UnJust Cause: No XP Support

As a sad coda to the happy-party we all had about the Just Cause 2 trailers a few hours back, word’s out that the unhinged free-roamer won’t work on Windows XP. It’s a DirectX10-only game, so even if you have a relatively recently 3D card you’ll need Vista or Windows 7 if you want to fire grappling hooks at planes. Probably, anyway – there’ve been several DirectX-10-on-XP projects, and though I confess I’ve not followed them closely, I’d be surprised if no-one comes up with a way to make this work. Anyone know where that stuff’s at now? Incidentally, before anyone takes the “get with the times, granddad” line and suggests most people have Vista or 7 now, take another look at January’s Steam PC survey. At 42.15%, Windows XP is still by far the most common operating system. That’s a crazy amount of potential customers to leave in the cold. I’d have more sympathy if it was specifically a PC game, but the 360/PS3 versions that will surely be the lead foot for JC2 won’t be DX10, so it seems odd that this should be. If it’s super-pretty and genuinely DX10ed to the hilt it’s good news, potentially, for those of us who are fully upgraded, but it’s an odd decision nonetheless.

Full system specs below – do you have the right hardware hats but the wrong OS trousers?


– Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Windows XP is unsupported)
– Processor: Dual-core CPU with SSE3 (Athlon 64 X2 4200 / Pentium D 3GHz)
– Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800 Series / ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB memory or equivalent DX10 card with 256MB memory
– Memory: 2GB RAM
– DirectX: Microsoft DirectX 10
– Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
– Optical Drive: DVD-ROM drive
– Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible sound card
– Internet Connection: Internet connection required for product activation
– Input: Keyboard and mouse (Microsoft Xbox 360 controller optional)


– Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Windows XP is unsupported)
– Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz or AMD Phenom X3 2.4GHz
– Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 Series with 512MB / ATI Radeon HD 5750 Series with 512MB or equivalent DX10 card with 512MB memory
– Memory: 3GB
– DirectX: Microsoft DirectX 10.1 with Vista SP1
– Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
– Optical Drive: DVD-ROM drive
– Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible Dolby Digital 5.1 sound card
– Internet Connection: Internet connection required for product activation
– Input: Keyboard and mouse (Xbox 360 controller optional)


  1. blargy says:

    I knew there had to be something wrong with this game. It just looked too good to be true.
    Then again if this is the only bad thing with it I will be happy. Win 7 is working great for me.

  2. Springy says:

    “As a sad coda to the happy-party we all had about the Just Cause 2 trailers a few days back…”

    I had to check to see when it was posted then. Scared the hell out of me, I thought I’d lost 48 hours there.

  3. bhlaab says:

    XP user here, bummed out completely!

  4. pkt-zer0 says:

    This is pure bullshit considering it’s also running on DX9-level consoles. (Not that I’m affected personally, since all I’d need to do was actually install Win7, but still.)

    • Jad says:

      Exactly. That was in fact one of the few silver linings of the dominance of the Xbox 360: it slowed the pace of that old bugbear of the PC-console war, the upgrade cycle. It’s kind of nice to have a middle-of-the line PC at 1920 x 1080 resolution with settings cranked up pretty high for even the most recent of releases. I’ve always been a PC guy more for the freedom it brings, the mods, and the mouse-and-keyboard than the graphics.

      Anyway, making a game with consoles as the lead platform with a DirectX number higher than 9 actually requires extra work on the developer’s part. I guess its nice to have some focus on the PC, bravo JC2 devs, but not at the expense of a large number of gamers.

  5. Sweedums says:

    im running a dual boot at the moment, XP is on my main 500GB drive, while Windows 7 is on my secondary, 160GB drive, so i can cater for most games…. hopefully this game will be as fun as it looks

  6. Dreamhacker says:

    What did DX10 ever do for us?

    • MWoody says:

      Well… I can’t seem to turn V-Sync on in the control panel for DirectX games in Vista with an NVidia card. Does that count?

  7. Mike says:

    Touche, advancing pace of modern technology. Touche.

  8. rmtx97 says:

    What about your old XP games? I will just dread having to make a dual boot or partition or something. Seems like a ton of work.

    • rmtx97 says:

      Odd. I thought I hit the reply button for @blargy

    • dadioflex says:

      Dual-booting Windows XP and 7 is a piece of cake. You can even tell it which to load by default without having to mess around with arcane loaders – it’s a simple option in W7.

