• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Just Cause 2 now playable on WinXP. Maybe Stormrise as well.

Z

Zenith

Banned
If like me you stopped following the game as soon as you learned it was no longer on your "platform", then here's a nice surprise. A patch:

First install DirectX_10_XP
after complete the installation ,,
then install DirectX_10_Fix_3__XP

then click on Start Button then click on Run then type dxdiag then hit ENTER key,, then see DirectX Version : DirectX 10.0

now u have the DirectX 10 on XP….
Click to expand...

Haven't tested it and can't link to it as it includes copy protection :(. Anyone feel like testing this on the demo? I'm wondering that if dxdiag thinks you have Dx10 would it work on games no one made a patch for like Stormrise?
 
Directx 10 on xp? Any point in looking that up or is it just to allow some directx 10 games to play?

PC noob, googled it, are these "download directx 10 xp" links fake?
 
Without substantive proof that this actually works without sporadic game-breaking glitches all over the place, this is just as useless as every other claim that has come out over the last 3+ years.

There's no magic "hack" that can capably back-port an entirely overhauled driver model to XP in order to enable driver support for a wholly rewritten graphics API.
 
Weenerz said:
Something like this came out for Halo 2 PC a few years ago, it worked pretty well from what I remember.
Click to expand...
That's because Halo 2 doesn't use DX10. It's a pure DX9 game, through and through. Any Vista exclusivity was a hack that didn't depend on the entire graphics subsystem and overhauled driver architecture.
 
7 is pretty good. After using it for a while, I can't really recommend to anyone staying with XP, especially since there are many interesting games which are DX10 only going forward.
 
Joseph Merrick said:
I stopped following it when it was announced it wasn't on pc but on steam yeah. no pc console here thanks.
Click to expand...

257i243.jpgdcu2.gif
 
Pai Pai Master said:
huh?
Click to expand...

He probably likes owning his games, and not a right to download it from steam.

Not that it is a bad or exploitative model, just does not jive with the beliefs of some people (such as myself).
 
Joseph Merrick said:
I stopped following it when it was announced it wasn't on pc but on steam yeah. no pc console here thanks.
Click to expand...
And yet...Silent Hunter V and Settlers VII.
 
Cep said:
He probably likes owning his games, and not a right to download it from steam.

Not that it is a bad or exploitative model, just does not jive with the beliefs of some people (such as myself).
Click to expand...
probably hasn't bought any games in the last 3 years then.
 
shagg_187 said:
Fuck you. Vista doesn't count and you all know it!
Click to expand...
Post-service pack Vista already made XP look archaic. At this point there's no good reason for the vast majority of users to still be on decade old tech.
 
If it works it's good for the stragglers, I guess.

We should remember that some people simply can't afford an upgrade so we probably shouldn't be jerks about it.

However, if you can afford it it's time to move on, IMO.
 
People need to shut the fuck up about XP. What the fuck do you care? Why should I spend in my currency would amount to 120 Euro because you think XP is "ancient"? It is a OP and it works. That is all it really needs to do.

I and others will switch when we feel the need. Your whining is sure as hell not one reason to do so.
 
I think people's main problem is when people get irate about software not supporting XP. It's almost a decade old, there's no reason software should have to support it.
 
Sciz said:
Post-service pack Vista already made XP look archaic. At this point there's no good reason for the vast majority of users to still be on decade old tech.
Click to expand...

XP may be "decade old tech", but for loads of people, there's nothing in Vista or 7 that makes them worth buying compared to it. There's nothing in them that makes you more productive or enjoy your games more etc, mainly because it depends mainly on the other software you use. Not saying they're not somewhat better in some aspects, but from a user's pov, they're basically the same thing. The only reason is the exclusion of new DX versions, which is not really a technological issue, seeing that these hacks do work more or less. But you could buy two or three games from the price of a piece of software you do not need, no? I'd rather do that tbh.
 
