Should Crysis 2 drop support for dx9?

[plm3d]

Just wondering people's opinion on this subject. I want to make a poll but don't know how.

[surreal]

Why would they drop support for dx9 if they intend to run it on the 360?

[livE]

NO! (http://instantheavy.totalh.com/no.html)
DX9 saved my ♥♥♥ in Crysis 1, when you have to kill the alien exosuit (in the level Reckoning), my computer kept on BSODing as soon as the alien activated his freezeray, I switched to DX9 and managed to do the mission. Also, what ^he said.

[hello moto]

DX9 would be very much needed since a lot of people are still using XP.

[Alexc26]

Nah, I still think it should use DX9, more players will get the game and its going to be on the 360 and I think PS3 as well, so it will have DX9, as long as it has DX10 still and maybe DX11 ill be even happier :)

[MADDOGGE]

All they have to do is start putting all the extra eye candy in DX11 form and the people will change on their own accord as more and more games do so and as they can afford to. There is no need of shutting out everyone that still runs XP. Uber Graphics aren't a big thing for me though I like them, but not being able to play at all even though the OS will run the game just because DX9 isn't supported? No way. Beside thats shooting yourself in the foot as a developer for at least for another 2-3 years til the majority have changed OS's.

[DeathRay2K]

The majority already have changed their OS, Windows XP users are the minority compared to people with DX10+ systems.
I certainly wouldn't mind them skipping DX9, but it seems unlikely. Not impossible though, and the fact that they're porting it to the XBox is no indication of DX9 support. It uses a DX similar to DX9, but not identical to DX9 in Windows, so it would still be significantly less work for them to just do DX10 on PC.

[Bigdog302]

i think they should support DX9 imho.

[jimthev]

The majority already have changed their OS, Windows XP users are the minority compared to people with DX10+ systems.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ shows ~1/3 use XP. Slightly more use some form of Win7 even less use Vista.

[plm3d]

Why would they drop support for dx9 if they intend to run it on the 360?

What exactly does the 360 have to do with the pc version? Crytek already said that they are developing each version separately. The pc version is not a direct port of the 360. Furthermore, the PS3 does not use directX API so your argument is further invalidated. Finally, how many people who still uses XP have a system that can play this game or the original at acceptable frame rates with all the bells and whistles?

[TheMG]

Actually there's still a significant amount of people not running DX10 capable system (either DX9 GPU, or running Windows XP).

Yes there are DX9 GPUs capable of running Crysis just fine. Not on max settings, but not everyone cares about running at max.

According to the Steam hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), 38% of Steam users are not DX10 capable.

Even if only a small percentage of those users purchase Crysis 2, that's still enough to justify keeping DX9 support.

[Darkstar83]

Why would they drop support for dx9 if they intend to run it on the 360?

Just Cause 2? Rings any bells?
X360 version uses its own modified version of DX9, which is actually DX9/DX10 hybrid. PC version requires DX10 capable system.

Eventually DX9 support must be dropped because developers can't do what they want to do with DX10/DX11 if DX9 support is included. Otherwise you need to do everything twice.

[plm3d]

Actually there's still a significant amount of people not running DX10 capable system (either DX9 GPU, or running Windows XP).

Yes there are DX9 GPUs capable of running Crysis just fine. Not on max settings, but not everyone cares about running at max.

According to the Steam hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), 38% of Steam users are not DX10 capable.

Even if only a small percentage of those users purchase Crysis 2, that's still enough to justify keeping DX9 support.