      I got a copy of W7 when the pre-order was on so I’d have it for cheap, but I’m waiting until my next build before using it. Probably won’t be until the summer.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      Don’t worry about dual booting. I have come across nothing that works in XP that I haven’t been able to get to work in 7, in fact I have had the odd older game that won’t work right in XP work better with 7.

    • frymaster says:

      assuming you’re not running something that needs foxpro ODBC database drivers, it’s a safe bet everything will work.

      hell, even systom shock 2 plays as well, if not better, than I managed to get it to run on XP or vista

  9. UK_John says:

    I remember a Gamespot video review of the first STALKER where they were incredulous that the game didn’t work on Vista – this in 2007. Do you think for a second the major media will be just as incredulous that this game will not work in XP? With Microsoft supported unfailingly by the major media, I think not.

    This, DRM, the multiformat market and DOSBox, the combined killers of AAA PC gaming!

    • Lilliput King says:

      Somethings always dying in your posts, John.

    • UK_John says:

      We have 23% decline ion sales last year – 40% over the last 4 years. 3 years ago Gamespot reviewed 102 PC games, last year it was 68. Average review score at Gamespot in 2008 – 78%, in 2009 it was 68%

      I don’t just bleat out positives with no research or investigation, I look at information available on the web and synthesis it. 5 years ago I said the PC format as a mainstream AAA gaming format had 5-6 years left. I still say 2011 is looking good as the last year of mainstream AAA PC titles being released.

  10. Vinraith says:

    It’ll just be all the cheaper when I’m finally able to play it in a couple of years, then.

  11. iainl says:

    Well, I’ve got my Windows 7 OS trousers, but my Radeon HD 4670 makes me think that running to the 360 release is probably the answer for me anyway…

  12. Ed from Brazil says:

    I say good riddance. I have 7 even on my netbook.

  13. MJS says:

    No DX9 support is bad for me, for some reason dx10 just hates my system and any game that runs in it will crash within a number of minutes. Though for some reason, for the brief hour or of what I played at the weekend Shattered Horizon seems to be the lone exception to that.

    • Mark O'Brien says:

      I have Vista and a Radeon 4870.

      DirectX 10 crashes for me every single time as soon as the game gets past the menu. Oddly, DirectX 10 worked fine on my older Nvidia 8800 GTS.

      I have never been able to resolve the problem, but Shattered Horizon was the first time it stopped me playing something I wanted to. I’m not liking this trend either, especially since DirectX 10 compatibility was my major goal when building the system.

      My best hope now is that some day a clean install of Windows 7 will magically fix it.

    • MJS says:

      4870 as well (doesnt happen to be a saphire does it?) ive tested on both vista 64 and win7 64, different drivers, BIOS, hardware changes, Memtest etc and nothing. :(

    • Mark O'Brien says:

      Ah, that’s interesting. I think it probably is a sapphire? It’s got a gig of memory, and I think there’s a “HD” in the name of it. I’m also running Vista 64.

      Sad to hear that it doesn’t work on Windows 7.

      Maybe a 32 bit OS installation is the answer.

    • Starky says:

      Why is it people always blame the operating system(or at least associate)? Specific hardware/driver problems that are the sole responsibility of the hardware vendor, not Microsoft.
      That’s like blaming Ford that their are potholes on the street when you drive your Mondeo.

      Like all the backlash about gaming performance in Vista when it launched, in which 90% of the problem lay with the hardware vendors not having drivers any where near optimized.

      Seriously if your DX10 cards are crashing whenever they run DX10 games then something is faulty (assuming you’ve tried OS reinstall/driver updates/rollbacks and it is happening with more than one game in DX10 mode) – RMA those cards for a replacement.
      At the very least contact your vendor for support on the matter.

    • Mark O'Brien says:

      I don’t think anyone is blaming the OS.

      I blame ATI. They possibly didn’t implement support for Vista 64 bit properly.

      I probably should have returned the card. But since DX9 was fine I thought that it was probably a software issue that would be fixed by some later driver update or something like that, so I never returned it. I’ve probably had it for more than a year now so it’s too late.

    • Ed from Brazil says:

      What? I don’t know of any XP games that won’t run on 7, except those with STARFORCE, and those won’t run because Win7 correctly denies Starforce access to the lower parts of the machine. Anyway, the Steam version of those games (Splinter Cell CT, PoP TTT) run perfectly well on 7. There is no RATIONAL reason to keep XP, it’s old, clunky and unstable. Anything it does, 7 does better on a modern, decent machine. And for business apps, there’s always XP mode. Games don’t even need that.