Flachmatuch said:
XP may be "decade old tech", but for loads of people, there's nothing in Vista or 7 that makes them worth buying compared to it. There's nothing in them that makes you more productive or enjoy your games more etc, mainly because it depends mainly on the other software you use. Not saying they're not somewhat better in some aspects, but from a user's pov, they're basically the same thing. The only reason is the exclusion of new DX versions, which is not really a technological issue, seeing that these hacks do work more or less. But you could buy two or three games from the price of a piece of software you do not need, no? I'd rather do that tbh.
Click to expand...
But they don't. That's the entire fricken point. These hacks don't work, because they're just that - hacks.

Vista introduced a completely overhauled driver model that doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form in XP. Microsoft is under no obligation to back-port that overhaul. They'd see no benefit from doing so. Even if they wanted to, it would be a tremendous technical challenge because of how literally ancient XP's underlying technology is in every sense of the word.

DirectX 10 was built from the ground-up to take advantage of that completely overhauled driver model. It's not some tweak. It's not some library that can easily be back-ported to XP.


When people spread nonsense about future versions of Windows, about how something like DirectX 10 "should" work on XP or some shit, that's what pisses people off.

I don't think anyone actually cares if you choose to use XP, just stop bitching about it when developers finally decide to stop supporting a 10-year-old OS.
 
Flachmatuch said:
There's nothing in them that makes you more productive ...
Click to expand...

I can see where some people would want to stick with XP because they are poor or cheap, but your statement can be totally wrong depending on your needs. The new interface for dealing with wireless networks and VPN connections in 7 is a huge improvement and time saver, IMO. Also, hitting <Windows Key> and typing in the first few letters of what I want has saved me plenty of time farting around with the start menu or cluttering up my screen with icons or toolbars. Once you get used to that it's hard to go back.
 
Flachmatuch said:
This, I don't believe at all. It sounds like typical bullshit for people who have only half a clue about technology :-/
Click to expand...

There's someone spewing BS in this thread all right, but its not dLMN8R.
 
Dr. Zoidberg said:
I can see where some people would want to stick with XP because they are poor or cheap, but your statement can be totally wrong depending on your needs. The new interface for dealing with wireless networks and VPN connections in 7 is a huge improvement and time saver, IMO. Also, hitting <Windows Key> and typing in the first few letters of what I want has saved me plenty of time farting around with the start menu or cluttering up my screen with icons or toolbars. Once you get used to that it's hard to go back.
Click to expand...

I said "for loads of people", not everyone, but I'm pretty sure, looking at the companies I work with, that the overall productivity gains are minimal at best. But yeah, this is subjective, which is why I said "loads of people".
 
Flachmatuch said:
This, I don't believe at all. It sounds like typical bullshit for people who have only half a clue about technology :-/
Click to expand...
I honestly don't give a crap if you believe anything I say. It doesn't make it any less true, considering that the entirety of not only Microsoft's own MSDN site but every single developer resource on the internet would agree with me, not you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx_10#DirectX_10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista#DirectX


Why the hell do you think Vista and Windows 7 require DirectX 9 to be simultaneously installed right alongside of DirectX 10/11 in order to run pre-DX10 games? Because DX10 was a clean break, due to its WDDM requirement, while beforehand, DX9 was backwards compatible with every version of the API that came before it.
 
Ysiadmihi said:
Complaining that a game doesn't support XP is like complaining that FF13 didn't come out on PS2.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Flachmatuch said:
This, I don't believe at all. It sounds like typical bullshit for people who have only half a clue about technology :-/
Click to expand...

I think this guy might have a sliiightly better grasp on the technology than you do.

See, the reason why Halo 2 was hacked was because it's possible to own Vista and/or 7 without having a DX10 card. The game just checks for your OS, it doesn't require Dx10 because they didn't want to require a (then) expensive new card to play on top of the OS requirement.

Just Cause 2 uses DX10 exclusively, meaning that even if you have Vista/7 you still can't play it if you have anything under an nvidia 8800 or ati equivalent.

Halo 2 just needed a meaningless check to be bypassed, Just Cause requires a specific driver set that XP just can't run... well it might be able to run it if Microsoft wanted to make it happen, but they don't.
 
XP on hardware that can run JC2?

