Battlefield Not recession proof....

**AetheLove** · 02-23-11, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Just because it costs as much as 2 grand to run this game on super max doesn't mean people are going to be spending that kind of money. They will settle for low or medium settings. No one says you have to put it to super max ultra settings.

How many gamers do you really think are still using XP? I mean seriously. And please, put up a link to any kind of evidence you claim.

People have moved on.

They certainly have.

It's been more than 5 years since I've booted to Windows for anything other than games. It's been more than 10 years since Windows (which I never much cared for) started being much less important or interesting in my day-to-day computing.

It was a big deal when game publishers stopped supporting the old Win95/98 path and began requiring NT (Win2k) platforms; but at that time the vast majority of users were going to have to get NT4, or Win2k, or WinXP anyway. They were going to be Windows users one way or the other, and they were going to get whichever version of Windows was current when they bought a new machine (which happened, I'm guessing, every 3 years or so). The same thing happened with the shift from Win2K (which I used to play Battlefield: Vietnam) to WinXP. When your work, your personal communications, your hobbies, and your gaming all take place in a Windows environment, then getting WindowsNextVersion is just what happens.

But when your work, your personal communications, and your hobbies all take place outside a MS environment - then requiring WindowsNextVersion is extra money you have to spend just to play a new game. Win7 costs, what; $140 - $180 ? If BF3 costs $60 that means that it's going to cost me at least $200 to play BF3.

I bought an XP license so I could run it in a VM as a test platform, and also so I could boot it and play games (which is probably a license violation, but fuck 'em). If I bought a Win7 license, I'd probably not bother doing a VM install. I just don't need it.

I have no links for you, and I'm not claiming any evidence beyond anecdote, but I think requiring a new OS is a bigger risk than it used to be. More people do their day-to-day computing without WinWhichever. An increasing number of people play games without WinWhatever - on Macs, in Linux, on the Web, or on consoles.

That means it's a bigger issue than it used to be. Whether or not it will actually affect behaviour of BF3's target audience, it's already an issue in the minds of those people. For evidence of that, I cite this thread.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**h7g6f5** · 02-23-11, 01:14 PM

Lets all stop crying about spilled milk....

Respectfully,
=PHX=h7g6f5

**SmokenScion** · 02-23-11, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

.....But when your work, your personal communications, and your hobbies all take place DRY LAND - then requiring a BOAT is extra money you have to spend just to Water-ski. Boats cost, what; $14,000 - $18,000 ? If Water-skiing costs $600 that means that it's going to cost me at least $20,000 to Water-ski.................

relativity.

**AetheLove** · 02-23-11, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by smokenspliff

relativity.

That was a fair analogue.

Potemkine asked how many gamers still use XP. I'm one of them. I have no good data on how representative I am.

I think that the relative cost of upgrading is higher than it used to be. That will have an effect. I don't know how big the effect will be.

For some of us, the money at issue is little more than pocket-change. For others, it's more significant. I also don't know how those numbers break down.

If my work, my communications, my hobbies, and my gaming all took place on a boat, then I'd be a happy pirate.

Harrrrr,

AetheLove

**DancingCorpse** · 02-23-11, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by flame

I have two... and neither of them involve food. Just have to be persistent.

But crying over lack of xp support is ridiculous. It was a great os in its day. win 7 is here and works great. I game on vista and have only 1 issue and that is that I cant play bf2, no big deal as I am not a big bf2 player. Time to shift funds to the pc budget, lots of new games I want, and upgrades!

To be fair, flame, we do live in one of the best economies in America right now here in San Antonio.

**Bunni** · 02-23-11, 02:47 PM

if you are not on w7 by now, you need to be. the latest DirectX mandates what os the gamers should be running.

**cornfuse** · 02-23-11, 02:48 PM

When BF2 was released, did it support 95, 98, or even ME? I think it was only XP.

This isn't exactly a shocker, and if it means they are making the game better by cutting out XP support, then I'm all for it.

**QuickLightning** · 02-23-11, 02:55 PM

You can legally get Win7 for dirt cheap if you take the time to look around. I got mine (Windows 7 Ultimate Signature Edition) for free even.

**reject_wolf** · 02-23-11, 02:58 PM

when battlefield was released in 2005 is only supported dx 9 cards, and only ATI cards, because the 5000 series by nvidia at the time were horseshit. it also only ran off of xp and computer parts were around the same price or cheaper depending on a mid or high end computer.

sounds like the same thing to me, just you need a more up to date os since you are playing a more up to date game. you want to run a game off 3 year old software? play bf2 or any of the other games hosted here. anyone running xp probably doesnt have the computing power for their computer to THINK of running BF3. like bf2 it is going to be one of the most demanding games out there because of everything it will provide. i do not want bf3 to be short changed so any computer can run it.

and dont use starcraft 2 as a comparison, completely different kind of game an d fan base.

sounds like complaining from a notorious complainer tbh