      And really, who knows if they decided to go with DX10 just to fuck the XPtards? Maybe there’s an actual technical or aesthetic reason, like, you know, DX10 works better for lighting, and it looks better too.

    • Starky says:

      @mark, honestly it might not be ATI even, it honestly sounds like a hardware issue – if it was software I can’t imagine that it would be on all DX10 games.
      In which case the responsibility lies with the Vendor, not ATI themselves.

  14. Pidesco says:

    Either there’s a lot of money outside of sales changing hands here, or this is a really, really retarded business decision.

  15. Urthman says:

    42% of Steam gamers still use XP, but how many of those XP machines meet the hardware requirements for this game? That narrows the lost-sale pie quite a bit, I suspect.

    But on the other hand, those system requirements are insane for a game that can run on the Xbox 360.

    I swear these developers just got no business sense. Remember when Valve first released Half-Life 2 and it supported machines that didn’t exist yet and also degraded in a playable-if-ugly manner to DX7 cards (and equivalent processors)? That game did pretty well, I hear.

  16. kai says:

    I am *not* going to spend 100 pounds on a new OS just so I can play one game. No siree.

    • Ed from Brazil says:

      You should spend 100 pounds for all the other great things Win7 does, though. Money well spent.

    • RogB says:

      jesus, i have to use it at work and it annoys the shit out of me. (skipped vista)

    • kai says:

      I’m quite satisfied with XP, thank you.

  17. Duck says:

    “At 42.15%, Windows XP is still by far the most common operating system. That’s a crazy amount of potential customers to leave in the cold.”

    And if you look even more closely, you’ll see that 48.94% of the total are DX10 systems. Of course XP is the most popular, but that’s only because DX10 users are split between Vista and Win 7, thus obscuring the total, and leading to false statements like the one above.

    • Alec Meer says:

      So it’s cool to ignore over 50% of the audience? Goddit.

    • Ed from Brazil says:

      I bet 75% of those 50% couldn’t run the game anyway because their machines suck.

      And, by your logic, all devs should only make games compatible with Intel GMA 950 graphics, because that’s what most current PCs have in the world today.

    • Springy says:

      Would otherwise make sense were this not a Steam survey Alec is citing. These are people who play video games on their systems.

    • Carra says:

      Someone without a graphics card isn’t their audience. Or do you think that 50% of all steam gamers just used it to buy peggle?

      40% of those who played a game on steam in the last few months use XP. You’d better support it if you want their money.

      Don’t forget that quite a few gamers skipped vista because “it’s too slow for gaming”.

    • AlexW says:

      56.44% of Steam users have systems with any version of Vista or 7. Logically, more of these will be equipped with decent GPUs than the 42.78% on XP – according to Steam, in fact, 48.94% of the users have DX10-capable machines on Vista/7, and 27.21% just need to get off their butts and upgrade (meaning it’s only unkind to about 18.19%, who would have varying degrees of low performance in the game anyway).

      Serious question to the 27.21%: how is it that you can afford a new DX10-capable video card in the past three years, but cannot afford to save up considerably less than £100 over the same three years since those were launched to buy an upgrade copy of 7 Home? Honestly, it’s about as painless as an OS installation can get, and you get the fun of learning all the new little nooks and crannies.

    • Vinraith says:


      As a member of that 27.21% I can tell you, the cost is not the problem. I have a quad core system with a GTX 260, I’m not hurting for hardware, but why would I upgrade to Win 7? It’s incompatible with many games I enjoy and pieces of software I use, it carries more hardware overhead than my current OS, it offers no features of interest to me, what would be the point? When there’s a critical mass of games that require it, I’ll have a look at it, but right now Win 7 is less functional for my purposes than XP. Why would I pay money and spend at least a weekend reinstalling half the world to REDUCE my computers functionality?

    • Kadayi says:


      Such as?

    • AlexW says:

      @Vinraith: Thanks for the good response. I can see why you wouldn’t want the hassle of reinstalling software, although personally I only found Chaos Theory (retail, got it on Steam during the sales to avoid this happening again) impossible to get running on it, as by and large the compatibility routine is pretty good. The overhead is not nearly as much of a jump from XP as Vista was (and should be essentially negligible for a good system like yours), it’s much easier on the eyes, there are actually quite a lot of subtle improvements from XP, and apparently it allows you to play JC2. (I would have included Shattered Horizons there too, but when I actually tried to have a go at that over the weekend the servers would literally vanish as I examined them, except for a few with half-second latency, to which I responded “Kindly sod off.”)