The steam survey is a generalized poll of everyone who uses Steam and participate in it. How many of those people play and are fans of FPS? I would guess that the majority of people who play FPS have top of the line or at least dx10 capable systems because FPS have the highest system requirement other than flight simulators which are now rare. Most games you can play with on low end systems like RTS, RPG, arcade, racers, side scrollers, etc. Also, if you haven't upgraded your system to vista or win 7 by now then it's probable that you don't have a lot of money to upgrade your system with a capable gpu, ram, cpu, etc. and thus it's likely you don't have a lot of money to buy games to begin with. These are the people with no money and are most likely to pirate games as well. This is not the coveted demographics that game companies like Crytek should be accommodating in the first place. Furthermore, MS will soon drop support for winxp which means several hardware manufacturers will also drop support for xp. Already new hard drives will completely drop support for xp, meaning that most businesses have dropped support for xp if they haven't done so already. Personally, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone whether in public facilities like the library, or in business, or acquaintances still utilizing xp.

[spyrochaete]

40% of people use Windows XP. Why would Crytek want to eliminate 40% of its market?

[seseorang]

Why not the choice of renderer? Microsoft DirectX or openGL. openGL being capable of bringing what DX11 can't bring to Windows XP

[plm3d]

40% of people use Windows XP. Why would Crytek want to eliminate 40% of its market?

40% according to who? Also, of that 40% how many are fans of FPS and will buy Crysis and how many are just casual gamers who don't buy graphic intensive games like Crysis? If you haven't upgraded to Vista or Win7 by now then it's likely you don't have any money to upgrade your OS or you're a casual gamer who probably don't buy these high end games. Also, if you don't have money to upgrade your OS then it's likely that you don't have any money to upgrade your hardware to play the game properly. From that conclusion, it's probable that you don't have any money to buy a $40-50 game either. So what 40% market are you referring to? The 40% who either won't buy the game because they aren't fans of the series or genre, or don't have money and will pirate the game?

[TheMG]

The steam survey is a generalized poll of everyone who uses Steam and participate in it. How many of those people play and are fans of FPS?

You have to think with numbers rather than proportions.

Let's assume for the moment that there are 5,000,000 active Steam users (in reality there's probably even more than that).

38% of 5,000,000 users is 1,900,000 users without DX10 capable systems.

Out of those, let's say even just 0.5% purchase Crysis 2.

That's 9,500 more copies of the game sold. Assuming the selling price is $40, that's $380,000. By removing DX9 support, that's money they are missing out on.

Now all those numbers are purely hypothetical, but I think you get the point.

When the day comes where keeping DX9 support is no longer profitable, then and only then would it make sense to drop DX9 support. Obviously there are still enough DX9 users purchasing these games to make it profitable, why else would game developers continue to support it?

[BlueCremeSoda]

The steam survey is a generalized poll of everyone who uses Steam and participate in it. How many of those people play and are fans of FPS? I would guess that the majority of people who play FPS have top of the line or at least dx10 capable systems because FPS have the highest system requirement other than flight simulators which are now rare. Most games you can play with on low end systems like RTS, RPG, arcade, racers, side scrollers, etc. Also, if you haven't upgraded your system to vista or win 7 by now then it's probable that you don't have a lot of money to upgrade your system with a capable gpu, ram, cpu, etc. and thus it's likely you don't have a lot of money to buy games to begin with. These are the people with no money and are most likely to pirate games as well. This is not the coveted demographics that game companies like Crytek should be accommodating in the first place. Furthermore, MS will soon drop support for winxp which means several hardware manufacturers will also drop support for xp. Already new hard drives will completely drop support for xp, meaning that most businesses have dropped support for xp if they haven't done so already. Personally, I can't remember the last time I saw anyone whether in public facilities like the library, or in business, or acquaintances still utilizing xp.

The problem with your assumptions there is that you're assuming that a majority of those players don't or won't want or buy the game. You have to err on the side of caution, even if 15% of those users bought the game, do you have any idea how much money that is for the developer?!

How many people that can't play Just Cause 2, would want to? Do you have those numbers?

I was using XP until I got a good deal on Windows 7. That's the only reason I'm not using XP (Vista was a turd).

I guarantee these "FPS fanatics' or whatever you want to call them, not all FPS fans are running DX10 capable systems. You aren't making the game anyway, so I don't see why you're fussing over it.

