Just Cause for Upgrading to Vista, 7 for DirectX 10

I wonder if this means Just Cause might actually work nicely under DirectX 10 since by these requirements, it might be developed purely for DirectX 10, instead of DirectX 9 with DirectX 10 extensions.

Nothing wrong with the game being DX10 only. This means they put more man/hours on improving graphics at the top end, and less on ensuring backwards compatibility with older hardware.

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing...

For a game that REQUIRES a dual core cpu, 2 gigs of memory, and an 8800 or better video card, asking for users to have an OS from the last three years? That's pretty reasonable to me.

How could this be a bad thing. I can't believe studios have still been stuck on 6-8 year old technology. For finally being the first dev to grow some balls and finally require DX10, they've found a customer in me, even if the game isn't that good.

I wonder if it actually uses SSE3... I didn't think much used that except for OSX's Rosetta.

-mcg

I use XP as my primary OS but dual boot 7 for situations like this when a game might not support DX9. I also run Ubuntu for academic work but that's not important.

thank you finally! nuf with the xp already and let it rest peacefully.

We've put DX10 on XP...

Other than saying that an 8800 is equivalent to a HD 2600, i see nothing wrong with this. Crysis came out 2.5 years ago with requirements that were nuts at the time and they finally come out with another game that will completely stress your hardware.

It's about time!

Why are people still flipping out about this. Hey people when XP was being developed Bill Clinton was still president, get over it all ready.

sry to tell you but that`s quite dumb, you strugle with 2 windows OSs on your pc and on top of that you throw a linux one too ... talking about being unefficient, each time you need to do smth on your pc you`ll have to reboot. But what the hell sounds cool on the nets about having 3 OS.

I upgrade within the first month to the latest OS if my hardware isn't up to spec then its time to upgrade hardware, simple. Windows version is a good scale of a computer if you have an 8.5 yr old OS then don't expect to run the latest software.

(And if anyone tries to say my i7 and SLI setup can run DX10 just fine then shame on you for using outdated software.)

It's interesting how they consider the 8800 to be equal to the 2600, Also, For recommended spec, they ask for are GTS 250... I wonder if they know that they may be stating basically the same chip twice...

Now we have the people who refuse to upgrade start to spout off rationalizations. And they'd think of themselves as power users, heh.

I'm glad that they are doing DX10 only. Finally, someone embracing a 2 year old technology! Hopefully we'll see this inch up the graphical quality of computer games beyond the minimum of what the current gen consoles can do. We need progress, not stagnation! The consoles can have their 5 year old graphics. Us with newer PCs and graphics hardware want our money's worth!

DX10+, not "only" ^

My bad.

I've been using win7 as my primary since the RC came out. Though I do still have XP installed in a dual boot in case something needs it.

DX10 only? Never heard of the game , but I'll buy it just because they will have worked more on DX10.

Now just need to push DX11.

DX11 shouldn't be a problem after XP is dropped since Vista supports DX11 and the runtime also runs on older hardware. It's just a matter of disabling tesselation and other features on DX10 hardware.

Whats wrong with having multiple OSs? I will definitely dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu on my upcoming build. Windows xp certainly still has its place for backwards compatibility and Windows 7 for DX11 and more up to date software. I will always trust Ubuntu or any other Linux distro long before I trust my data to Microsoft online. Also, anyone with a descent computer can reboot in about 20 seconds....if the app you want to run doesn't run in Windows 7 but in Xp it don't matter how much "productivity" or whatever BS you lose if it won't run in Windows 7. If your a true computer geek/nerd whatever you'd understand this.

Hell's bells! I find it tasteless that most people are clamoring for DX10 goodness to be made standard now, when I've been hoping they would do that right from the start and it's way overdue now and I despair to think how much time it will take before DX11 becomes minimum spec.
I say what I always say. Embrace the new standards and forget the old. People will absolutely upgrade. Coddling the techno-sloths is not going to help the industry one bit. The alternative is to just allow them to suffocate progress and gaming enjoyment for everyone.