      Have you considered a dual-booting arrangement to mitigate your compatibility woes?

    • Vinraith says:


      I keep XP running in “classic” view, so don’t find it hard on the eyes. As to a dual boot setup, I’m hesitant to go that route. On my laptop I’m already dual booting XP and Linux, and on my desktop I prefer to stick to one OS. I’ve had problems in the past, both hardware and software, that exploded into much bigger hassles than were necessary due to running dual boot configurations. It’s certainly not worth it in this case because, as of yet, Win 7 doesn’t seem to have anything to offer.

    • Kadayi says:


      Such as?

    • Dean says:

      Such as Saints Row 2, one of the RPS games of the year, which I was halfway through playing when I upgraded, so now can’t finish.

      Just one game I know, but if you ever want to play that one game at some point… JC2 is just one game too.

    • Starky says:

      I’d bet a £100 that the problems with Saints row 2 with windows 7 are more to do with it being a hacky botch job of a port than windows 7 itself.

      It’s a great game on the Xbox… on the PC it is a mess, makes the GTA4 port look like a lovingly crafted masterpiece.
      Still, not as bad as Red Faction: Guerilla, which required using Cheat Engine to speed hack the game (slowing it down to 0.68 if I recall) to get it running at the correct speed.

    • Ed from Brazil says:

      What he said. SR2 is NOT a XP game… It’s a terrible port. It runs fine on the RC version of Win7, so I be Volition or whatever company they hired just did a shitty job.

    • Dean says:

      Not blaming Windows 7. SR2 is a bad port. But the point remains that if you want to play it, you can’t upgrade. Gutted to hear RFG doesn’t work either as that’s on my to-play list. I’d rather play both of them than JC2…

  18. SirKicksalot says:

    Considering it’s a DX10 only title, the requirements aren’t outrageous at all. It’s more than 3 years old tech…

    • Urthman says:

      The ridiculous part is requiring that much hardware for a game that can run on the Xbox 360.

  19. Blain says:

    I’m kind of relieved. All the good press for the game was making me sad because every great feature that I couldn’t share with a buddy in co-op felt like a waste. But now that it won’t even run on my system, I can safely stop paying attention to it completely.

  20. Shnyker says:


    I knew this would happen at some point, this actually fuels my arguement to buy win7 whereas the admin of this computer totally disagrees.

    Cheap bastard.

  21. Doctor Doc says:

    While almost an indie game when judged by amount of content and price, Shattered Horizon is also DX10 only and this is what they have to say on their FAQ:

    The game doesn’t start and I have Windows XP

    Sorry, Shattered Horizon requires DirectX 10 and Microsoft offers DirectX 10 only on Windows Vista and Windows 7. There is no way to get DirectX 10 for XP, so Shattered Horizon cannot be played on Windows XP (or older Windows operating systems). Lack of DX10 support also prevents running Shattered Horizon on Linux using Wine.

    But I heard you can download this thing from the internet to get DX10 for XP…

    Nope, won’t work. All “DX10 for XP” downloads are hoaxes, and could contain malware. There is absolutely no way to get DX10 to run on XP – to do so would require major changes to the kernel of the operating system.

    Please, make Shattered Horizon work on XP!

    Sorry, it just isn’t feasible. The game engine is fully designed around DirectX 10 and it would require a complete engine re-write to make the game to use DirectX 9. Additionally, no DirectX 9 level video card would have the needed performance to run the visuals acceptably even at low settings, so chances are that if you are using a PC that was purchased back when Vista wasn’t available, it doesn’t have the hardware to run the game anyway. OS upgrade (or a computer upgrade) is the only option. Sorry.

  22. Huggster says:

    Reminds me of the DX10 “exclusive” features in Crysis like sun rays which I managed to get working anyway. Though I doubt this will be the case this time. pfff

    • J C says:

      DX10 Exclusive features could be enabled in DX9 because Crytek explicitely coded those same effects in DX9 and disabled them in the engine.

      There is no magical switch or hack that can allow pure DX10 to run on the antequated drive model present in DX9. The completely overhauled driver model present in Vista and Win7 is the primary reason why DX10 will never be supported on XP.

