Comments on: The DirectX 10 Cri/ysis

By: Cruz

Cruz — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:38:53 +0000

You’d have to be either swimming in money or completely dense to spend $500 a year on PC gaming hardware. I want to know where the trolls get these outrageous figures. Personally, I spent about as much over the span of 3 years and still run Crysis on medium. Still too much? Well, I’d like to see you download your homework on your xbox, let alone download your pr0n.

By: Zell

Zell — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:54:16 +0000

You really can’t be posting a serious Death of PC Gaming rant and not know how funny that is.

By: Brog

Brog — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:24:25 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
Technophobia: fear of technology.
Not [i]exactly[/i] what you’re describing, I think.

By: FormerPC Gamer

FormerPC Gamer — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:17:51 +0000

Sucks that Vista and DX10 is going to be the death of PC gaming. PC game developers have been flocking to the 360 and PS2/PS3/Wii now a couple of years. Maybe we have all been playing World of Warcraft and missed what happened. Pretty damn much every good gaming company packed up shop and started doing dev on consoles. And M$ has the whole “games for windows” bullshit going right? Well maybe they should get Rainbow studios to make Motocross Madness 3 for the PC since its been 7 years since M$ and Rainbow produced the last one. Pretty sad. BTW, who wants to shell 250 for a nice dual core cpu and another 250 for a video card so you can get 20-30 fps in a DX10 game for Vista? I will stick to my notebook for my PC needs, and my Xbox 360 for my gaming needs. The things PC gaming had going for it was games that had add-ons, patches, multiplayer capabilities. Hmm, sounds a lot like Xbox Live to me… If that doesn’t prove Microsoft is stabbing PC gamers in the juggular I don’t know what does. I guess the $500 a year I used to spend on Pc hardware can buy me 8-10 games a year. I’ll take that tradeoff!

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:59:28 +0000

no i mean people who have a phobia, and have to have the latest technology even if it’s bug ridden first releases sensible people tend to wait 6 or 12 months until all the major glitches are sorted then purchase and by that time the price has also reduced slightly.

peace and love to all PC, Xbox360 and ps3 and wii users, ok also some mac users ;)

By: Kast

Kast — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:50:02 +0000

Don’t you mean ‘technophile’?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:16:46 +0000

LOL I could care less about MS and their OS’s I run XP on all my machines and have no inclination to change at the moment.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theory’s or bull about Vista and DX10 it’s all about progress eventually we progress, the first machine i used had basic windows 3.1 and i thought it was the dog balls but now Xp does the job. When they release the first service pack i’ll move up to vista and i might get a 8800 graphics card after christmas but i’m happy to use a 6800 which i find to be sufficient to play CSS.
Technophobe’s tend to buy the latest crap and run the latest programmes which is ok if they want to but like playstation 3 and the iphone what the hell would you queue up to buy overpriced rubbish for when what we’ve got does the job for now, upgrades are fine but the companies generally throw them out with bugs and errors, that the shirts bean counting don’t care about all they want is a return on their investment.

By: Grano

Grano — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:41:45 +0000

Sorry, forgot to add comment on the post by Homunculus…

From what I can make out through all the marketing b.s is that my nVidia 8800gtx will not be DX10.1 compliant, even though it supports all or most 10.1 criteria. But it’s ok, cos the Microsoft man said even though it’s a marked improvement on 10.0 that I shouldn’t worry cos no-one will probably develop specifically for it anyway. But they should. But probably won’t. But if they do I should just accept the fact that the card I paid over a grand for five months ago is, well, shite. And remember kiddies, you just ain’t seen a handlebar moustache untill you seen it until DX10.1…

By: Grano

Grano — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:21:30 +0000

Just getting back to the article, my problem is the fact that higher graphical settings for Crysis exist in XP than are being (officially) made available to the user, and at a higher framerate than Vista. Are the hacked very high DX9 graphics settings as good as DX10? I don’t know and I really don’t care. What I do care about is that the Crysis on XP has been clubbed in the kneecap to make Crysis on Vista look like the only way to get the best possible graphical effects. No-one can dispute that. I can’t believe that Crytek were responsible, surely it is in their best interest to having the game look as good as possible on XP, considering the large established base of users. More XP sales means more dollars for them. And like someone above already said, they didn’t exactly make it overly hard to hack. Just cut and paste. I actually feel kinda sorry for Microsoft. Crysis was the only reason many people were going to take the Vista/DX10 plunge. Like me. Actually, I don’t feel sorry for them at all. Wankers…

By: HR

HR — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:45:45 +0000

First, not enough people who make comments regarding this DX9 vs DX10 issue, have even a faint idea of how the engine’s are designed. And until they study the differences, anything they say is pretty much a moot point. DX10 will never work on XP 100%, and emulations will be short-changed.

There is no MS conspiracy. Even MS would have a horrendous time, going back and trying to rebuild DX10 to work with XP, and it would be entirely fruitless. If anything, it would just create more bugs, broken applications and pissed off customers who would go around whining “hey, you said DX10 would work on XP, well it doesn’t! WTFOMGBBQSAUCEWTF?”

Now, with that out of the way. In regards to Crysis and this matter:

The DX10 ‘hack’ for XP, is not using full DX10 features. The DX10 here, is more to do with physics, things that screenshots aren’t necessarily going to catch. Though visuals is related too. As mentioned above, DX9 and 10 are different engines. The way one engine renders images is different from the other. Therefor, comparison is almost pointless, as the amount of effort needed for DX9 to render a visual isn’t the same as with DX10.

The ultimate problem is that Crysis may have been written to support DX9 and DX10 fully in itself, but, the resources that went into the game were spread across the two engines. Had the game been built JUST for DX10, things may be different, we don’t know.

The bottom line is to pick your OS based on what you want. Do you want the full Crysis experience? Play it on Vista. If you need a performance boost, or you think the XP ‘looks good enough,’ then play it on XP. Stop trying to compare things that aren’t comparable.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:56:21 +0000

This whole Direct X 10 thing, regardless of how useless the software seems to have proven itself, still makes me sad. For me, it all boils down to pure greed – there’s *no* other reason to market Vista as ‘absolutely required’ for future games when, obviously, it *isn’t* required except for the fact that MS and game companies are deliberately locking us XPer’s away from stuff that our computers can play just fine.

The thing that really miffs me is that, even though I shell out hundreds of dollars for an 8800 GeForce card, the DX 10 capability that I paid for is going to be locked out because I’m not in the cool crowd.

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:13:03 +0000

“I still don’t buy the “DX10 could have come to XP” thing. Of course it’s possible, but it’s just unreasonable to expect so much to be backported. There’s a whole new driver model! That kind of thing doesn’t just appear. If the guys trying to backport DX10 to XP ever do manage it, and that would surprise me, it’ll be by duplicating a hell of a lot of Vista’s internal workings.”

Not necessarily. Sure, there’s a new driver model in Vista, but sooner or later OpenGL will get the same DirectX 10 functionality implemented through extensions. Then all you’ll have to do is write a wrapper around OGL. This isn’t rocket science.

The problem is that until these extensions are released by ATI and Nvidia, nobody’s going to have any success with a port of DirectX 10 to XP. Geometry shaders, for instance, would have to be completely implemented in software and it’s never going to have the same speed as it would in hardware.