Stardock: PC gaming is about to break free of poisonous decade old standards

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#1 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. BrunoBRS
That's what i was thinking. Who uses 32bit?

That would be nobody cap'n

Avatar image for Rocker6
#2 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

seanmcloughlin

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

This, it's short-sighted to say consoles are the only thing "holding back" PC gaming. Doesn't work that way, that argument could perhaps hold water only if we all owned high-end systems and kept regularily updating, always keeping them up to date. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.

And as you said, these days, a dev can almost never please everyone on the PC, someone will always feel left out and complain, either the games are too demanding, or they're console ports that don't push our hardware.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#3 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

lostrib

Win 8 is fantastic for gaming. Check some benchmarks. Raises min Frames for 90% of modern games.

Source?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html

Avatar image for mitu123
#4 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. Mr_BillGates
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.

If you're still trolling this bad in 2013, you're doing it wrong.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#5 Posted by NoodleFighter (8750 posts) -

http://kotaku.com/stardock-pc-gaming-is-about-to-break-free-of-poisonou-472518618

 

For strategy gamers, the last few years have been a mixed blessing. There have been some great titles released but the innovation in strategy games has been diminishing. This is not the result of a lack of game design or inventive thinking. The problem stems from a catastrophic decision made at Microsoft: not giving DirectX 10 to Windows XP users

Microsoft continuing to sell 32-bit versions of Windows well after the hardware stopped being natively 32-bit has held back PC game development immensely.

Game developers have been stuck with DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory for the past decade. While this hasnt harmed first person shooters (they only have to manage a handful of objects at once), it has been poisonous to other genres. Next time youre playing an RPG in first person with no party you can refer to DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory as a big reason for that.

With DirectX 11 we can go to town with shader anti-aliasing and lowering the development capability requirements on having a multi-core based simulation (right now, nearly all of a games simulation occurs on 1 thread on 1 core). And with 64-bit, we can fit a lot more stuff into memory.

There are whole classes of games waiting to be made that require these kinds of advances. Luckily, after a decade long wait, we are nearing critical mass. The days of games supporting 32-bit OSes is, thankfully, coming to an end. DirectX 10 as a minimum requirement has also arrived.


Thank you microsoft

Avatar image for clyde46
#6 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -
Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong.
Avatar image for Mr_BillGates
#7 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3210 posts) -
Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. clyde46
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.
Avatar image for clyde46
#8 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. Mr_BillGates
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.

Problem Apple drone?
Avatar image for lundy86_4
#9 Posted by lundy86_4 (48568 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. Mr_BillGates
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.

If you want to play games... Not really.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#10 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

Meh, a lot of talk. Show me the games 

Avatar image for DrTrafalgarLaw
#11 Posted by DrTrafalgarLaw (4487 posts) -

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

Avatar image for clyde46
#12 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

DrTrafalgarLaw
XP was always holding things back. I hate those people who cling to it.
Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#13 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

dx11 hasn't been to impressive thus far.

sounds like a load of hogwash.

clyde46

DX11 is easier to use and runs better compared to DX10.

well yeah, that's good. Although ultra setting dx11 shadows in bioshock infinite just tank the framerate, you lose like 30 fps for very little visual flair, I think that's down to programming tho.

I'm talking about mainly from a visual standpoint, and a gameplay perspective.

I'm hard pressed to find much of a difference between 10, and before that I was hard pressed to find a difference from 9.

Just seems like such baby steps.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#14 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

DrTrafalgarLaw

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

Avatar image for savagetwinkie
#15 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. Mr_BillGates
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.

dumb comment, who the hell wants to buy a crappy laptop for gaming, for $800 you can get a system that exceeds laptop performance by double, while only spending 1/2 the money.
Avatar image for BrunoBRS
#16 Posted by BrunoBRS (74156 posts) -
Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. clyde46
That's what i was thinking. Who uses 32bit?
Avatar image for blackace
#17 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -
Thank you Microsoft.
Avatar image for DrTrafalgarLaw
#18 Posted by DrTrafalgarLaw (4487 posts) -
[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

clyde46
XP was always holding things back. I hate those people who cling to it.

