Halo 2 PC/ Only on Vista

Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by Terrahertz, Feb 9, 2006.

  1. Terrahertz

    Terrahertz Extinction Agenda Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    New York
    Talk about forcing the issue.
    I tip my hat off to you Microsoft and a hearty F U!
    http://www.gamespot.com/news/6143976.html
     
  2. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
    Well you should upgrade to vista when it comes out anyway. Being in denial about the fact is pointless.

    Or you can hop to mac os x and loose out on 99% of your pc games or linux and lose out on 75-80% of them.

    Lastly you can become a console junkie and contribute to the deterioating quliaty and freshness of new games to come.

    Take your pick and move along.

    Seems like everyone these days is anti-progession. Something new and demonstratabley better comes along and they want a product from 15 years back??
     
  3. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    Oh boo-****ing-hoo. :rolleyes:
    It's not like they're preventing existing applications from running on XP.

    Halo 2 = Microsoft product.
    Vista = Microsoft product.

    They can do whatever they like with either of them. As Lord said, don't like it, don't buy it.
     
  4. Mastershakes

    Mastershakes Moderator

    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Montreal
    I'd rather play Halo on a Microsoft XBOX anyways.

    BF2 on the PC

    :)
     
  5. Aprox

    Aprox Moderator Political User

    Messages:
    2,737
    Location:
    California, USA
    You guys have a point, but you must see how its not exactly fair to those who for one, cant afford a brand new OS and second are not familar with installing an OS or anything along those lines.
     
  6. Mastershakes

    Mastershakes Moderator

    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Montreal

    I'll help anyone through the process when the time comes. Mark my words.

    :)
     
  7. gonaads

    gonaads Beware the G-Man Political User Folding Team

    It would be interesting to see if you could try to load Halo2 onto an XP machine and see if it will install/run. Hmmmm.

    Now if the game is coded to look for certain Vista files or Reg info in order to install, then we be screwed. But then again maybe not.


    Wasn't there a way to edit the Reg to show different OS info orrrrrr something to that effect? Would be kinda cool to see if anyone could/would find a tweak to permit the playing/running of Halo2 on an XP machine. And this would not be any kind of piracy since you would be buying the game in the first place and or course you own XP also. :D

    *I wonder if the demo would be XP playable?*

    But for Microsoft to arbitrarily say that you have to upgrade to Vista is wrong.

    As Lord and NetRyder both have said "don't like, don't buy". But that should not be the case, the game should be backwards compatible. They could alienate a lot of customers with this move.


    Just my two cents worth. :)
     
  8. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    I don't see anything unfair or wrong about it at all. It's a product that's still under development, and probably won't be released until after Vista anyway.

    How come we don't see people complaining about the fact that Skype "forces" you to use Win2k or XP, or OS X 10.3, since it doesn't run on Win98 or OS 10.2 and earlier? How is that any different?

    Now if they caused an existing product (like Halo 1, for example) that millions of people have already bought to suddenly stop working on XP (which would be hard to enforce anyway), I could understand the cause for an uproar, but again, we're talking about an unreleased product here. Software vendors have every right to pick the system requirements for their products as they see fit.

    If this is a conscious decision, that's obviously a risk they're willing to take, right? So sure, you could say it's risky, but it's not "unfair" or "wrong" :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  9. madmatt

    madmatt Bow Down to the King Political User

    Messages:
    13,312
    Location:
    New York
    I agree with NR, as usual. Why should Microsoft spend time developing software for older versions of Windows?

    NR made several good points and I don't disagree with a single one of them.
     
  10. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    Given that definition of "fairness," one would expect every software vendor to ship applications that work with Windows 95 today. After all, I'm sure there are people in the world who couldn't afford to upgrade beyond that point, or lacked the technical skills to do so, and are still running 10 year old machines with Win95. And believe me, as far-fetched as that might sound, it's not an implausible situation.

    Of course, that would also mean vendors wouldn't be able to take advantage of new technology, because of which everyone else running the latest and greatest OS with their dual 256MB GeForce 7800 GTX SLi setups would see games that look like this:

    [​IMG]

    P.S. Monkey Island rocked! ;p
     
  11. madmatt

    madmatt Bow Down to the King Political User

    Messages:
    13,312
    Location:
    New York
    The fact of the matter is software and hardware need to evolve just as we do. They need to perform faster and be more stable all at the same time. If you can't afford to keep up with the times then you have no one to blame but yourself. It's not Microsoft's fault, it's not Intel's fault, and it's not my fault.

    The future is ahead of us and that's the direction businesses are moving. Those who are left behind do it by choice.
     
  12. gonaads

    gonaads Beware the G-Man Political User Folding Team

    Yes and no. They are porting and existing game into a PC environment. It won't (shouldn't) take MicroSquish that long to get it done. It's their frickin game. There is no way in hell that when they created Halo2 that they didn't have plans to make it also for the PC. That would be like taking money out of their own pockets and burning it. Microsoft is a money machine it thinks these things way in advance. As with Skype, how old is Win 98? It's hella old. Win XP just got done into 64 Bit and to then say "Oh, ya gotta migrate to Vista". You know it is basically a way to create the need so everyone goes to Vista. You get the whole gaming community (which is a shiitload of people) to switch and everyone else will follow suit.