    • Starky says:

      That is the core of it, you can take any native feature of DX10 and hack it into a DX9 game – but that takes additional development time and money.
      With DX10 you know that it will work on every DX10 capable card – with the DX9 hack, it might, it might not, depending on the card, which of the optional features that card has hardware support for, so on so forth.

  23. Dain says:

    You can prise my XP from my cold dead fingers. I have no intention of having to deal with “Are you sure you want to do what you just wanted to do?” dialogues that the newer OS have.

  24. RogB says:


    you are making a product, do you:

    a) make a product that will reach 100% of potential buyers
    b) make a product that will reach 20% of buyers.

    daft, daft, daft. Its like making a DSi specific game. ‘i’ll target the 5% of people that have a DSi and ignore the other 95%’ who make up a potential market of millions’.

    ‘just upgrade’.. no, i dont -want- to have to upgrade. no matter how many things you tell me are better in win7, i use it daily at work and i’d rather be using XP. I certainly wouldnt pay the going rate for win7.

    • J C says:

      c) Reduce your development costs so much that it will offset the lost sales from 50% of gamers still clinging to an 8-year-old OS

    • Alaric says:

      Very well then. Don’t upgrade, don’t pay, and don’t play. That, good sir, is your prerogative.

      If you don’t mind me asking, however, would you kindly answer the following:
      1) Why do you prefer XP to Seven?
      2) Did you pay for XP?
      3) if 2 = true { Did you pay the going rate? }

    • Krondonian says:

      If you don’t mind me answering:

      1) Why do you prefer XP to Seven?
      – I’ve never used 7, but have no problems with XP. People constantly mention that XP is 10 years old, but so what? I have a sleek custom skin, run media with VLC and Foobar very efficiently, can use Office and Firefox quickly and efficiently, and can play games faster than I would on Vista/7. It’s old, but if ain’t broke, why fix it? I’m not seeing major reason to upgrade considering the high price.

      2) Did you pay for XP?
      -With the PC, yes.

      3) if 2 = true { Did you pay the going rate? }
      -Yes, choosing it over Vista. Heard too many negative things about Vista, and the overhead would have left me with less bang for my hardware’s buck. I’ll take a big FPS boost over DX10, thanks. This may be changing now, but I’m not going to upgrade until I’m truly missing out on DX10 things. Just Cause 2, Halo 2 and Shattered Horizon I can live without. As Vinraith said, with new hardware, fine, the game will be cheap then anyway. But otherwise, no thanks.

    • RogB says:

      i was in a grumpy mood yesterday when i posted this and regretted it as i was expecting far more of a slagging. but nevertheless I still stand by it and will answer the above

      1) i prefer XP – Obviously because of familiarity, win7 has a stack of niggling irritations with no decent reason for them. My classic start menu is gone and replaced with an ugly list (with no option to revert back). I cant right click to search a specific directory anymore, i have to go INTO it to use the stupid additional searchbar at the top. why?
      once you get over the initial 5 minute ‘oooh pretty’ novelty, it seems to be a series of shufflings and modifications that serve no purpose other than to annoy. Its like photoshop cs4 compared to cs3. theres nothing NEW, theyve just shuffled things around and changed shortcuts to make it appear as a worthy upgrade and only served to annoy people that have been confortable with it for years.
      2) I got XP with my PC. at the time, VIsta was the default option but I requested to have XP instead.
      3) If I had a pc without XP and had to pay for it as an off the shelf product, I’d buy it, but obviously thats based on what I know now and how long its served me. Otherwise i’d have waited to see if it was a worthwhile upgrade or not and whether people would just decide to ‘skip’ it (ie vista)

      im sure the majority of win7 love is from people that got burned by vista, and now its workable its suddenly great. Coming from XP (and completely bypassing vista) I dont find it any easier to use, and not much faster.
      For reference, im sitting in front of my 2 work PC’s. one has xp, one has win7 64 bit. apart from a shinier interface, I dont see ANY compelling reason to shell out 150 quid for an upgrade my home pc other than ‘because i’ll have to eventually’. Im not a hater by any means, there just isnt any reason to change other than 2 games so far (1 im interested in). So i’ll probably buy that on PS3 instead.

  25. disperse says:

    I’ll just throw a link up to Wolfire games’ piece on DirectX vs OpenGL. Just because.

    link to blog.wolfire.com

    • jarvoll says:

      THANK YOU.

