Halo 2: Vista only

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2006-02-09 12:16pm

Halo fans will have to upgrade their computer if they want to follow Master Chief's adventures on the PC.

Microsoft has announced that the PC version of Halo 2 will only work on the new version of Windows called Vista. The decision could make it expensive for many to play the game if they have to buy the new version of Windows and extra hardware for their PC.

Microsoft has given no definite release date for Vista but it is expected to be available by the end of 2006.

Deciding to make the best-selling Halo 2 Xbox game a Vista-only title is likely driven by Microsoft's desire to get people upgrading to the new version of the Windows. Minimum specifications for Vista (formerly called Longhorn) will be released in the summer but information gathered from reviews of pre-release versions have given clues about its hunger for computer power.

With Vista, Microsoft has made big changes to the way it handles graphics. Unlike other versions of Windows, it will need an advanced video card to get the most out of it. It is also likely to demand a lot of computer memory and a sizeable hard drive. While these requirements are likely to be met by dedicated players who want to get the most out of games, many less keen players could struggle to comply.

The decision to make only a Vista version of the best-selling Halo 2 game could significantly stunt the games appeal.

The Vista edition of Halo 2 will offer single and multi-player versions of the game, extra maps from add-on packs as well as software tools to create new places to play.

To date Microsoft has sold more than 14.5 million copies of the Halo games. Players have also racked up more than 600 million hours of multiplayer Halo gaming on the Xbox Live service.

Any bets as to how long it'll take for it to be hacked to run on XP?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-02-09 12:17pm

If they make Halo 2 require certain Vista-only APIs to run, then hacking it will do no good.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-02-09 12:41pm

Spot the killer app Microsoft is trying to use to sell Vista

information gathered from reviews of pre-release versions have given clues about its hunger for computer power.

What the hell where they smoking? Vista doesnt require that much computing power. This is probably referring to needing a real video card (as in something better than a Geforce4 variant) and the masive memory leak a few componets had for a while.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2006-02-09 12:53pm

Yea, I'm a little confused about the whole "Vista is going to devour your PC's soul!" bit people have been pushing. Even some of the "bog-standard" Dells I've been quoting would handle Vista right now, considering Dell's been running specials a 1 gig of RAM. It would run it even better if the customer spent an aditional $100 for a better videocard.

I'm just hoping MS doesn't push Vista too hard (good luck, right?). I waited to upgrade to XP Pro at home until after the whole SP2 debacle was said and done. I don't like beta testing software I pay for.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-09 01:01pm

Wait ... there's going to be a PC version of Halo 2?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-09 01:32pm

Durandal wrote:Wait ... there's going to be a PC version of Halo 2?

Apparently so, according to this source.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-02-09 01:36pm

Halo 2 is the product of 2001 technology, and its going to require 2006 technology to run on the PC.

Bet its going to run just as shitty as Halo on the PC did.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-09 01:39pm

Yeah, the original Halo for PC was a joke: it required twice the hardware in order to run half as fast as competing games like the UT series, and with inferior-looking graphics to boot. It's almost as if they deliberately designed it to be a resource hog.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-02-09 01:47pm

They certainly designed it deliberately for Xbox, not PC. Porting console games can be a real bitch, especially with something that's meant to be a stellar example of what the system is capable of.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-02-09 02:01pm

And when you port to PC, you have to deal with diverse system specs. Except even the Mac port was having trouble, and Mac specs are far more similar then PC.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-02-09 02:26pm

I can't see how this will do anything but hurt sales; I have serious doubts that people will upgrade to vista for the express purpose of this game. Even if it does come with modding tools, fancy graphics and great multiplayer support.

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2006-02-09 02:47pm

ggs wrote:What the hell where they smoking? Vista doesnt require that much computing power. This is probably referring to needing a real video card (as in something better than a Geforce4 variant) and the masive memory leak a few componets had for a while.

I think a lot of people are mixing up the minimum requirements for Vista with Microsoft's "ideal" Vista specs. Kind of like how the ideal CPU for XP was a Pentium III or Athlon, yet it ran acceptably fast on Pentium IIs.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-02-09 03:45pm

Alyeska wrote:Halo 2 is the product of 2001 technology, and its going to require 2006 technology to run on the PC.

Bet its going to run just as shitty as Halo on the PC did.

I seriously hope that they upgrade the graphics to DX10 if they're going to make Halo 2 a Vista only game. It would be the perfect way to show off DX10 and SM4.0, and it would be an excellent flagship product for Vista. But, if they do it the same way they did the Halo 1 port, I'll pass.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-09 03:54pm

Alyeska wrote:And when you port to PC, you have to deal with diverse system specs. Except even the Mac port was having trouble, and Mac specs are far more similar then PC.