That's Microsoft's fault for releasing an abomination called Vista that made a lot of people 'cling' to XP. If that was windows7 in the first place... Anyway, the cycle starts anew with window8. I'm sure Microsoft does not care anymore to own up that joke of an os.
Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#19 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

DrTrafalgarLaw

XP was always holding things back. I hate those people who cling to it.

That's Microsoft's fault for releasing an abomination called Vista that made a lot of people 'cling' to XP. If that was windows7 in the first place... Anyway, the cycle starts anew with window8. I'm sure Microsoft does not care anymore to own up that joke of an os.

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#20 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] DX11 is easier to use and runs better compared to DX10. clyde46

well yeah, that's good. Although ultra setting dx11 shadows in bioshock infinite just tank the framerate, you lose like 30 fps for very little visual flair, I think that's down to programming tho.

I'm talking about mainly from a visual standpoint, and a gameplay perspective.

I'm hard pressed to find much of a difference between 10, and before that I was hard pressed to find a difference from 9.

Just seems like such baby steps.

I think it depends on how the devs implement it. I remember Sleeping Dogs had a setting that would knock 20FPS off, making the game unplayable.

I remember that, another thing is on maxed out settings I used to get 50fps driving during the day but nighttime was perfectly fine.

that game was fantastic however, Man I really want another.

Avatar image for savagetwinkie
#21 Posted by savagetwinkie (7981 posts) -

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"][QUOTE="clyde46"] XP was always holding things back. I hate those people who cling to it. seanmcloughlin

That's Microsoft's fault for releasing an abomination called Vista that made a lot of people 'cling' to XP. If that was windows7 in the first place... Anyway, the cycle starts anew with window8. I'm sure Microsoft does not care anymore to own up that joke of an os.

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

windows 8 is not the new vista lol, its having a bit of an identiy crisis but it's this time around it's actually shipping on PC's that can run it. Vista was terrible because of hardware manufacturers not really Microsoft.
Avatar image for FPSfan1985
#22 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"][QUOTE="clyde46"] XP was always holding things back. I hate those people who cling to it. seanmcloughlin

That's Microsoft's fault for releasing an abomination called Vista that made a lot of people 'cling' to XP. If that was windows7 in the first place... Anyway, the cycle starts anew with window8. I'm sure Microsoft does not care anymore to own up that joke of an os.

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

Win 8 is fantastic for gaming. Check some benchmarks. Raises min Frames for 90% of modern games.
Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#23 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] I think it depends on how the devs implement it. I remember Sleeping Dogs had a setting that would knock 20FPS off, making the game unplayable. clyde46

I remember that, another thing is on maxed out settings I used to get 50fps driving during the day but nighttime was perfectly fine.

that game was fantastic however, Man I really want another.

I went from 60FPS to 40FPS after enabling that setting for no visual gain. For some reason, I find that GTA4 runs perfectly fine at 30FPS but Sleeping Dogs at 40FPS is a mess and completely unplayable.

some games just feel smoother regardless of the framerate, I know farcry 3 is one such game.

It would drop down to 50fps and I wouldn't eve care because it was still perfectly responsive and smooth.

not to mention that games vsync doesn't screw up the gunplay at all, where as bioshock infinite has all kinds of problems in that regard.

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#24 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. Mr_BillGates
If you're still using desktops in 2013, you are doing it wrong.

As far as I am concerned. Desktop is the only thing doing it right.
Avatar image for lostrib
#25 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"] That's Microsoft's fault for releasing an abomination called Vista that made a lot of people 'cling' to XP. If that was windows7 in the first place... Anyway, the cycle starts anew with window8. I'm sure Microsoft does not care anymore to own up that joke of an os.FPSfan1985

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

Win 8 is fantastic for gaming. Check some benchmarks. Raises min Frames for 90% of modern games.

Source?

Avatar image for FPSfan1985
#26 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Indeed, I said that in another thread today lol win8 is the new vista

lostrib

Win 8 is fantastic for gaming. Check some benchmarks. Raises min Frames for 90% of modern games.

Source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHnsfIJtZ2o
Avatar image for Heil68
#27 Posted by Heil68 (57707 posts) -
Microsoft continuing to sell 32-bit versions of Windows well after the hardware stopped being natively 32-bit has held back PC game development immensely. Thanks for holding back PC gaming MS..:roll:
Avatar image for Jankarcop
#28 Posted by Jankarcop (11056 posts) -

PC #1, fact.