40% according to who? Also, of that 40% how many are fans of FPS and will buy Crysis and how many are just casual gamers who don't buy graphic intensive games like Crysis? If you haven't upgraded to Vista or Win7 by now then it's likely you don't have any money to upgrade your OS or you're a casual gamer who probably don't buy these high end games. Also, if you don't have money to upgrade your OS then it's likely that you don't have any money to upgrade your hardware to play the game properly. From that conclusion, it's probable that you don't have any money to buy a $40-50 game either. So what 40% market are you referring to? The 40% who either won't buy the game because they aren't fans of the series or genre, or don't have money and will pirate the game?

And this post just reeks of flawed logic.

You're suggesting that they cut out 40% of their potential market. Granted, not all of them want the game, are capable of running the game, as well as other factors, but you're suggesting that 40% of the market isn't important enough to include???

[Lowe0]

And this post just reeks of flawed logic.

You're suggesting that they cut out 40% of their potential market. Granted, not all of them want the game, are capable of running the game, as well as other factors, but you're suggesting that 40% of the market isn't important enough to include???Your logic is equally flawed. It's not 40% of their market they're losing; their market is anyone with a system powerful enough to run this, and then the actual set of lost customers is anyone in that category still running XP.

My assessment is that any GPU capable of reasonably running Crysis is DX10 anyway (an 8800GT, maybe something a bit slower if you turn down the resolution or run on low). Therefore, judging from the hardware survey, the loss is actually 16.76/(5.6+56.36+16.76) or about 21.29%. It's not worth dumping an already-written code path just to save on support costs, but if you're developing a new game right now, abandoning DX9 is worth considering.

[TheMG]

There are some DX9 GPUs that run Crysis and probably Crysis 2 just fine.

I played through Crysis on a 7800GTX on a mix of medium and high settings at 1280x1024 (max my monitor was capable of at the time) and it ran just fine.

Not everyone wanting to play the game will want to run max settings. There's a number of people who will settle for medium or low (otherwise why have these options there to begin with?).

Anyways, Crytek will do whatever they feel most appropriate. I'm sure they've done all the market research needed to figure out whether or not they should support DX9.

[Predator97]

I would have to say dumping DX9 would be a bad idea because of a couple of reasons.

1. Even though it's in the minority with "new" systems coming out DX9 is still a very powerful tool. It also has the most use and the most information out on it.

2. DX10 is rather finicky from what i've seen. Just played Crysis and had a blast, but on the Alien Warship battle my game kept crashing constantly. Switched to DX9 everything set to high it didn't even miss a beat with 4 alien units trying to pound me into the ground plus the warship firing it's laser at me.

3. Poll Numbers as stated have a big influence and the more $$$$ the company can make the more likely they are to do something. Have to say in this economy right now $380k even hypothetically isn't something to sneeze at. Personally I think if they keep DX9 settings they probably stand to make atleast $500k due to how many systems find it easier to run DX9.

Personally i'm hoping they actually ditch DX10 and go straight for DX11 stuff. Played AvP on DX11 settings with advanced AA filtering, Tessellation, and all which look beautiful. Best part was my FPS rarely dropped below 45-50. Only time it even started to lag was when Aero had a beef with it jockeying for resources.

[Baron_Fel]

Why would they drop support for dx9 if they intend to run it on the 360?

the thread could have ended here. At the second post.

[TimM]

the thread could have ended here. At the second post.

Why, as the logic above is flawed. The comment you quoted that is?

Xbox doesn't use DirecX9 and still: Just Cause 2 only uses DirectX10 but can still be played on the Xbox.

[kesuga7]

Why, as the logic above is flawed. The comment you quoted that is?

Xbox doesn't use DirecX9 and still: Just Cause 2 only uses DirectX10 but can still be played on the Xbox.

xbox doesnt support directx10/11 no matter how much u modify it.it wont be the true directx10

[DeathRay2K]

40% of people use Windows XP. Why would Crytek want to eliminate 40% of its market?