The Mac version got to the level of "barely playable" on my machine, which runs Unreal Tournament 2004 like butter at 1680x1050 resolution and maxed-out settings. And the Mac version was ported over from the PC version, not the Xbox version. So if the PC version was crap, it was almost a guarantee that the Mac version would be crap.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-02-09 05:04pm

Durandal wrote:
Alyeska wrote:And when you port to PC, you have to deal with diverse system specs. Except even the Mac port was having trouble, and Mac specs are far more similar then PC.
The Mac version got to the level of "barely playable" on my machine, which runs Unreal Tournament 2004 like butter at 1680x1050 resolution and maxed-out settings. And the Mac version was ported over from the PC version, not the Xbox version. So if the PC version was crap, it was almost a guarantee that the Mac version would be crap.

Opposite, really. Bungie developed Halo 1 for Mac. It was to be Mac exclusive- until Microsoft bought Bungie shortly before release, then delayed the Mac version for a year or two so they could port it to XBox and Windows and released it on the Mac last. But it was originally developed for OS X.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-02-09 05:21pm

Praxis wrote:Opposite, really. Bungie developed Halo 1 for Mac. It was to be Mac exclusive- until Microsoft bought Bungie shortly before release, then delayed the Mac version for a year or two so they could port it to XBox and Windows and released it on the Mac last. But it was originally developed for OS X.

Do you think a man with a Marathon avatar didn't know that?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-09 06:31pm

Praxis wrote:Opposite, really. Bungie developed Halo 1 for Mac. It was to be Mac exclusive- until Microsoft bought Bungie shortly before release, then delayed the Mac version for a year or two so they could port it to XBox and Windows and released it on the Mac last. But it was originally developed for OS X.

Wrong. After the initial demo at MacWorld, Halo was rewritten from scratch at least twice. Once just because they wanted to eek more performance out and once more after the Microsoft acquisition so they could get it running on the Xbox. The Xbox version was an almost completely new code-base.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-02-09 06:42pm

They can kiss my ass, I'm not upgrading to a new MS OS until I'm sure it's stable. I've never played Halo other than the PC demo, and it played/looked like shit. There's no way Halo 2 is gonna make me change OS. I'm getting a new PC sometime this year (preferably when Elder Scrolls: Oblivion comes out) and it will remain an XP system.

Instant Sunrise · Post by **Instant Sunrise** » 2006-02-09 08:20pm

Official bungie announcement-like thing

As for Halo PC, the porting was handed over to gearbox. Not Bungie themselves. This time, the port is being dome by an internal team at MGS, with help from bungie.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-02-09 09:10pm

Heh, it's announcements like this that make me remember why I'm a Bungie fanboy.

In fact, a lot of you spotted the job postings at Bungie.net asking for, "programmers who are awesome at programming Halo 2 Xbox to work on a PC," and other subtle clues.

Unfortunately, they don't give a solid word on a Mac version.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-02-10 03:10am

Durandal wrote:
Praxis wrote:Opposite, really. Bungie developed Halo 1 for Mac. It was to be Mac exclusive- until Microsoft bought Bungie shortly before release, then delayed the Mac version for a year or two so they could port it to XBox and Windows and released it on the Mac last. But it was originally developed for OS X.
Wrong. After the initial demo at MacWorld, Halo was rewritten from scratch at least twice. Once just because they wanted to eek more performance out and once more after the Microsoft acquisition so they could get it running on the Xbox. The Xbox version was an almost completely new code-base.

Really? Most interesting, thanks.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-02-10 04:19am

Durandal wrote:
Praxis wrote:Opposite, really. Bungie developed Halo 1 for Mac. It was to be Mac exclusive- until Microsoft bought Bungie shortly before release, then delayed the Mac version for a year or two so they could port it to XBox and Windows and released it on the Mac last. But it was originally developed for OS X.
Wrong. After the initial demo at MacWorld, Halo was rewritten from scratch at least twice. Once just because they wanted to eek more performance out and once more after the Microsoft acquisition so they could get it running on the Xbox. The Xbox version was an almost completely new code-base.

And I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, but I heard that the PC version sucked ass because the engine wasn't rewritten and recompiled for a true PC version, but was half runtime emulation of an X-BOX...which is why it required so much more processing power for crap.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-02-10 04:44am

Chris OFarrell wrote:And I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, but I heard that the PC version sucked ass because the engine wasn't rewritten and recompiled for a true PC version, but was half runtime emulation of an X-BOX...which is why it required so much more processing power for crap.

Sounds dubious - The Xbox uses an X86 chip, so the instruction set would be the same, no emulation necessary.

They might be referring to some system whereby API calls are translated at run time, via a glue layer, rather than being re-written. This would also slow down execution, but couldn't really be called "emulation".

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2006-02-10 05:04am

I have HL2, CS:S and BF2 and UT2007 is coming out later this year. Why should i be bothered about Halo 2?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-10 05:23am

Because it's a better shooter than any of those?[/threadjack] Allahu Akbar!