Pai Pai Master said:
huh?
Click to expand...

Poor Merrick. His efforts in creating a guy-who-hates-steam shtick have been nothing short of herculean, yet so few have bothered to take the time to notice. :(
 
@dLMN8R: My point is that the reason it doesn't work is to make you buy a new OS, not because it'd have been so difficult or costly to do, but whatever.
 
Flachmatuch said:
@dLMN8R: My point is that the reason it doesn't work is to make you buy a new OS, not because it'd have been so difficult or costly to do, but whatever.
Click to expand...
Yes. DirectX 10 is one reason, among many others, to purchase a new OS. It is an extensively overhauled graphics library that depends on a rearchitected driver model that's much more stable, much easier to develop for, and simply more modern in terms of its design philosophies.

So....what's the problem? Why is it a bad thing now that Microsoft put significant R&D into improving the next iteration of its OS?



In the meantime, no one is forcing developers to go DX10-exclusive. Just Cause 2, included. Quite obviously, Avalanche decided to go DX10-exclusive because the financial benefits in developing exclusively for a modern graphics API without the need to support something ancient outweighed the potential lost sales from people still running on XP.
 
Joseph Merrick said:
I stopped following it when it was announced it wasn't on pc but on steam yeah. no pc console here thanks.
Click to expand...
Even though i don't agree with you, I think your cause is a noble. Fight on Joe!

Also thanks for all the praise of the new Necrovision, played it a few weeks back and it was amazing! So fun
 
dLMN8R said:
Yes. DirectX 10 is one reason, among many others, to purchase a new OS. It is an extensively overhauled graphics library that depends on a rearchitected drive model that's much more stable, much easier to develop for, and simply more modern in terms of its design philosophies.

So....what's the problem? Why is it a bad thing now that Microsoft put significant R&D into improving the next iteration of its OS?

In the meantime, no one is forcing developers to go DX10-exclusive. Just Cause 2, included. Quite obviously, Avalanche decided to go DX10-exclusive because the financial benefits in developing exclusively for a modern graphics API without the need to support something ancient outweighed the potential lost sales from people still running on XP.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the investment into DX10 is insignificant compared to the investment in the individual games and the hardware to play it, so forcing me to buy a new OS just so that I can use my new hardware that I've already paid for and the game that I've also already paid for, and pay again for something I don't want so that I can use about 3% of its functionality, is not really obviously right.
 
ColonelColon said:
If PS1 hardware is just as powerful as PS3 hardware, then this is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
The PS3 can play PS1 games, just like DX11 cards can play DX9 games. DX9 only cards and the PS1 are both pretty poor performers though.
 
Flachmatuch said:
@dLMN8R: My point is that the reason it doesn't work is to make you buy a new OS, not because it'd have been so difficult or costly to do, but whatever.
Click to expand...
You're only half-correct.

DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0 are actually distinct things. You can use geometry shaders and whatnot in XP using OpenGL. Not exposing SM 4.0 features to DX9 (an hypothetical DX9.0d) could be considered a move in locking features to Vista to "incentive" users to move on.

However, DirectX10 brings much more than merely SM 4.0. Most significantly, the way it handle resources changed a lot and is relies entirely on the new driver architecture.

Example:

In XP the video memory was something completely off-limits to the OS and was handled entirely by the GPU drivers. The drivers were responsible (and not obliged) to implement support for handling multiple 3D applications running simultaneously, or paging resources from VRAM to RAM when running out of the former.

In Vista/7, VRAM is an OS-managed resource. Most of the VRAM management is made by the OS, not by the drivers, which are only required to expose a much more sane interface.

Due to this, games can do things like loading a texture straight from disk to VRAM without having to a copy in RAM in case the GPU goes out of VRAM or when the 3D context needs to be re-created (aka: changing resolution, alt-tabbing, etc). The OS will automatically move the texture from VRAM to RAM, or even to disk, and back, if necessary. This simplifies code by a huge lot, allows faster load times and is a god-send for games that do streaming in real-time (Just Cause).