33.8% actually. And the reason they could ignore them is that they largely couldn't play Crysis 2 anyways, regardless of the OS. If someone has a 9 year old OS, chances are they aren't going to have a top of the line PC with the ability to play new games at any sort of decent level.

[TimM]

xbox doesnt support directx10/11 no matter how much u modify it.it wont be the true directx10

.... Which is what I am saying in my reply to him.

[plm3d]

33.8% actually. And the reason they could ignore them is that they largely couldn't play Crysis 2 anyways, regardless of the OS. If someone has a 9 year old OS, chances are they aren't going to have a top of the line PC with the ability to play new games at any sort of decent level.

Exactly! Give this man a cigar.:D The point is when should developers continue supporting something especially when it is outdated and will no longer be supported in 2 years by MS. Hardware manufacturers have already begun to drop support for XP as well. At some point developers stopped supporting windows 98/ME, dx8, etc. Now that the game is multiplatform they don't have to worry about money as much as when the game was exclusive only on the pc. Also, my earlier point is that if you haven't upgraded your OS by now it means you're probably running a crappy computer and you'll either get the game on the console or you fork over the money and upgrade to play the game up to at least what the console version looks like. Seriously, if you haven't upgraded your OS by now then I don't see how you have any money to even buy the game. You can easily get an OEM Vista/Windows 7 for $90. Console owners had to fork over $400-600 to upgrade to a 360/PS3 and pc gamers can't even pay $90. Are you kidding me? No wonder pc games are the most pirated. Some of you people sound like you're on welfare.

This is a huge AAA title and will sell no doubt about it. Don't tell me that if this game is only dx10/11 that people won't go out and upgrade to vista/win7. When the original Crysis was released, it lead to one of the largest increase in purchases of the Nvidia 8800GT and its variation/equivalent. No other game required that much power. When a great game comes out, people with MONEY will buy whatever it takes to play it period. When the first 3-D accelerated Tomb Raider and Quake came out, people went out to pay for a $200 3dfx card to show off the amazing visuals. The only reason some;) people haven't upgraded their OS is because they haven't been "forced" to. They are relying on developers continuing to support their outdated system, ie. they're CHEAP and other people with top end system having to accommodate them. I thought pc gamers wanted a natural progression forward in advancement in technology and graphics. Where were all the complaints that the game is going to be consolized and thus take a step backwards technologically? Where's that pc elitist attitude so prevalent in this industry but heaven forbid paying $90 to upgrade their OS. Nah, we'll just continue to use XP till the end of time. After nearly 10 years I think it is time for XP and dx 9 to finally die.

[BlueCremeSoda]

33.8% actually. And the reason they could ignore them is that they largely couldn't play Crysis 2 anyways, regardless of the OS. If someone has a 9 year old OS, chances are they aren't going to have a top of the line PC with the ability to play new games at any sort of decent level.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ assumption. I had a 9 year old OS until LAST MONTH. And that was completely by chance. I would have kept XP until I got a good deal on Win7. I still have a VERY capable gaming system...

Your logic is equally flawed. It's not 40% of their market they're losing; their market is anyone with a system powerful enough to run this, and then the actual set of lost customers is anyone in that category still running XP.

My assessment is that any GPU capable of reasonably running Crysis is DX10 anyway (an 8800GT, maybe something a bit slower if you turn down the resolution or run on low). Therefore, judging from the hardware survey, the loss is actually 16.76/(5.6+56.36+16.76) or about 21.29%. It's not worth dumping an already-written code path just to save on support costs, but if you're developing a new game right now, abandoning DX9 is worth considering.

Read my post. I NEVER said they were losing 40% of their market. I said POTENTIALLY 40% of their market. We don't know how many of those users game, we don't know anything about them. The fact is, 40% of users is 40% of users and that's a big ♥♥♥♥ing chunk of money even if a fraction of them bought the game.

