Shattered Horizon: First game that drops Windows XP support

[Bounty]

Oh, so you deny Microsoft's abuse of their dominant market position?

In what way? They've been slapped down by the courts for stuff like IE and WMP being bundled, but that has no bearing on their release policy for new OS's. Microsoft is a software company, they release a new piece of software, they continue to support the older piece of software it replaces for years to come, and they have in the past continued to support software that was generations out of date. I don't see what more they can do to offer their consumers a choice in the matter. Yes, choosing not to make XP an option during the early Vista days was a blunder, but you can't blame a company for offering its newest software as part of a bundle.

What are you, and idiot or just a MS fanwhore? Probably both, really.

Ah yes, not jumping on a three-year-old 'lol new MS OS suxx0rs' bandwagon = MS fanwhore. I suppose you spell it 'mirco$$hit' too in private correspondence.

I'm not a fanwhore of anything. I'm just a guy who wants to use a computer. I used XP back when it was bundled with my first computer, switched to Linux because it worked better, and now use 7 for my desktop and Puppy for my laptop because each is suited to the hardware and what I need to do. I suppose that makes me a fanwhore of... convenience?

As for sitting on my thumbs, tell me, why is it so imperative that I switch right now?

Back-peddle faster? You said:

I'll wait for a while (maybe a year or two) to see how the OS performs, and to avoid major problems that might crop up while it is still new.

In other words, you are happy to ignore every single independent report of how the OS works in favour of a preconceived notion that it must suck (and don't give me that 'Vista sucked, so there' BS: you can read and you have an internet connection, so you can get actual information on the quality of 7. No need to wait for hearsay). This isn't about being forced to upgrade: you are "looking forward" to 7 (and I'm sure some of your friends use it), but you won't try it because of... uhm... ?

Microsoft's metaphorical gun to the public's head is the mass hype campaign they've put out to convince as many people as possible that life will end if they don't upgrade

Evidence plz.

Unless you are now blaming Microsoft for marketing a product they have poured a lot of money into.

But hey, since these practises are not documented at all, I guess you can keep bitching and moaning.

We should add an "appeal to Mike" fallacy somewhere, because nowhere in that rant (which, apart from being written a full year before 7 became public, is about Linux and Windows as operating systems, not the company) does he say anything about Microsoft's business practices.

[Sarevok]

In Bountys book it is ok to be evil as long as you are technically not breaking any laws.

[Bounty]

In Bountys book it is ok to be evil as long as you are technically not breaking any laws.

I have no idea what you're going on about here, or why it is even remotely relevant to the discussion.

[Netko]

I certainly agree that OpenGL needs to get it's collective shit together to keep up, and can't blame hardware vendors for not devoting resources to what is perceived as a second-rate API. I just have a faint glimmer of hope that with all the shit that is going on with propietary platforms, DX, and the like, more developers (Specially start ups) start considering alternatives, and thus allow for more diversity in the market. Time will tell.

Its far more likely that any startup with even a smidgen of business sense will go for the platform that offers them most ease of programming while allowing them to have as large as possible target market - which is DirectX by a mile on the programming difficulty, and it allows targeting the PC and XBOX360, which together represent a majority of the market, and all that with very low porting difficulty.

Even id, OpenGL fanwhores if there ever was one, found it economically impossible to be OpenGL only for their next engine (Tech5) do to the lower marketability of such an engine to third parties. They're still halfhearted at it (for now, publicly promising only DX9 support for the stupid "I <3 XP" reason), but I'll bet you almost anything that their next engine will be DX10 or 11 based, with an OpenGL secondary rendering path for old times sakes (and PS3's clusterfuck programming model) - nothing else makes sense from an economic perspective. Ironically, that pretty much shows the opposite of your claim - its not the existing companies that are using DX for legacy reasons that aren't switching to OGL, its the companies that have been using OGL that are reluctant to switch to DX, but are slowly switching (or adding) because of market pressures.

With DirectX Microsoft is yet again rubbing Sony, Khronos Group (OpenGL), et all's noses in the simple fact of "Developers, developers, developers" ie. if you provide the best tools to interact and program for your platform, a competitor's marginal superiority on technical merits while being horrendous to use (see: PS3, OpenGL) is worth far far less.

