And my 2 bits on all of this... Maybe a lot of you have the money to buy Windows 7 at 112 bucks a machine and have shiny new machines that will run it. I live in south Georgia and folks down here have been really hard hit by this depression and we don't have the money to go buy new machines or Windows 7. In fact, I only know 2 gamers out of the 200 or so that I play with regularly who have Windows 7 or a machine with 6GB of RAM to run it, so yes, I think it is assinine of Paradox and Kerberos NOT to make a version playable on Windows XP. There are far more Win XP machines out there than there are Windows 7 machines and there is really nothing that Win7 can do that WinXP cannot. I am also a Game Designer myself and I know that it would take their team maybe a day (or 2) to make a patch that would allow it to run on DX9 and thus Windows XP. So, why wouldn't they do that and not alienate all of those Windows XP machines out there?? Just good common sense business to me.
1. According to Steam statistics, this simply isn't true (as far as pc belonging to gamers are involved). Statistically more gamer run Win7 than WinXP.There are far more Win XP machines out there than there are Windows 7 machines and there is really nothing that Win7 can do that WinXP cannot.
2. Can your Windows XP run 16GB memory? Didn't think so. Maybe DX10 and 11? Didn't think so either.
The REASON why sots2 need vista or win7 is because it need dx10.
now the reason why it needs dx10 is because its 5-10 times more easy to make the game run on all computers supporting dx10 than dx9 ever was you could get it to work but it took alot of time and effort.
now if you can get microsoft to release dx10 to xp you can play sots2 on xp.
as for the post that said it would take few days to get it working on dx9 sure its tru... but only in one setup then you had to add more time to get difrent configurations to work.
moving from dx9 to dx10+ is a solid plan. but forsing to use 3rd party software to patch the game because its more easy to use is total bs. its not the developpers problem to make 30+ difrent patches they need to make one and send it to the download sites its their problem to get it to work on their drm systems.
I WANT YOU TO HAVE PATIENCE NOW!!! ..... sigh..
But when you rush things, accidents can happen. And accidents never have good results for the empire.
- The SotS ][ manual on release problems... er... research accidents.
That said, it's about the consumers. Funnelling everything through the most widely-used digital distribution platform in the world right now is hardly a poor business decision. Annoying? For those who don't want to use it, sure. Poor business decision and "total bs"? Not even a little bit.
Further, are you also a programmer? Many designers are not, and designing games really doesn't mean you know about graphics engines.
Finally, Win7 certainly does not require 6GB of RAM. Min is 1gb for 32bit and 2gb for 64.
I agree completely with the OP. I prefer my excuses with a creamy filling.
Well depends on the other components a bit nighthaunt, eg graphics card, no? Which starts to add up.
I completely sympathise with you anyway demodragon. I remember trying to play Homeworld on a P233. To be honest you aint missing much, this game is very early beta, barely out of alpha and most of it doesnt work yet. My time playing this is 100% beta testing for now, there is no way to get a real game out of it IMHO and it would just be painful to try. But if fixed up like SotS1 (nearly) is, it would be sweet. So that is why I beta test, to help. I just want the game to play nice.
I am not interested in excuses either like the OP said, if the two parties involved knew what was good for them they would not have let it get to this so my objections are all aimed at helping them get smart.
I hope the economy picks up though, we are all in the same boat on that one and I should think it had more than a little to do with the decision to go to release at this stage. But it will be a slow recovery and as long as we rely on fossil fuels the prices of those will keep it slow. We are in the middle of a global population and resource crisis, some people are lucky and some are less so, so count your blessings, this game and its problems really are not so very important in the big scheme of things.
So in other words. Anyone using XP in 2011 can only blame themselves for games not working. If you want DX10 or better, you will have to install Vista or a newer OS. You can hardly blame developers for creating games that use the latest technology and you can't really expect them to provide support for legacy systems in their games either.Originally Posted by wikipedia
Last edited by csebal; 02-11-2011 at 14:46.
Lets TLDR summarise this.
- OP is impatient and wants to vent his irritation that he cannot get a refund this very instant (tough luck broski. Where I live if you cancel a purchase online you get to wait +21days till your money gets sent back.)
- People ignorantly/naively that no XP support was an intentional choice by Kerberos - which in part it was, but not to lessen customerbase, as much as make the end result prettier (and more current, see the "Microsoft has tried to put XP in the grave for years now threads/comments"). DX10 is easier to work with, produces much more current results (Oh noes - the gaem looks so dated, omg omg refund *slaptothegroin*), and if anything you should point your discontent at Microsoft for not making DirectX10 XP compatible to begin with, or even provide the unofficial workarounds that are in use today (as piss poor as they are in terms of performance)
- Yawn, another "rage rage, people discuss things they know nothing about" threads.
Nothing to see here, unless you want to troll/rage. For the rest of you, sit back, enjoy the ride and play some SOTS while Kerberos desperatly tries to salvage the game.