Avatar image for PC_Otter
#29 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

Regardless of how Vista turned out, moving to a mainstream 64 bit OS was going to be a bit of a pain for the industry since everyone was so ingrained with XP, and there was no real push with the 64 bit version.  As long as you were using hardware designed for Vista, it was not a bad experience.  Hardware during the transtion though was pretty much f-ed.  

Luckily PC devs are now confident enough to leave XP and legacy users behind because DX10 and Vista and it's OS successors have been around for 6 years.  DX11 and DX11 capable cards have been around for close to 4 (I have a Radeon 5850!).  It's ridiculous that DX11 is not the real defacto it should be.  It's advantages are too numerous.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#30 Posted by NoodleFighter (8750 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

Rocker6

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

This, it's short-sighted to say consoles are the only thing "holding back" PC gaming. Doesn't work that way, that argument could perhaps hold water only if we all owned high-end systems and kept regularily updating, always keeping them up to date. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.

And as you said, these days, a dev can almost never please everyone on the PC, someone will always feel left out and complain, either the games are too demanding, or they're console ports that don't push our hardware.

I was looking at a thread on some people asking for a killing floor sequel on UE4 the only people that opposed the idea were the people with shit PCs

Avatar image for parkurtommo
#31 Posted by parkurtommo (28295 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. BrunoBRS
That's what i was thinking. Who uses 32bit?

Most people... It may come as a surprise but not everyone is a gamer, and I'm pretty sure not many people are even aware of the existence of 64 bit OSs. lol.
Avatar image for SuddenlySudden
#32 Posted by SuddenlySudden (618 posts) -
Get your life savings ready, nerds. Newegg is about to skin you alive
Avatar image for PC_Otter
#33 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -
[QUOTE="Heil68"]Microsoft continuing to sell 32-bit versions of Windows well after the hardware stopped being natively 32-bit has held back PC game development immensely. Thanks for holding back PC gaming MS..:roll:

It is pretty stupid that 32 bit versions are being released, considering the last mainstream 32 bit CPUs came out years ago, but unfortunately, Intel stuck with 32 bit in the Atom processors for years.
Avatar image for clyde46
#34 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -
[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. parkurtommo
That's what i was thinking. Who uses 32bit?

Most people... It may come as a surprise but not everyone is a gamer, and I'm pretty sure not many people are even aware of the existence of 64 bit OSs. lol.

Almost every PC and laptop you buy now come with a 64bit OS installed with 4GB of RAM.
Avatar image for lostrib
#35 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="FPSfan1985"] Win 8 is fantastic for gaming. Check some benchmarks. Raises min Frames for 90% of modern games.Inconsistancy

Source?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html

So pretty much no difference?

Avatar image for slimjimbadboy
#36 Posted by slimjimbadboy (1731 posts) -

Get your life savings ready, nerds. Newegg is about to skin you aliveSuddenlySudden

You gonna go on a massive rage rant like you did http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29378196/what-a-lot-of-pc-gamers-do-not-understand?page=13 if I call you an idiot?

Avatar image for lostrib
#37 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

[QUOTE="SuddenlySudden"]Get your life savings ready, nerds. Newegg is about to skin you aliveslimjimbadboy

You gonna go on a massive rage rant like you did http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29378196/what-a-lot-of-pc-gamers-do-not-understand?page=13 if I call you an idiot?

too much capslock

Avatar image for BrunoBRS
#38 Posted by BrunoBRS (74156 posts) -
[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="clyde46"]Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. parkurtommo
That's what i was thinking. Who uses 32bit?

Most people... It may come as a surprise but not everyone is a gamer, and I'm pretty sure not many people are even aware of the existence of 64 bit OSs. lol.

"not everyone is a gamer" EXACTLY. if you're gaming on PC with 32 bit, chances are you can't handle the game regardless of it supporting 32 bit or not.
Avatar image for Miroku32
#39 Posted by Miroku32 (8666 posts) -
Its 2013, if you aren't using a 64bit OS then you are doing it wrong. clyde46
I still have a 32 bit PC for gaming. Although I gotta admit my main rig is 64 bit.
Avatar image for FPSfan1985
#40 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Source?

lostrib

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html

So pretty much no difference?