    • Alaric says:

      Umm… yea. We should also all use Netscape Navigator.

    • jsutcliffe says:


      I really don’t understand what you’re saying.

    • The Dark One says:

      That’s a pretty terrible example to use, Alaric, since Netscape gave birth to Firefox, the browser that singlehandedly forced Microsoft to update IE past version 6.

    • JKjoker says:

      nice article

      “If you’re a gamer who uses Windows XP, Mac, or Linux, I hope you can see that DirectX only exists in order to keep new games from reaching your platform”

      best line ive read in this topic

    • Pod says:

      @disperse That wolfire article is nothing but lies and FUD.
      My thoughts are here:
      link to reddit.com

      But most other cats on reddit agreed with me.

  26. litrock says:

    Just getting into PC gaming, I see all these people clutching to XP and just wonder when you all became a bunch of old men hanging onto your radios and wood stoves. Yeah, I said it. <_<

    Then again, I'll admit the most expensive part of the PC I just built was 7. That said, totally gonna get this on PC. Once it hits a Steam sale or something. Yeah, I'm that guy who built a PC for over a grand and won't buy games for more than $40…

    • Sobric says:

      That’s what being a PC gamer is all about mate. Pay through your ears for the Hardware then wait for the sales. It’s how you recoup your losses.

    • Rich says:

      Or maybe I just can’t afford an entirely new system, which would be necessary to move on to Vista or 7. Actually the only bit of my system that I absolutely have to change is my motherboard, but that would mean I also have to get a new processor, newer RAM (faster than DDR1), another new graphics card having only just upgraded it to an £80 Radeon HD4670 ‘cos it’s a (shock, horror) AGP card. Also, because I bought an OEM version of XP when I originally built the thing, I’d need a full price copy of Win7, rather than an upgrade. All in all, I’d need an entirely new system, and I don’t have £400 lying around right now.

  27. J C says:

    It sucks for the gamers still running XP, but if it makes financial sense, it makes financial sense.

    People look at marketshare alone, but ignore development costs. DX10 is exponentially easier and cheaper to develop for since it’s far more standardized, with far more standardized hardware, and far more straightforward API implementation.

    Eidos probably didn’t expect Just Cause 2 to be a huge seller on PC in the first place, so if they can drastically reduce development costs by supporting a much more robust, easier API, they probably think it can offset lost sales from people still running XP/DX9.

  28. Risingson says:

    I certainly DON’T believe in the necessity for windows7 for the graphics update, comparing it to xbox360. So I will not play this either.

    • Lilliput King says:

      Mmm. Thing is, though, things clearly run better on my PC than they do on my PS3 or 360, while looking better.

      One of the things that really bugs me about consoles (older models included, the PS2 was often particularly bad) is the fairly frequent bouts of sub-60 FPS. I can understand how this wouldn’t bother everyone, but it seems to me this generation is starting to show its age.

  29. Jesse says:

    I’m sure all developers would love to be able to sell to all customers. Few are blowing us off purposely because of meanness or stupidity. Tech creep never stops, and we reach a medium-size bump like this every two or three years. Time to upgrade again.

    When you hit the bump, you miss a few games until you can afford to dedicate another chunk of income on our painfully expensive hobby. On the upside, like Vinraith said, every game eventually seems to become ridiculously cheap one or two years later. These days, anyway.

    Personally, I rarely play anything larger than 50 MB on my computer. For everything else I turn to the console. I miss the mods and a few exclusives, but what’s the damage, really? I also play harmonica. It’s pretty cool…they basically have the tech figured out at this point. Once you figure out how to not spit in it too much, you’re golden.

  30. Eggy says:

    If you have issues with DirectX 10 and can’t fix this you could try an in place upgrade of the OS (Vista or Windows 7). It basicly reinstalls the Windows files without messing up your applications. You need a Vista/7 DVD for this.

  31. jon_hill987 says:

    Surely everyone who plays new games on a computer has bought a new computer in the last three years? Why wouldn’t you have upgraded to Vista or 7 then?

    • John Rambo says:

      “Surely everyone who plays new games on a computer has bought a new computer in the last three years? Why wouldn’t you have upgraded to Vista or 7 then?” Actually, I’m playing new releases on a 6 year old Dell XPS 400.

    • drewski says:

      I’ve upgraded, sure, but the hard disk, optical drive and software in this box date to Feb 2001.

