It's true that only 20% of people on the Steam surveys are on XP so cutting them off isn't a disastrous decision but where it has wound up pretty much is. Fewer than 10% of users have a card capable of running Battlefield 3. Supporting DX9 from the off is still the only decision that makes sense because there are still just so few cards capable of pulling significant DX10/11 effects at anything resembling playable speeds.
Battlefield 3 no XP support
- Thread starter Nightglow
- Start date
It's true that only 20% of people on the Steam surveys are on XP so cutting them off isn't a disastrous decision but where it has wound up pretty much is. Fewer than 10% of users have a card capable of running Battlefield 3. Supporting DX9 from the off is still the only decision that makes sense because there are still just so few cards capable of pulling significant DX10/11 effects at anything resembling playable speeds.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
No... It's representative of the Steam stats. A wide range of gamers that are after different things from games. It is completely representative of the Market today.
XP is a minority, as are machines with 2gb ram or less.
Made up statistic is made up. What are the minimum specs for BF3?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,857
- Location
- Nottingham
Steam stats have 56% of users with DX10 cards and almost 6% of users with DX11 cards, since PC games have the ability to be run at medium or low settings, plenty of people will be able to play BF3.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,252
- Location
- RG8 9
The OS and system should go hand in hand.
Modern games require modern systems and modern operating systems.
XP is so noughties.
Modern games require modern systems and modern operating systems.
XP is so noughties.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,857
- Location
- Nottingham
For those whining about 2GB vs 4GB of RAM making no difference try running GTA4 on a Q6600 with 2GB of RAM.....truly awful!
Add 2GB more and it's playable. Literally a night and day thing!
Not to mention alt tabbing out of a game is painful with only 2GB of RAM, I don't know how anyone can still be gaming with 2GB of RAM these days.
75% of Steam users have a DX 10/11 cards. The other 25% probably aren't interested in modern titles such as BF3.
If by "play" you mean "see the menu screen and get like, 10fps on minimum at most" then yeah they've only senselessly cut off 38% of users. If you mean get an acceptable framerate with settings that look better than Quake III then you're pushing close to that 10% figure, I'm sure some people can scrape by with just slightly less than recommended settings but that's not, well, recommended. But if they'd put even the least effort into optimising it they could have made it playable to at least 90% of users.
No, they couldn't, stop living in the past.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 10,857
- Location
- Nottingham
If everyone's computer hardware was exactly the same and fixed like the 360 sure, but it's not and PC's aren't quite so easy to optimize for with lesser hardware.
I paid £400 for this 8800GTX, Crysis is badly optimised because I can't max it out at 1920x1200.
Why is the past more technically advanced than the future? I suppose it could be down to sales, the declining role of the PC and so on meaning games that once would run smoothly on a 1gig machine with a 7900 and a Pentium 4 3ghz now need a quad core 4 gig 6850 but there's no technical reason why they couldn't get the technical efficiencies of the past back, merely economic ones.
If Crysis looked markedly worse than Half-Life 2 then that would be a relevant comparison.
It's not? Battlefield 2 looks like crap now. I'm glad they've made Battlefield 3 on a new, more advanced engine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
Because people want all these fancy effects that are taking up more and more of developer's time, time which they could have spent making the game for DX9 (lol). Because we're not all prepared to wait 12 years for a video game (look at how well that turned out) I'm happy with this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2009
- Posts
- 4,629
- Location
- Maidenhead
If you have that attitude about upgrading your PC, you will never upgrade.
Because next year when you go to buy, you could get something twice as powerful for the same money the year after, so you might as well wait another year to upgrade right?
We aren't getting screwed over this, since they KNOW that most PC gamers use Vista/7. Not a big deal to upgrade now is it...It's a much better OS for one. And Windows 7 x64 is stable as a rock, not like dodgy XP x64.
Last edited:
MENTAL WINDOWS 7 PRICES
looks like a good time to upgrade that tired old OS
and just before the release of BF3
see how OcUK think of you guys!
looks like a good time to upgrade that tired old OS
and just before the release of BF3
see how OcUK think of you guys!
can people not read graphs or statistics any more? Do they not teach this in schools nowadays?
67% of steam users have a dx10 card
and a further 24.47% have a dx 11 card
only 8.5% of steam users don't have a dx 10 + card.