When porting a game from 360 to PC, it is much easier to use DX10 than DX9, because the 360 DirectX works much more like the former, despise it having a DX9-class GPU. There are even some 360 features that have no correspondent in DX9, but do in DX10.

But I agree that MS makes buying a new OS a bigger pain than it should be. Windows is expensive and their upgrade paths are absurdly limited. They have zero regard for those who build their own PCs.
 
Ah Stormrise...you were a good idea, but you got muddled when you decided to go overboard with a high unit count, dropped frames of animation and a strange half-busted AI. You should have been a sci-fi Full Spectrum Warrior...but instead, you were the greatest half-baked product ever.

Main issue was having so many units. The focus should have been on small squads, no more than eight, with good environmental awareness.

Sorry, one of the three-digital consumer population of Stormrise. Little bit sad at that one.
 
Flachmatuch said:
The problem is that the investment into DX10 is insignificant compared to the investment in the individual games and the hardware to play it, so forcing me to buy a new OS just so that I can use my new hardware that I've already paid for and the game that I've also already paid for, and pay again for something I don't want so that I can use about 3% of its functionality, is not really obviously right.
Click to expand...

Putting new features into new versions of your product so that people will upgrade is just how the for-pay software industry works. Sure, they could patch every new feature into the current version if they wanted but then these companies would make no money. It's in MS' best interest to entice people into upgrading by constraining new features to the new release. It's also in their interest to wean people off the old version because they don't want to get stuck patching that old shit forever as exploits appear.

It would also be nice if developers could take advantage of the new features when they release their apps but most won't because there are so many still on XP that they can't afford to. For example, devs could do some really neat UI stuff with Aero but they don't because it wouldn't work in XP. So there is probably some feeling that XP is "holding back" those of us who have moved on.

I realize that XP was the point at which Windows became "good enough" (Win2K for some people I know) and therefore some people don't feel a need to upgrade to new versions. But at some point the latest support for things has always required the latest OS, whether the reasons were technical or not. Right or wrong, it's the way things have always been on for-pay software/OS solutions.
 
Flachmatuch said:
The problem is that the investment into DX10 is insignificant compared to the investment in the individual games and the hardware to play it, so forcing me to buy a new OS just so that I can use my new hardware that I've already paid for and the game that I've also already paid for, and pay again for something I don't want so that I can use about 3% of its functionality, is not really obviously right.
Click to expand...
No one is forcing you to buy Just Cause 2 on PC.
No one is tricking you into buying the game without telling you it's DX10-exclusive

These claims that you're being "forced" to do anything are outrageous and misinformed. That's really all there is to it.


There are hundreds/nay/thousands of legitimate reasons to upgrade to Windows 7. If you don't have the money to do so, or simply have no desire to do so, that's fine, but don't pretend like you're entitled to be able to play everything when you haven't upgraded your OS for nearly a decade.


And for the record, I'm not suggesting that any DX10 game actually uses effects that aren't possible in DX9. In fact, DX9 is capable of doing nearly everything that DX10 can do, just not as fast, and not as easily implemented.

The benefits of DX10 come from its development simplicity, compatibility simplicity, and a much more modern development framework that cuts a lot of the legacy fat that was more than a decade old. The benefits are passed on to customers through generally more stable games, more stable drivers, and, when implemented properly, the same effects that are possible in DX9, being performed in DX10 at faster frame rates.


Any suggestion that Just Cause 2 "should" run on XP implies that Microsoft could quickly and easily back-port DX10 to XP, but they refuse to do so out of pure business intent to drive users to Vista/Win7.

On the contrary, the technical challenges are ridiculously complex, specifically because of just how tremendous an effort WDDM and DX10 were for Vista.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick now playable in WWE 2K26
News 
21
443
Imtjnotu replied
Just Cause Developer Avalanche Studios Working On New Open-World Game
11
419
DCDW replied
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is now playable at 60 FPS on Switch 2
News Platform  2
85
2K
subzero83 replied
PS3 emulator RPCS3 now supports most games. Playable to the end.
2
63
2K
HerjansEagleFeeder replied
Diablo 2 now on Steam
38
1K
J3nga replied
Top Bottom