Say there are 100 million people out there in the market. 40% of those is 40 million. If even 1% of those bought the game, 400k sales right there. Even if you dropped it down to 10 million people, that's 40k sales. 40,000x50? That's TWO MILLION DOLLARS. Do the ♥♥♥♥ing math.

And saying games will make people pay for better hardware, yet another stupid assumption. Maybe you'd thinka bout the time Crysis came out, the 8800GTs and all that were getting more widely available for better prices! I know that's why I bought mine, it had nothing to do with a ♥♥♥♥ing game, but the price and availability of it. That was also a HUGE turning point in graphic cards, the performance difference between the 7x and 8x series were TREMENDOUS.

Find an actual study or report or something linking the two together, otherwise there's no correlation. Just because two things happen close together, doesn't mean they're in any way related.

[Lowe0]

Read my post. I NEVER said they were losing 40% of their market. I said POTENTIALLY 40% of their market. We don't know how many of those users game, we don't know anything about them. The fact is, 40% of users is 40% of users and that's a big ♥♥♥♥ing chunk of money even if a fraction of them bought the game.

Say there are 100 million people out there in the market. 40% of those is 40 million. If even 1% of those bought the game, 400k sales right there. Even if you dropped it down to 10 million people, that's 40k sales. 40,000x50? That's TWO MILLION DOLLARS. Do the ♥♥♥♥ing math.
Except, as I've already established, the market is NOT "gamers" (taking consumer behavior out of the equation entirely) or even "users". It's "users with sufficiently powerful PCs". You have yet to show that the proportion of XP:(Vista+7) users is consistently 40% regardless of hardware performance, especially when the Steam statistics indicate otherwise.

Oh, and you may want to go with a more realistic revenue back to the publisher than $50. Best Buy isn't a charity, you know, they're going to want their cut too. So, your "TWO MILLION DOLLARS"... well, isn't.

[BlueCremeSoda]

Except, as I've already established, the market is NOT "gamers" (taking consumer behavior out of the equation entirely) or even "users". It's "users with sufficiently powerful PCs". You have yet to show that the proportion of XP:(Vista+7) users is consistently 40% regardless of hardware performance, especially when the Steam statistics indicate otherwise.

Oh, and you may want to go with a more realistic revenue back to the publisher than $50. Best Buy isn't a charity, you know, they're going to want their cut too. So, your "TWO MILLION DOLLARS"... well, isn't.

I understand the deal with revenue. I'm giving raw numbers and examples. But you're talking about cutting out a very significant amount of revenue by dropping even a fraction of it. And Steam isn't all the users or gamers out there. I'm just giving numbers to provide an example as to why dropping support is a bad idea. You can't simply look at percentages, you have to look at the raw numbers as well and extrapolate everything that goes along with all of it.

And despite all two million not going to devs/pubs, the point still stands that you're suggesting cutting out that chunk of revenue for them. Even a fraction of that is a good amount of money and with a lot of companies going in negatives, all the money they can get is not a bad thing.

The thing is that we don't know how many users are out there that would buy the game or be capable of running it. Steam surveys may be a good indication, but these surveys are not foolproof and far from represent everyone. So basing all of this on a single platform is never going to give a full representation of the market. That's just Steam users. And, if I remember right, the surveys are even optional on top of that. So you're only getting a fraction of the users out there, a fraction of the gamers even.

Companies behind games operate by targeting a fraction of people out there. A fraction of gamers and everything are the only ones that buy games. I would be willing to bet that not 50% of people capable of it buy any given game. So say a million people can run the game. Who says that even half a million would even buy it?? When you start cutting down your numbers, those seemingly insignificant numbers become even more important.

[Lowe0]

I understand the deal with revenue. I'm giving raw numbers and examples. But you're talking about cutting out a very significant amount of revenue by dropping even a fraction of it. And Steam isn't all the users or gamers out there. I'm just giving numbers to provide an example as to why dropping support is a bad idea. You can't simply look at percentages, you have to look at the raw numbers as well and extrapolate everything that goes along with all of it.