And to those fewls stating that XP 32/64 is ftw I bet you are the same people who stuck with Win3.1 till like 2005 and till then kept complaining about XP V.1 (the only ver. you tried) being to resource hungry to run on 32MB of RAM and that no matter what you could not get your 20 year old dot-matrix printer to install which is why 3.1 is ftw and and WinXP is crap because you are a technological puritan (AKA geezer). All this until 2005 when your printer spontaneously disintegrated from age into a polymer soup with bits of metal floating in it and you finally decided you can spend $50 on a minimum spec second hand system because your smartphone was outperforming your old system and that gave you a hint of how behind you are. Now suddenly. "Woot! XP FTW!" Sickening...

They could have decided to go the OpenGL way - that would allow DX10-like effects, on any OS.
Moreover, there would have been no performance reduction on Linux+Wine...

Thank GOD. Yes, something like 40% of gamers are still on XP. That's because NOONE WILL FORCE THEM TO UPGRADE. Does noone remember the great games of yesteryear that forced an upgrade and pushed technology forward?

Microsofts post XP OSs are just bloated. Win 7 is 1Gb operating system and 12Gb Activation exploit detection.

Hang on a second. Give the guys a chance. DX11 has only just come out and this game has most likely been in the planning and development for an excess or 2 years, maybe even 3. So I still say hats off to them and lets hope its a good game because that would be the best advert for DX10 and the future of DX11.

It will always take a fair amount of time (around 18 months) for developers to start really using the latest DX.. as there are so many issues to sort out in the background first. Its not a case of developers suffocating future development either as almost all developers stated that DX10 was a pig to utilize with the then current hardware. Lets hope they get it right with DX11 and then maybe, just maybe we'll see some games that will just not be able to be ruined for the console market.

This just goes to show that the people who write these game requirements are frickin' idiots. I'm not talking about DX10; but, the joke of an ATI 2600 compared with the minimum of an Nvidia 8800. Can we really take most of their requirements seriously with such a disparity? Did anyone who knows anything about hardware write that; or did the box designer pull that out of his arse? That's like saying you need at least a Phenom X3 720 from AMD, but oh, a Celeron 440 from Intel will work too. Maybe I'm too cynical; but, I am tired of all the B.S. from game companies. Microsoft wanted us to buy Vista to play Halo2, and the graphics in that were nothing DX9 couldn't chef up.

I like Windows 7 and am using it now. But has anyone kept track of all the stuff we've LOST along the way? I like using analog video capture in Windows Movie Maker. We lost that in Vista. Heck, we lost the whole Movie Maker app in Win 7 (yes, I know all about Windows Live MM etc). Don't be surprised if all the stuff we used to get for free becomes ad-hoc, ala carte, EXTRA COST, add-ins for the next version of window. Sorry to get off topic; but, DX10 game requirements?.....I bought that B.S. with Crysis, and yes, the sun's rays are prettier in DX10; but, I get 10 more fps playing the same game in good 'ole XP. I've had it with the treadmill of forced upgrades. Excuse me, I'm off to play freecell now.

That is different, things like forcing people to but a 3D Accelerator or a sound card improved games but that was the only option, there is nothing to stop DX10 being ported to XP except Microsoft's greed





/Agree totally

Microsoft refusing to make version of DX10 for XP is simple greed (Tho I hear some ppl on the net have ported it so this game will be playable on XP anyway lol)

Don't forget when you talk about XP being outdated etc that for business use XP Pro is far superior to Vista Business or Windows 7 Pro so XP will still be with us for some time

Atleast its a dx10 so we are sure it is no console port, and even supports dx10.1 tes way cool...

Looking forward to this

Thats not true. You mostly can just run windows 7 and use XP or XPmode in case of compatibility issues. And running linux for education/work purposes is not problem either.
I dont run linux on my home machine yet, because I dont realy need it but i would do so if applications and games I use run under linux.

I am working in IT, like to use windows 7 at home, but prefer to work(support) unix/linux systems more as they are more reliable and less troublesome for business applications then same applications running under windows.

Its about time for developers start using DX10/11 and get rid off dx9 for top titles. DX10 and 11 is almost same and require just minor changes (DX11 is just enhanced version of DX10 adding more functionality but having most of code backward compatible) opposite to DX9 that require separate code.

And as already said DX10 os and HW is there for years, most of new PCs sold in past 2-3 years have DX10 capable hardware (perhaps except some integrated solutions but none expect to play games on those).

good on em for dumping XP, its the same as games supporting windows 98 - get real.