Does DA require DirectX 10?

No.

Oh god no.

Dark Avatar runs on Windows 98 even.

Dark Avatar runs on Windows 98 even.

And that's why I love you guys, but with the Vista ad on the front page I can see how someone could be confused. Hell, I'm confused.

Thanks,

B

DirectX 10 will only work on Windows Vista, its too much for Windows XP. So, it would be a stupid idea to program a game that only works with DirectX 10 for the moment. To do so would prevent most gamers from being able to play the expansion, thus denying the devs a significant share of the PC game market.

I hope this clears things up.

And that's why I love you guys, but with the Vista ad on the front page I can see how someone could be confused. Hell, I'm confused.

Go look at wincustomize.com, and the confusion will be relieved

Well, yes and no. It seems a peculiar hybridization to have a company that on one hand makes deep, complex, strategy games that are compatible with 10 year old OS's and on the other makes pretty bells and whistles for Vista. Don't get me wrong, do whatever works for you and pays the bills, but it's... difficult for me to understand wanting to do both, I suppose. So, simply, I'm still confused, just on a grander scale. Ah well, whatever.

oh don't get me wrong. I think Windows Vista rocks.

But as a game developer, I don't use technology for the sake of technology. I use technology to make a game. There's nothign in Vista I need to maek the games I want to make.

The front page makes that clear enough, so I wasn't doubting it. I suppose i can see where you're coming from, for all that it's a bit alien to me.

On a somewhat related note, I know there was a little discussion ages ago about GC2 being ported to Linux. I don't know if that was ever a serious possibility or not, but this kind of thing immediately brings it back to mind. I'd love nothing more, really, than to be able to play strategy and RPG games (the two genres I primarily play on PC) without having to have a Windows OS at all, since gaming is basically the only thing I use Windows for anyway.

Well I guess I over reacted. But my first thought was, if they're flying the banner for Vista, they must be thinking about creating upgrades/updates in the near future that would require x10...

I think a lot of people thought that. It's easy to forget that SD does things other than make games, and that front page articles may be related to those other projects. There's a giant clusterf-ck of a thread on the main page as a direct result, I think, of this misunderstanding. I can't seem to extract myself from it, either, even though I pretty much get where Brad's coming from now.

Well I guess I over reacted. But my first thought was, if they're flying the banner for Vista, they must be thinking about creating upgrades/updates in the near future that would require x10...

Thats not a bad thing imo. It's about time strategy games put more focus on state of the art gfx and for the future dx 10 is what you want if you want the best gfx.

Head over to tomshardware guide and read one of the articles explaining why dx 10 rocks.

oh don't get me wrong. I think Windows Vista rocks. But as a game developer, I don't use technology for the sake of technology. I use technology to make a game. There's nothign in Vista I need to maek the games I want to make.

Windows Vista rocks? Sorry but I cannot agree.

What is there in Windows Vista that I cannot do with Windows XP (and my Mac)? And the draconian activation and "Software Protection Platform" only makes it worse. I will avoid Vista and advise anyone I know to avoid it for as long as possible.

What is there in Windows Vista that I cannot do with Windows XP (and my Mac)?

Easy answer for that: DX 10.

Micro$oft is one greedy company but they KNOW that within a year or two almost all games will take advantage of DX 10 and you as a gamer will miss out if you dont have a DX 10 compatible system, which unfourtanely means Vista.

But for a year I think we will be good without it, and hopefully by then the prices will have dropped some. Both for Vista and DX 10 compatible gfx cards.

My issue isn't with Vista or DX10 themselves. My concern has more to do with the way MS forces people to upgrade their components just to run Vista.

A great example is the upcoming Halo 2 PC port that will only be playable on Vista. Why? Is there anything in Halo 2 that requires DX10? Here it is running just fine on my original Xbox. It also runs perfectly on my Xbox 360. Can someone explain why I'd need Vista to run it on a PC?

The fact that GC2:DA runs great on XP tells me a lot. (Mostly it tells me that a lot of other developers are either just lazy or not as competent as Stardock, but that's another matter.) Ultimately, the immediate upgrade to Vista is up to you, but eventually we'll all be upgrading when you get a new PC.

I think the divide between OS' will grow even bigger with Vista. The PC could be a platform that encourages compatibility and open standards, but instead MS closes their new OS further and makes it more difficult for other OS' to integrate and implement across the platforms.

Vista will likely push many away, including yours truly, with it's draconian licence policy (a licence which is most likely illegal in most western countries and wouldn't hold up a day in court if someone were to challenge it).

DX10 is overhyped to the extreme. It'll be at least a year until games utilizing it's full potential begin to surface. It also hinders innovation by the graphics chip manufacturers because now it's DX10 and MS who decide what goes and not. For game developers this is music to the ears. For the hardware innovators not so much. This would be okay if it was an open standard, but it's not.

In my opinion DX10 is unnecessary bells and whistles. Stardock and other indy developers have proven that graphics alone doth not a game maketh. Look at the casual gamer market. The casual gamers will most likely never, ever need DX10 and there are more of them than there are of us "true" gamers.

In a few years time the gfx-card may even be dead and burried. With the arrival of multi-core systems the graphics calls may be handled internally in the CPUs. Who will then decide which API it supports. I hope it's not MS or any other corporation. We need an open platform, not a closed one.

*edit*
spelling error