 8800 have been around for.
It's tiny, and this point has been made already. But based on the quality of your writing skills, I'm going to assume you're reading skills are just as poor?
According the Steam hardware surveys, ~20% of users are still on XP, a small number that decreases every month. This doesn't even mean Dice are cutting out 20% of the market, it's probably much lower. Most of the "gamers" who still use XP will be playing old games such as World Of Warcraft or Counter Strike, the won't be interested in modern DX10/11 games.
New? DX11 is nearly 2 years old, DX10 is nearly 5 years old.
There are two big reasons to not use DX9: 1) Most users are capable of using the best better, much more efficient versions of DX. 2) Including DX9 means more time, effort and money to make it, and then support it. I would rather have Dice spend this time and money bug fixing before it's release rather than to cater to an outdated and ever decreasing minority.
This USED to be true about 5 years ago when vista was the new thing and there was a 'biting point' just required to run Vista.
We all know Vista is awful, and back then yes playing a game on XP would be CONSIDERABLY faster (Mostly due to Vista being badly designed with awful system resource consumption)
Nowadays it's just not worth running XP.
Sure, maybe in one or two DX9 games you'll squeeze an extra 1-3 FPS out, but hardware is incredibly fast these days that it makes no difference what you game on as now hardware has the large overhead, not the software.
Fair enough if your on Core2Due @2.2, stay on XP.
But you've NO excuse if your banging a quad core or an i-series.
None whatsoever
The Vista being crap thing was never true, the problem was that people were trying to run it on PCs unfit for it. Windows 7 now is very much Windows Vista with a new user interface and some tweaks, the only reason it seems to perform better is simply because the baseline of computer hardware is much higher than when Vista originally came out, so 7 "looks" like it runs much better, it doesn't.
I used Vista from the start, I installed it on a PC capable of running it, and therefore I had no issues with it.
Why did anyone buy a PS3 or Xbox 360? Why didn't they whinge that their PS2s and Xboxes should support PS3 and 360 games?
I agree, Vista isn't much different from Windows 7 with the latest Service Pack.
Kudos to DICE for going DX10/11. It used to be the case that occasionally a cutting-edge game would cause an leap to the next hardware level, leaving legacy technology behind, and it looks like BF3 will be the one to do it this time.
If it encourages people to ditch XP and DX9 then that's a good thing.
If it encourages people to ditch XP and DX9 then that's a good thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,188
- Location
- Chengdu
The only thing wrong with Vista originally was vendor graphics drivers, they were all absolutely shocking.
I ran it on my CoreDuo laptop on the day it came out and thought it was great, the Intel drivers were rubbish, not nearly as bad as the Nvidia/ATI offerings.
I ran it on my CoreDuo laptop on the day it came out and thought it was great, the Intel drivers were rubbish, not nearly as bad as the Nvidia/ATI offerings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
You know we had a similar thing with dx8 vs dx8.1 when bf2 came out.
It didnt work on my trusty ti4200
It didnt work on my trusty ti4200
I'm pretty sure it was only nVidia drivers that had all the problems, to the point where people were trying to get a class action lawsuit against them, funny considering how some people pretend ATi/AMD drivers never work.
I had no issues graphics drivers wise with Vista and ATi hardware, and I used quite a few different cards with Vista.
You know we had a similar thing with dx8 vs dx8.1 when bf2 came out.
It didnt work on my trusty ti4200
It's different now, though. GeForce 4 were only 3 years old when BF2 was released, GeForce 7 is already over 5 years old.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,188
- Location
- Chengdu
I'm pretty sure it was only nVidia drivers that had all the problems, to the point where people were trying to get a class action lawsuit against them, funny considering how some people pretend ATi/AMD drivers never work.
I've had the odd issue from Intel, Nvidia and AMD/ATI, it's to be expected in some cases. Can't get it right all the time! I'd say they are all as good as each other now though.
I think Nvidia's were the worst of the release Vista drivers, blue screens were quite common iirc? ATI's weren't spectacular either though. Poor drivers did cause lower benchmarks and there was much whinging...
I was just happy to be off XP.
Cheapskates?
They wouldn't have compatible hardware or paying for their software anyway.