  32. Sean Beanland says:

    This is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. I’ve felt for a while now that the current generation of consoles have been holding back PC graphics. If we’re FINALLY seeing developers taking advantage of DX10 at the expense of XP users, then I don’t mind. That operating system needs to die anyway.

  33. Alaric says:

    Oh please. Did we complain in 2007 that nobody was making games for Windows 98 anymore? ;-)

    On a more serious note, XP wasn’t too bad, but it is almost 10 years old now. In my opinion it is time to move on to Windows 7 and DirectX 11. Most of us skipped Vista / Dx10, but now is really the time. I’m glad that some developers are taking steps to propel this conversion forward.

    • luminosity says:

      Funnily enough, I remember a lot of screaming and shouting when DX:IW announced it wouldn’t be working on 98. And then more when it wouldn’t work on Geforce 4 MX’s. I figure every time tech jumps up a level and people get locked out people will complain. Sooner or later they’ll get used to it.

  34. Poltergeist says:

    Maybe it’s a good thing that I finally have a reason to upgrade my PC…

  35. ZIGS says:

    The pirate version will be playable on XP, just like Halo 2 and other DX10 games. Shame Avalanche doesn’t want my money but it was their choice

    • Grape Flavor says:

      lol, no. No, it won’t. Not unless you recode the whole renderer. DX10 and the new driver model isn’t just some arbitrary lockout to switch in an .ini file. And Halo 2 doesn’t even use DirectX 10. You are laughably uninformed.

      And piracy is always your choice. An individual is responsible for his/her own behavior. Just because you feel a developer slighted you in some way, doesn’t suddenly remove your free will and ability to make conscious decisions. Although you’ve already proven that your mental abilities aren’t very good to begin with.

  36. suibhne says:

    Nutty thought, but I wonder if this is also connected to the bugbear of piracy – like, up-to-date customers with higher-end, more recent machines are less likely to be pirates.

    • Dean says:

      I’m fairly sure it’d work the other way around. People that upgrade their machines a lot tend to be geekier and know where to get pirated stuff.

      That said, I looked in to yarring Windows 7 and it was so convoluted and messy I decided to buy it instead.

  37. VHATI says:

    dx9 is legacy support. the longer developers use it, the longer it will take for dx10 and 11 to get the support they deserve.

    I am a complete supporter of dropping dx 9 for upcoming games. If a game is designed for dx9, it means that dx 10 and 11 are not giving the development time they deserve.

    If people are expected to upgrade thier processors and video cards to play newer games, there is no reason to expect them to not need to upgrade the operating system to also stay with the times. If people cant afford to do such, they can buy a console.

    There is no arguing with that last line.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      Considering that the consoles the game is also coming out on don’t support DX10, you’re effectively calling the PC version a crappy port. Just sayin’.

    • drewski says:

      A (theoretically) superior port, surely.

  38. Tusque d'Ivoire says:

    This was bad, back when there was only vista, as in the case of HALO2, but now, it is a little sad, but nothing to go on the barricades for…

  39. Starky says:

    As has been said but is worth repeating of those 45% still on XP chances are that the vast majority of them either a, dual boot, or b, don’t have a rig capable of running the game anyway.

    Sorry folks but it is time to upgrade, vista was skippable – even though after SP1 (by which time 3rd parties had sorted out their drivers) it was just as good as XP, and no where near as bad as most rabid idiots were shouting around the internet. Still it was resource heavy (though that had almost no impact on games – 1-2fps maybe on the same rig with the same settings).

    Windows 7 on the other hand is basically Vista SP2, and is vastly superior to XP – in almost every aspect.

    If you have a gaming rig you really should be thinking about upgrading – to 64bit Win7.

    • Vinraith says:


      So far there are two games of which I’m aware that require Win 7. Neither of them are essential, by any stretch. Browsing through the Win 7 compatibility page, I see any number of games I still play that have problems under Win 7 (as well as several other programs of value).

      So, setting aside the cost, setting aside the considerable hassle of an upgrade, Win 7 doesn’t run the software I want it to run, and doesn’t give me access to enough new software I care about to remotely compensate. Is it really so hard to understand why a large number of gamers haven’t upgraded?

    • Starky says:

      Vin what software?
      I’ve had no problem with anything running on windows 7 that I used to run on XP (some of them need to be in compatibility mode, but that is fine, compatibility mode works) and more so some really old stuff for win 95/98 that I could never get working on XP (like AvP the first one, tomb raider final fantasy 7 PC and Diablo) all work under windows 7 in compatibility mode.
      Though for some of the direct draw games I get colour issues which I can fix by end tasking explorer.exe – a pain, but better than having to run them in virtualbox as I used to do.