[Dooey Jo]

Personally I think OpenGL is way better. It is much easier to learn and use. Problem is OpenGL has not seen much updates in last 5 years. Even though OpenGL can almost match best capabilities of Directx graphics it has fallen out of favor for some reason. Hopefully arrival of OpenGL 3 will change that.

OpenGL 3 removes all that "easy to learn" stuff, although it's still vastly easier to use than DirectX. Bye bye "draw shit here", hello "shove vertex buffers through shader programs". DirectX has been doing this since like D3D8 or something though, so it shouldn't be hard for people who are already used to it to switch, if they wanted to. Hell all "real" OpenGL developers have been doing it since years ago anyway, through extensions (which everyone thinks are sooo difficult to use, except they're not unless you're stupid and write your own loading routines instead of using a library like GLee or GLEW).

Its far more likely that any startup with even a smidgen of business sense will go for the platform that offers them most ease of programming while allowing them to have as large as possible target market - which is DirectX by a mile on the programming difficulty, and it allows targeting the PC and XBOX360, which together represent a majority of the market, and all that with very low porting difficulty.

Oh bullshit. Windows and Xbox are the only platforms you can easily target through DirectX, while OpenGL has implementations on pretty much everything else, from NDS and Wii, to PS3 and iPhone. Indeed, many small startups these days use OpenGL to develop gimmicky games on the iPhone.

Even id, OpenGL fanwhores if there ever was one, found it economically impossible to be OpenGL only for their next engine (Tech5) do to the lower marketability of such an engine to third parties.

Even id Tech 3 could use DirectX. I haven't looked at the code, but since they're pretty big on portability, it's very likely that they've heavily abstracted all rendering stuff and can use whatever's available on the platform, without having to write anything but a new rendering implementation.

They're still halfhearted at it (for now, publicly promising only DX9 support for the stupid "I <3 XP" reason), but I'll bet you almost anything that their next engine will be DX10 or 11 based, with an OpenGL secondary rendering path for old times sakes (and PS3's clusterfuck programming model) - nothing else makes sense from an economic perspective. Ironically, that pretty much shows the opposite of your claim - its not the existing companies that are using DX for legacy reasons that aren't switching to OGL, its the companies that have been using OGL that are reluctant to switch to DX, but are slowly switching (or adding) because of market pressures.

They are not using 10 because it didn't have anything they needed. It would be stupid to use it just to be "teh coolz". There isn't anything really new in 10 or 11, except for Geometry Shaders, which turned out to be not that useful, and which OpenGL 3 can use anyway, without having to rely on any particular operating system...

[Oskuro]

Yes, choosing not to make XP an option during the early Vista days was a blunder, but you can't blame a company for offering its newest software as part of a bundle.

But I can blame it for being dihonest and for continually trying to take unfair advantage of their market position.

I'm not a fanwhore of anything. I'm just a guy who wants to use a computer. I used XP back when it was bundled with my first computer, switched to Linux because it worked better, and now use 7 for my desktop and Puppy for my laptop because each is suited to the hardware and what I need to do. I suppose that makes me a fanwhore of... convenience?

Then you're an idiot who has ignored how I have said myself that convenience trumps getting the latest realease, and who even states that MS software isn't bad per-se, just that I dislike their methods.

This isn't about being forced to upgrade: you are "looking forward" to 7 (and I'm sure some of your friends use it), but you won't try it because of... uhm... ?

Again, you're an idiot. I dont need to upgrade now. I'm looking forward to Win7 as an eventual upgrade once compatible and even exclusive software is realeased, and XP phases out. But obviously you want to make me into a MS hater so you can fling shit at me. Idiot.

Also, no, none of my friends or colleagues use it. There's this whole thing about paying 300€ for a new OS when XP works fine that none of us feel comfortable about yet. And please, don't keep proving your idiocy by mentioning bundled OS, that requires that I actually buy a new system, wich is covered by the "my system works fine right now" bit.