    And they couldn't make an existing game(s) suddenly stop working on any particular OS version when it has already been running on it unless there was some sort of time delay code in it. No software is made that way.

    I think it's just another way for Microsoft to make customers switch over soon than later as they did with 98/win2k to XP. Some people like the way their OS is running and to have to update/upgrade can be buggy. I'm not saying it's unfair per say, but it is to a point a tad bit pushy. It use to be that you were able to run a game on yer machine only if yer hardware was adequate to handle all the intense grafix and such. Now the OS comes into play? That's a bit fishy. Since when has the OS's code have anything to do with a game's play or ability to play?

    [edit] And I mean besides that the game was made to play on a PC or a Mac/Apple. Just to clarify.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  13. Terrahertz

    Terrahertz Extinction Agenda Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    New York
    Anti progression? Who the hell are you to make that assumption? Sorry buddy but making a game just to run on a specific OS just to achieve their specific agenda is not progression. Its a manipulative tactic to fill your pockets. Microsoft is not the only company that does this so my disgruntled view on this subject does not only stop here.
    I work IT and progression is what keeps the dept and the bussiness I work for going.

    edit: Sorry If I came off a little sour and my apologies. But you scraped the edge with that progression remark. I didnt find anything about that article fullfilling progrssion.
     
  14. madmatt

    madmatt Bow Down to the King Political User

    Messages:
    13,312
    Location:
    New York
    Terrahertz, your rant doesn't make sense to me. You are an IT staffer of some sort and you mention progression is what keeps IT going (very true).

    On the other hand, you are balking at Microsoft for only releasing Halo 2 for Vista (and not XP). Wouldn't that be progression?
     
  15. LordOfLA

    LordOfLA Godlike!

    Messages:
    7,027
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
    Halo 2 is being develope for DirectX 10 which means its signigicantl easier for Xbox360 and PC games developed for windows vista to be ported over and extended/modified for developers.

    DirectX 10 will not be (last I heard) backported to XP.

    Vista is not about backwards compatibility. It will run 32 and 64 bit applications that were designed for 2K/XP and directx 8+ only.

    And to be harsh but honest: You either upgrade and be happy or STFU.
     
  16. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    I don't see how any of that is relevant at all.

    Windows XP will be five years old by the time Vista ships. That's a long time. When Win2k and XP shipped, how old was Win98 again? And of course, there were 2000/XP-only apps then too. Didn't see anyone crying foul back then.

    Sure, it very well may be. It's a clever strategy. Still don't see a problem with that. If people like Halo 2 so much, they'll find a way to get Vista with it. If they simply can't afford Vista, well, tough luck. It's just a game. Your life isn't going to end if you can't play it.

    ...which is why I said, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. It was a hypothetical situation - one that would be a justifiable cause for an uproar.

    Ok, try this. Wipe out your XP setup, install Win95 on the same hardware, and try to play FarCry on it (if it even gets through the install phase). There's a lot more to it than just hardware. Software needs to interface with hardware somehow. How does it do that? Game developers don't typically write all the code that does that. They use APIs like DirectX and OpenGL. What's to say that Halo 2 for the PC isn't going to use some APIs that are Vista-specific? A game that makes use of DirectX 10, for example, won't run on anything but Vista. CryTek is in a process of developing a DX10-based game similar to FarCry, actually. You might want to go tell them how unfair and wrong that is too. :D
     
  17. Electronic Punk

    Electronic Punk Administrator Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    18,590
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    You mean like 360 games not working on the original?
     
  18. Grandmaster

    Grandmaster Electronica Addict Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    10,574
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    Bungie has always said that we'll never see Halo 2 on XP. People thought that meant that we'll never see it on PC, but as you can see now it was probably a well thought out way to say we'll see it on Vista.
     
  19. NetRyder

    NetRyder Tech Junkie Folding Team

    Messages:
    13,256
    Location:
    New York City
    Well, to be fair, that's a slightly different situation. In the case of the Xbox and the 360, there's a big difference in the hardware specs. Most of the games built for the 360 wouldn't even run, or would look like utter garbage on the Xbox, even if all the software and APIs necessary were magically ported to the original Xbox, simply because the hardware wouldn't be able to keep up.

    But again, the role of software and APIs is as important to the functioning of a game as the hardware is. You could have the finest wood on the planet, but you wouldn't be able to build a ship without the glue.
     
  20. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    I will be keeping my current machine XP, and a dual boot to Vista if I feel the need for it.

    For most home users I don't see Vista as a OS being a upgrade option for the direct future. Many have become comfortable with XP and feel that it fills their needs. MS is making a double edged sword statement here.

    1) You WILL need to upgrade to get new features.
    2) We are willing to take some heat for our actions.

    Think about it, how do you expect MS to make money without a new release of a OS? How will you move millons of users to the new OS if they are fine with what they have now?

    By drawing a line in the sand.