Averages only tell half the story. The raise in mins is huge. Going from something like a 30 min to a 45 min makes a huge difference when gaming.
Avatar image for nutcrackr
#41 Posted by nutcrackr (13029 posts) -
what the hell is he talking about, the min requirements are up to the developer? metro last light will use direct x 9 and 32bit windows XP
Avatar image for Goyoshi12
#42 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

seanmcloughlin

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

If it's any consolation, I never b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better. Just at the fact that some games are now becoming Dx11 only.

Avatar image for FPSfan1985
#43 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2174 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

So much for consoles holding back PC gaming...

Goyoshi12

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

If it's any consolation, I never b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better. Just at the fact that some games are now becoming Dx11 only.

You mean one game. And it just happens to be doing things graphically no other games are.
Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#44 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

dx11 hasn't been to impressive thus far.

sounds like a load of hogwash.

Avatar image for lostrib
#45 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html

FPSfan1985

So pretty much no difference?

Averages only tell half the story. The raise in mins is huge. Going from something like a 30 min to a 45 min makes a huge difference when gaming.

Didnt see much difference in mins in that source

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
#46 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

They do, but PC gamers hold it back just as much. people b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better then were moaning when certain games were Dx11 only. Can't win

FPSfan1985

If it's any consolation, I never b!tched and moaned that games didn't look better. Just at the fact that some games are now becoming Dx11 only.

You mean one game. And it just happens to be doing things graphically no other games are.

One game now.

It will grow in due time and hopefully by then I will have the capabilities to play such a game.

Avatar image for clyde46
#47 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

dx11 hasn't been to impressive thus far.

sounds like a load of hogwash.

ReadingRainbow4
DX11 is easier to use and runs better compared to DX10.
Avatar image for clyde46
#48 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

dx11 hasn't been to impressive thus far.

sounds like a load of hogwash.

ReadingRainbow4

DX11 is easier to use and runs better compared to DX10.

well yeah, that's good. Although ultra setting dx11 shadows in bioshock infinite just tank the framerate, you lose like 30 fps for very little visual flair, I think that's down to programming tho.

I'm talking about mainly from a visual standpoint, and a gameplay perspective.

I'm hard pressed to find much of a difference between 10, and before that I was hard pressed to find a difference from 9.

Just seems like such baby steps.

I think it depends on how the devs implement it. I remember Sleeping Dogs had a setting that would knock 20FPS off, making the game unplayable.
Avatar image for clyde46
#49 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

well yeah, that's good. Although ultra setting dx11 shadows in bioshock infinite just tank the framerate, you lose like 30 fps for very little visual flair, I think that's down to programming tho.

I'm talking about mainly from a visual standpoint, and a gameplay perspective.

I'm hard pressed to find much of a difference between 10, and before that I was hard pressed to find a difference from 9.

Just seems like such baby steps.

ReadingRainbow4

I think it depends on how the devs implement it. I remember Sleeping Dogs had a setting that would knock 20FPS off, making the game unplayable.

I remember that, another thing is on maxed out settings I used to get 50fps driving during the day but nighttime was perfectly fine.

that game was fantastic however, Man I really want another.

I went from 60FPS to 40FPS after enabling that setting for no visual gain. For some reason, I find that GTA4 runs perfectly fine at 30FPS but Sleeping Dogs at 40FPS is a mess and completely unplayable.
Avatar image for clyde46
#50 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

I remember that, another thing is on maxed out settings I used to get 50fps driving during the day but nighttime was perfectly fine.

that game was fantastic however, Man I really want another.

ReadingRainbow4

I went from 60FPS to 40FPS after enabling that setting for no visual gain. For some reason, I find that GTA4 runs perfectly fine at 30FPS but Sleeping Dogs at 40FPS is a mess and completely unplayable.

some games just feel smoother regardless of the framerate, I know farcry 3 is one such game.

It would drop down to 50fps and I wouldn't eve care because it was still perfectly responsive and smooth.

not to mention that games vsync doesn't screw up the gunplay at all, where as bioshock infinite has all kinds of problems in that regard.

The only game where I wanted VSYNC and that was Mirrors Edge. The built in one fails so bad.