Unless you are now blaming Microsoft for marketing a product they have poured a lot of money into.

It's not only MS, anyone whose marketing techniques are as dishonest will earn my distrust, wich, lately, means pretty much everyone out there with mass marketing campaigns. Of course, most other marketers are not sitting on a product so prevalent that most consumers are left with little choice but to bite the bullet, there's where that bit about abusing market position comes up. But according to you it's all right.

We should add an "appeal to Mike" fallacy somewhere, because nowhere in that rant (which, apart from being written a full year before 7 became public, is about Linux and Windows as operating systems, not the company) does he say anything about Microsoft's business practices.

In all fairness, I was originally going to post a link to the "What's So bad About Microsoft" page, and went to Mike's page looking for the link, and then read the following paragraph wich kind of matches my opinion on the issue (as well as the rest of the rant matches my opinion that an OS is just a product, but I digress) and so decided to link the rant page, but unfortunately couldn't link directly to the paragraph in question, so here it is:

Microsoft is a corporate entity: a person for most legal intents and purposes, and so it can be judged as a person for its conduct and history. And that person is a dishonest, scheming bastard.
In the interest of brevity, I won't reproduce the Internet's voluminous arguments about how Microsoft's history is filled with deceit, antitrust violations, and general skullduggery since you can easily look those up for yourself (they were actually convicted of those crimes in a US court, but then the Bush Administration came to power and gave them a slap on the wrist for punishment). But I will list a few websites:

Humorix: a humourous Linux advocacy site.

What's So Bad About Microsoft? A discussion of Microsoft's crimes and harmful intents.

The Anti-Microsoft List: a sorted DMOZ list of anti-Microsoft websites.

The interesting thing about Microsoft is that many years ago when my website first went up, a lot of people E-mailed me in order to vehemently defend Microsoft as a corporate entity. Today, I can't even recall the last time I got an E-mail in opposition to my anti-Microsoft attitude. Most of Windows' defenders acknowledge that Microsoft engages in shady business practices, but they treat it as a necessary evil that you have to live with. Those who defend it pretty much ignore its corporate behaviour entirely and focus on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as if a private charity organization started by Bill Gates at the urging of his wife Melinda and financed with his private fortune really has anything at all to do with the corporate conduct of Microsoft.

Of course I was talking about pages that document Microsoft's bussiness practises, wich this page does, thus proving yet again that you're an idiot, of the dishonest kind that attempts to smear people rather than pay attention to what they are saying. Was that an Ad Hominem fallacy? I'm not sure, I suck at remembering the fallacies almost as much as you suck conjuring up new ones to suit your purposes.

[charlemagne]

There's this whole thing about paying 300€ for a new OS when XP works fine that none of us feel comfortable about yet.

Alright, this is slightly offtopic but I just really wonder why people think it's that expensive. You can get Win7 Ultimate for exactly half that prize, it's €149,95 for the 64 Bit OEM version on Amazon (DE), and €112,95 for Win7 Pro. Would you actually buy retail instead of OEM so you can call the Microsoft hotline?

[Oskuro]

Actually, that's the price of the retail box I've seen. As for OEM, I've been informed by several retailers that they can only provide that bundled with a new computer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Actually, that's the price of the retail box I've seen. As for OEM, I've been informed by several retailers that they can only provide that bundled with a new computer.

Some retailers might sell it with a more limited piece of hardware such as a hard disk or a motherboard. I haven't checked if that is still done, but it was quite common with XP OEM versions a few years back.

As for D3D versus OpenGL; regardless of the current state of the APIs, it is nevertheless clear that Direct 3D was created primarily out of Microsoft's desire to control the gaming market and tie the developers to their proprietary technology. It was the latter of the two standard market control strategies MS employed in the 1990s: either "embrace and extend" (to incompatibility with the original open standards) or "roll your own" and market it as the superior "Windows compatible" solution. Direct 3D5 and D3D6 sucked, but developers were forced to use them anyways, since their managers believed that it would be necessary in order to be compatible with Windows. In those days PC gaming still mattered to the industry as a whole, and after DOS gaming faded out circa 1997, PC gaming required Windows compatibility.