And despite all two million not going to devs/pubs, the point still stands that you're suggesting cutting out that chunk of revenue for them. Even a fraction of that is a good amount of money and with a lot of companies going in negatives, all the money they can get is not a bad thing.

The thing is that we don't know how many users are out there that would buy the game or be capable of running it. Steam surveys may be a good indication, but these surveys are not foolproof and far from represent everyone. So basing all of this on a single platform is never going to give a full representation of the market. That's just Steam users. And, if I remember right, the surveys are even optional on top of that. So you're only getting a fraction of the users out there, a fraction of the gamers even.

Companies behind games operate by targeting a fraction of people out there. A fraction of gamers and everything are the only ones that buy games. I would be willing to bet that not 50% of people capable of it buy any given game. So say a million people can run the game. Who says that even half a million would even buy it?? When you start cutting down your numbers, those seemingly insignificant numbers become even more important.

Back up for a sec and look at your argument. You're basically saying that the statistics available aren't representative of the market for this game, and yet you have not provided any statistics to prove your own assertion.

I've already laid out my reasoning for the percentage of otherwise-capable systems running XP. If you insist that the Steam stats aren't credible, then you're going to have to provide a source of your own. Otherwise, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

As for converting to actual revenue numbers - in the end, if the lost potential revenue is less than the cost of developing DX9 support, then yes, it's absolutely correct to drop it, regardless of the number of actual customers lost. And the cost isn't just hiring a coder, either - you have two code paths to test, art assets have to be checked in both renderers, techniques which may be easier to implement in DX10 will have to have workarounds hacked in for DX9, etc..

It may not make sense for Crytek to drop it right now, since they've already developed their engine, but it's certainly an important decision for anyone who's developing an engine right now. Take a look at Shattered Horizon for an example of where maintaining a DX9 engine would have made the project financially impossible.

[Tubular]

No, I have a BFG 295, and I HATE running dx10, its a piece of crap

[RedManATI]

Crytek and EA want to make money and if they remove dx9 they lose a lot of their customers and console customers..lolz

[Cryora]

In my opinion, of course not. Even DX10 capable cards have trouble running DX10 effects without lagging.

[Dustenza]

I think it will be a few more years until PC games completely drop DX9. Multi-platform engines that require DX9 like CryEngine3.0 and IdTech5.0 are about to make their debut, and with more and more developers going multi-platform it will only lengthen DX9's life-span.

It'll take a big gamble from an independent developer to usher in a killer DX10/11 app that makes consumers rush out to buy windows 7/Vista just for DX10/11. Either that or we just have to wait for XP to slowly be replaced and die out.

[watchmedie]

Anyone with a rig capable of running crysis remotely well has a dx10 card.

The only thing holding back dropping support for dx9 is people who are still using the ancient relic of an OS, XP.

I ran crysis fine in dx10 on a 9600gt (1440x900, mix of high and med settings) and a 4870 (Very high shaders, rest mix of high and medium) I noticed very little performance boost in dx9 mode and dx10 mode looks better.

[Dustenza]

Anyone with a rig capable of running crysis remotely well has a dx10 card.

The only thing holding back dropping support for dx9 is people who are still using the ancient relic of an OS, XP.

I ran crysis fine in dx10 on a 9600gt (1440x900, mix of high and med settings) and a 4870 (Very high shaders, rest mix of high and medium) I noticed very little performance boost in dx9 mode and dx10 mode looks better.

Exactly. It's basically a matter of letting XP die so we can move forward.

People can piss & moan all they want about how Vista and Windows 7 requires more resources than XP, but the fact is if you have the hardware capable of running Crysis, and even most other modern next-gen games then you have wayyyy more than enough power to run Windows 7 silky-smooth.

For the people who still "need" XP for certain things: you can dual-boot with Windows 7. People spend money upgrading their hardware on a regular basis, yet it's a mortal sin to have to spend $100 on a new OS after 9 years of using the old one.

Anyway, unfortunately it will be a while until PC developers ditch support for DX9 because XP still holds a lot of ground.

[plm3d]

Well I'm back from vacation and have been reading some of the comments. There are good arguments on both sides but I still think that a game like Crysis which is a trilogy and no doubt will spawn several other titles using the same engine, it's better and wiser to drop support for XP and dx9 rather than recode things later on. Microsoft WILL drop support for XP in 2012. That is a FACT. Newer hard drives are incompatible with XP as well. All businesses have dropped support for XP. Lastly, I'll just ask a question to everyone out there. If Crytek dropped support for XP will YOU upgrade to Vista/Win 7 to play Crysis 2? If Valve, Crytek, Activision, IDsoftware, Epic, EA, and several other top game producers stopped supporting XP what will you do? Quit gaming? The simple fact is that if a major game like Half-life 3 or Call of Duty or Crysis 2 stopped supporting XP ALL gamers will upgrade their system. Those who still don't or won't is because they CAN'T (poor people ie. pirates).

[Sierra Oscar]

If you were talking about another 18 months before release, then maybe I would say they should consider it. People will have to catch up with hardware at some stage. At the moment however it is still too early.

Now if Crytek felt that supporting DX9 was prohibiting them from reaching the standards of development they felt they wanted to achieve then my response would be a different . . .

[skannerz22]

there isn't alot of people using xp there is MILLIONS using xp verse the thousands who use vista, win7

[skannerz22]

having games only for vista and windows 7 lowers the profit the companys make by a ♥♥♥♥ing huge amount.. currently in these years it does untill there is like 2-3 more OS made after windows 7.. not having a game for windows xp is a bad idea while everyone is still using xp

[skannerz22]

I WANT MY ♥♥♥♥ING CRYSIS TO LAUNCH

[plm3d]

having games only for vista and windows 7 lowers the profit the companys make by a ♥♥♥♥ing huge amount.. currently in these years it does untill there is like 2-3 more OS made after windows 7.. not having a game for windows xp is a bad idea while everyone is still using xp

So if Crysis 2 and Half-life 3 won't support xp you're saying gamers aren't going to upgrade? That's like saying that when MS or Sony launches their next console then nobody will upgrade their system. EVERY gamer will upgrade. That is a FACT!

[isekonda]

38% of users not using DX10 is a high number...

[hello moto]

38% of users not using DX10 is a high number...

"Statistics don't prove anything. 40% of people all know that!" :D

[Greenasp]

Let me chime in as one of these supposedly non existent people.

I use XP. My hardware is MORE than capable of running any game out there right now. No exceptions. I play games because I like the game play, not the graphics. I'll give up XP when they rip it from me screaming and kicking. Will I eventually upgrade? Technically, I already have. I'm using Ubuntu 10.4. I consider it vastly superior to any Windows product. I keep Windows to play games. That's it. Will I ever buy another Windows product might be a better question. And I honestly don't know the answer.

If you make a game my system is not capable of playing because of graphic software, know what I'll do? Not buy it. Simple. Is that a lost sale? Not always, because I may not have bought the game. Is it a potential loss? Yes.

Some of my favorite games haven't been high end graphics games. Some of them are 10 years old, and I can still play them. I've been playing computer games since the 80s (not console). Will I be upset if they don't let me play their games because of software requirements? No. I've already not bought many games because of this. Doesn't bother me. There are other games out there I CAN play, that I'm willing to pay for. Pretty simple, again.

Now, did I get Crysis, and would I buy Crysis 2 if I could play it? Yes.

Know why WoW is the most popular MMO on the planet? Great game play? I don't think so... I think it's because you can play it on a $300 POS computer. Which opens the market to literally MILLIONS more computers and people vs. any game with serious hardware requirements.

Last I heard, Steam had an audience of more than 25 million people.

[BlueCremeSoda]

So if Crysis 2 and Half-life 3 won't support xp you're saying gamers aren't going to upgrade? That's like saying that when MS or Sony launches their next console then nobody will upgrade their system. EVERY gamer will upgrade. That is a FACT!