Of course D3D got better, eventually, while OpenGL stagnated and Microsoft had once again strengthened its controlling market position. Brilliant strategy, really, but that does not mean I have to like it it from an ethical point of view.

[Bounty]

<snip long stream of pissy bullshit>

I'm not even sure what you are trying to achieve here except make yourself look like a drooling moron, but here goes anyway:

But I can blame it for being dihonest and for continually trying to take unfair advantage of their market position.

You still need to explain how selling a piece of software is "dishonest". And when did this turn into the trial of Microsoft? Am I supposed to be the company's knight in shining armour just because I use their OS?

Then you're an idiot who has ignored how I have said myself that convenience trumps getting the latest realease, and who even states that MS software isn't bad per-se, just that I dislike their methods.

Try to stay on-topic for two consecutive sentences. You accuse me of being an MS fanwhore (très 2003, by the way), I point out that I'm not, you... don't seem capable of processing a simple English sentence.

Note the subtle distinction here: when someone uses "I" in a sentence, they are talking about themselves, not you. This may explain the confusion you feel at weddings everytime someone says "I do". Me pointing out I (that's me, not you) am not a Microsoft fanwhore has no bearing on your feelings about corporations.

Again, you're an idiot. I dont need to upgrade now. I'm looking forward to Win7 as an eventual upgrade once compatible and even exclusive software is realeased, and XP phases out. But obviously you want to make me into a MS hater so you can fling shit at me. Idiot.

Compatible software: already out, you'll struggle to find aything even remotely mainstream that won't run.
Exclusive software: oh you joker you. We're only just starting to see software that won't run on XP after what, eight years? Enjoy the wait.

But all this is irrelevant. You don't want to try Windows 7; that's fine. Really. Hell, I encourage people to keep using XP when they're comfortable with it, too. See, what gets me is that you don't say "I don't want to upgrade yet"; you have to coat it into grandstanding rants about how the operating system is broken on launch and needs a service pack (it isn't, and it doesn't); how there's no compatible software (there is); how you're being forced to upgrade (you're not); et cetera. It's copy-pasted straight out of the Vista playbook, and the only thing it shows is that you are still clinging on to a 2004 bandwagon that by now has lost a wheel and is heading straight for the tree of obsolescence.

Also, no, none of my friends or colleagues use it.

That one sailed right over your head, didn't it?

There's this whole thing about paying 300€ for a new OS when XP works fine that none of us feel comfortable about yet.

Then... don't? Just don't be a lying douche about it.

And please, don't keep proving your idiocy by mentioning bundled OS, that requires that I actually buy a new system, wich is covered by the "my system works fine right now" bit.

I'm sorry, next time I'm talking about my experiences in 2003 I'll be sure not to mention something hurts your wittle feelings.

It's not only MS, anyone whose marketing techniques are as dishonest will earn my distrust, wich, lately, means pretty much everyone out there with mass marketing campaigns. Of course, most other marketers are not sitting on a product so prevalent that most consumers are left with little choice but to bite the bullet, there's where that bit about abusing market position comes up. But according to you it's all right.

I'm not even sure what you're going on about here. Microsoft markets 7; so does every company with a product. They are the biggest fish in the market; well, yeah, that tends to happen when there's very little viable competition. Am I supposed to be outraged by that? Am I supposed to shun Microsoft because they have a large market share?

I'm just not seeing the reasoning here. They market and sell a good product, I buy and use it. If I don't want to buy it, I have alternatives, but they may not suit my needs. This is all pretty basic stuff.

And again you come up with the gem of people being "forced" to do anything, which you haven't explained or defended.

In all fairness, I was originally going to post a link to the "What's So bad About Microsoft" page, and went to Mike's page looking for the link, and then read the following paragraph wich kind of matches my opinion on the issue (as well as the rest of the rant matches my opinion that an OS is just a product, but I digress) and so decided to link the rant page, but unfortunately couldn't link directly to the paragraph in question, so here it is:

Your failure to use quote tags is not my concern, nor is your delusion that anyone reading your posts telepathically knows which paragraph you refer to. Not that the articles linked to within that rant are all that relevant today; excuse me if you I don't let the death of DrDOS influence my decision to buy 7.