That is not a fact. Comparing a COMPUTER SYSTEM to a CONSOLE is ASININE.

And if people don't want to upgrade, they won't. No matter what comes out, if people DO NOT WANT TO DO SOMETHING THEY WILL NOT DO IT. PERIOD.

Making a game not support my hardware WILL NOT MAKE ME UPGRADE.

[Scared]

I would be happy for DX9 to be dropped. I have been off XP and been DX10 capable for...2 years maybe. It is well past time to move on from XP but since CryEngine 3 is basically an extension of CE2 which was largely DX9 (with DX10) it would be kinda stupid to just drop a functioning pipeline for no reason. Although having said that I don't see the point in continuing to develop the DX9 pipeline which would lead to it being out of date/sync with the DX10 pipeline resulting in....oddities in which cause it should be dropped.

[noman_ex]

I would be happy for DX9 to be dropped. I have been off XP and been DX10 capable for...2 years maybe. It is well past time to move on from XP but since CryEngine 3 is basically an extension of CE2 which was largely DX9 (with DX10) it would be kinda stupid to just drop a functioning pipeline for no reason. Although having said that I don't see the point in continuing to develop the DX9 pipeline which would lead to it being out of date/sync with the DX10 pipeline resulting in....oddities in which cause it should be dropped.

I doubt it will affect the DX10 versions in anyway.

I still prefer having a DX9 version though. I still remember the ATI memory leak glitch on the last level of Crysis. They still haven't fixed that yet.

[Noliving]

38% of users not using DX10 is a high number...

Ya but that number is going down anywhere between 2-5% for each month for nearly the past 8 months.

[plm3d]

That is not a fact. Comparing a COMPUTER SYSTEM to a CONSOLE is ASININE.

And if people don't want to upgrade, they won't. No matter what comes out, if people DO NOT WANT TO DO SOMETHING THEY WILL NOT DO IT. PERIOD.

Making a game not support my hardware WILL NOT MAKE ME UPGRADE.

If people don't want to upgrade then they won't? Really. I remember when people were talking out of their butt cheeks about how windows 98 was the holy grail and that they'd never upgrade and would be dragged kicking and screaming if they stopped supporting it. You do realize that MS will stop supporting XP in 2 years? You do realize that newer hard drives will no longer run in XP? What's asinine is continuing to support an OS which will become irrelevant in 2 years and is already obsolete? How long will Nvidia and AMD continue to release drivers for XP when that OS is no longer supported by Microsoft? What is truly asinine is holding on to an old technology when the natural progression of technology is to move forward. You are in the minority. Most people will upgrade when games no longer support XP. That is a fact. There is no substantial loss of money. The debut of the original Crysis led to one of Nvidia's largest profit margins from selling their 8800 series gpu. That is no coincidence. That provides irrefutable proof that gamers are willing to upgrade their system to play the latest greatest games. Either upgrade now or choose a new less expensive hobby, like having a pet rock or you can hope and pray that games will support Linux.

Also, Greenasp makes the claim that WOW makes money because it's a crap game that continues to support XP. That's got to be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. Gameplay is roughly 50-60% of what makes a game "great". You personally may think it's a crappy game but millions of people play and PAY monthly charges for it not because of low system requirements but because of GAMEPLAY and it's also a social network for gamers who like that genre of gaming. No game becomes successful without GAMEPLAY period. That is a fact.

[tpi2007]

Funny I found this thread when googling...

Fast forward to today, less than a month away from release and news (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29330) is that not only didn't Crytek drop support for DX9, but the PC demo is DX9 only, and the full game will only come in DX9 at release, with DX11 later in the form of a patch.

Ironic, isn't it ?

Sometimes it just seems the world goes backwards...

[TehJumpingJawa]

If they dropped DX9 support at this point in time we simply wouldn't have a Crysis 2 at all ;)