But that's all completely irrelevant bullshit. All this started when you came out swinging and spouted factually incorrect information about 7, then went off the handle when this was pointed out. If you want to keep up this tantrum, by all means, just don't expect people to humour you with coherent answer to incoherent screeching.

[Oskuro]

Oh, cut the crap Bounty. You've been trying to paint me as an anti-MS zealot since your first mocking point, and failed to realize that I do agree with Windows being a piece of software to be used when it is useful, but disagree with the methods used by MS to market its products. Two distinct issues that you have throuroughly ignored to be able to take shots at me.

[Netko]

Oh bullshit. Windows and Xbox are the only platforms you can easily target through DirectX, while OpenGL has implementations on pretty much everything else, from NDS and Wii, to PS3 and iPhone. Indeed, many small startups these days use OpenGL to develop gimmicky games on the iPhone.

In this thread we were, of course, talking about graphically high-end platforms, as is obvious from the OP and all the responses. If you want to develop a game for even a Wii, not to mention the handhelds, you're going to have to develop a whole new game, so the API/engine choice for the PC/PS3/XBOX360 version of the game doesn't impact that choice. In that high-end space, DirectX is a very sensible choice for the ease of portability between two of the platforms, as seen by a huge amount of XBOX360 games being ported to Windows, far more then earlier console generations.

Even id Tech 3 could use DirectX. I haven't looked at the code, but since they're pretty big on portability, it's very likely that they've heavily abstracted all rendering stuff and can use whatever's available on the platform, without having to write anything but a new rendering implementation.

You're right, it could use DX, but it was definitely a second-class renderer. With Tech5, they're claiming first-class parity between OGL and DX. As far as the engine structure goes, you're probably right in id's case, but for most other developers, I would expect a much more tight coupling between the renderer and the rest of the engine. MS hasn't developed Direct3D 10 Level 9 (an wrapper that enables all the DX10 features on DX9 cards, albeit at horrible performance) because developers like multiple renderers.

They are not using 10 because it didn't have anything they needed. It would be stupid to use it just to be "teh coolz". There isn't anything really new in 10 or 11, except for Geometry Shaders, which turned out to be not that useful, and which OpenGL 3 can use anyway, without having to rely on any particular operating system...

This is an example of MS's focus on developers - as evidenced by things like D3D 10 Level 9, yes, technically, there isn't much you couldn't do with 9 that you can do in 10 or 11, but both of them are much cleaner specifications that are easier to learn for a beginner then 9 and offer another step up on the "How?" to "What?" ladder. In other words, with each new abstraction, things move more from a question of "How do you do this?" to "What do you want to do?" which is great because it lets the developer focus on the important stuff while letting the framework/platform take care of the boring technical bits and, quite often (especially when developers aren't the best), allowing for better optimization of the code. The newer DirectXs (Direct3Ds), along with all the infrastructure that was deployed with them, are definitely a step in that direction.

[Bounty]

Oh, cut the crap Bounty. You've been trying to paint me as an anti-MS zealot since your first mocking point, and failed to realize that I do agree with Windows being a piece of software to be used when it is useful, but disagree with the methods used by MS to market its products. Two distinct issues that you have throuroughly ignored to be able to take shots at me.

And the little internet flame warriro scuttles away butthurt and crying. At least you admit you had nothing to say in the first place.

[Sarevok]

Microsoft forces you to buy new operating systems to play games your computer can already play. That is pretty evil in itself. I will never forgive them for making me install Halo 2 on my laptop when I could have played it on my far more powerful desktop with windows XP. Can you imagine paying for an entire operating system just to play a single videogame ?

[Xon]

Microsoft forces you to buy new operating systems to play games your computer can already play.

But the software is incompatible.

And it is a common business case to buy an entire new machine and upgrade the OS distribution than to retrofit the new stuff onto existing shit you simply can't affort to change in any way shape or form. As a rule, Microsoft does not introduce breaking feature changes (or new features) in a service pack. That is reserved for a major version increase.

Can you imagine paying for an entire operating system just to play a single videogame ?

People have seriously short memories. 5-10 years ago, it wasn't unusual to upgrade your entire computer to be able to play the cutting edge games. Compared to that, an OS licence is damn cheap.

Even these days there are entire gaming systems which require upgrading every +5 years, and are called consoles.

[Sarevok]

That's not the point. You could have a powerful computer bought in 2007 and not be able to play a game like Halo 2. That is the travesty. In the old days you upgraded because a 1997 Pentium 1 233 MHZ was a joke compared to a 933 MHZ Pentium 3 in year 2000. Now you could have a solid machine yet be locked out of gaming because of microsiths whims.

[loomer]

Microsoft forces you to buy new operating systems to play games your computer can already play. That is pretty evil in itself. I will never forgive them for making me install Halo 2 on my laptop when I could have played it on my far more powerful desktop with windows XP. Can you imagine paying for an entire operating system just to play a single videogame ?

...or you could not play Halo 2. Shocking concept, isn't it? That's what I did, and instead I played basically every other game that came out and took my fancy since they'd run on XP anyway, just with slightly less pretty.

Oh, of course, its not worth playing new games without the pretty, and Halo 2 is clearly the only game ever made since DX10 dropped! One game = ALL OF GAMING!

[Sarevok]

...or you could not play Halo 2. Shocking concept, isn't it? That's what I did, and instead I played basically every other game that came out and took my fancy since they'd run on XP anyway, just with slightly less pretty.

Oh, of course, its not worth playing new games without the pretty, and Halo 2 is clearly the only game ever made since DX10 dropped! One game = ALL OF GAMING!

Computers perfectly capable of running games being locked out by software makers choice. You don't see anything bad with that ?

[loomer]

Frankly, in this extremely limited case, no. It affected like, one, maybe two games, not every DX10 capable game.

[Sarevok]

That was then. Now every game that uses DX10 is going to run only on vista and later. It is this insidious move to suddenly force an unnecessary upgrade that I don't like.

[Bounty]

Now every game that uses DX10 is going to run only on vista and later.

Have you read the title of this thread? The one that says the very first game to drop XP support was released just now, three years after the launch of Vista, and concurrent with the launch of 7, Vista's replacement?

You can't write ignorance like this. For your next trick, will you whine that Office has dropped Windows 3.11 support?

[loomer]

That was then. Now every game that uses DX10 is going to run only on vista and later. It is this insidious move to suddenly force an unnecessary upgrade that I don't like.

Why don't you go find me a source to back that up, friend? I'll accept just a few - announcements from major studios like Bethesda or Blizzard that they'll no longer have DX9 support in any form, for instance.

vv
Sarevok, every other major game to come out before now has had DX9 support. Your prophesied chain of events hasn't happened - hell, it's up to DX11 now.

[Sarevok]

Have you read the title of this thread? The one that says the very first game to drop XP support was released just now, three years after the launch of Vista, and concurrent with the launch of 7, Vista's replacement?

What are you talking about ?

DX10 exclusivity to windows vista and later is a bad thing as developers flock to it they automatically malign gamers without vista.

Is that too difficult to understand for that pea brain of yours ?

[Sarevok]

That was then. Now every game that uses DX10 is going to run only on vista and later. It is this insidious move to suddenly force an unnecessary upgrade that I don't like.

Why don't you go find me a source to back that up, friend? I'll accept just a few - announcements from major studios like Bethesda or Blizzard that they'll no longer have DX9 support in any form, for instance.

DX9 is old. Developers will move onto DX10. Just like they have from DX8 to DX9 and so on. The trend is slow now but it will pick up eventually. And as more and more DX10 games come out people will be forced to buy upgrades to play games their computer should already be able to play.

[loomer]

You are failing to convince anyone. At the current rate, there is basically no sign whatsoever of that happening for a couple more years, by which point the consumer is probably going to need an upgrade anyway. Now go find me those sources that specifically state, from this date on, as you said, that DX9 won't have ANY fresh games or sit down and shut the fuck up.