      I had vastly more issues with software in the move from windows 98 > XP than I’ve had with XP > Win7.

    • Vinraith says:


      I’m pleased to hear that compatibility mode is not only functional, but can actually revive games that wouldn’t run under XP in some cases. That makes me feel better about upgrading down that road.

      I don’t remember the complete list of losses, but I do recall that both Rise of Nations and Fallout 3 (!?) were listed as incompatible with Win 7 on MS’s site.

    • Starky says:

      FO3 works fine, It’s one of my favourite games that I even do the odd mod for, so yeah it works fine.

      I think the only problem was with people installing it into the program files directory, which Fo3 was trying to write too and tripping over permissions (Windows 7 rightfully tries to limit program access to program files directory) – easily fixed by running it in admin mode, or simply installing the game some-place else (which is always good practice for any game you wish to mod).

      I actually noticed a improvement in performance under windows 7 also, not a large one, but a noticeable one – though that was probably more due to moving from XP32 to Win7 64.

  40. Navagon says:

    The OS is almost a decade old. We’ve got Windows 7 now. So there’s no excuse. It’s like complaining that games aren’t Windows 3.1 compatible months after XP’s release. Time to let go, guys.

  41. Skusey says:

    Is this the first piece of Just Cause 2 news that wasn’t written by John? Maybe he’s just ignoring all the bad things about the game because you can tie people to planes and make the world ok again. Understandable really.

  42. Martin Coxall says:

    Windows XP was released in 2001. Nearly a decade ago.

    Just Cause 2 welcomes you to the second decade of the twenty first century.

  43. Duck says:

    “So it’s cool to ignore over 50% of the audience? Goddit.”

    Well, besides my previous point, there’s also the fact that quite a large percentage of XP gamers don’t even meet the minimum requirements. I mean, it’s Steam we’re talking about, not something like a “Futuremark hardware survey”. So, it’s actually quite less than 50%.

    Even besides that, With XP being, you know, 9 years old and all, I think it’s far, far more egregious to ignore the 50% who’ve invested quite a bit of money into their systems. If every company was to keep making games for old systems just because a few customers might not be able to play the new games if they didn’t, where is the progress? Is the new 5970 I bought without value because developers [i]just have to[/i] continue being compatible with ancient systems? That’s not how technology works, my friend.

    I have much more respect for companies like Futuremark who specifically chose to make Shattered Horizon DX10 only. Sales are not measured by how many customers you didn’t have, they are measured by how many customers you do have. Developers shouldn’t have to hold back on their software capability simply because there is a large group of gamers who are resisting change with all of their might.

    And all of this is beside my original point which was that this line:

    “Incidentally, before anyone takes the “get with the times, granddad” line and suggests most people have Vista or 7 now, take another look at January’s Steam PC survey.”

    is totally false. As I showed in my previous comment, Vista and Windows 7 combined are more popular than XP. Of course XP is the “most popular” of the three, because DX10 users are split between Vista and 7. But Vista and 7 together are more popular, disproving that statement.

    As Ed from Brazil said, “by your logic all devs should make games compatible with GMA 950 graphics.”

    One cannot simply misread statistics and claim that the Just Cause 2 devs are screwing over half of the gaming world. Oh wait, Alec just did that. Never mind.

    P.S. No offense to Alec, but I just heartily disagree with him. I hope that didn’t come across as offensive.

    • Patrick says:

      “Is the new 5970 I bought without value because developers [i]just have to[/i] continue being compatible with ancient systems? That’s not how technology works, my friend.”

      I’m not sure how this is applicable. DX10 can easily be made to work on XP, as leet haxors have done. MS chooses not to allow it in order to make an incentive to buy their new products. If Microsoft had [i]chosen[/i] to put DX10 on WinXP, then you would have been playing DX10 games for several years now.

    • Duck says:


      Your critique of Microsoft’s business strategies really doesn’t have anything to do with my point about how technology is always supposed to progress forward. Microsoft has simply put in a (somewhat dubious, I agree) incentive for the latest technology. However, that’s not what my point was about at all, really.

    • Starky says:

      There is a vast difference between DX10 hacked to work on XP and DX10 integrated into the OS.

      It’s a similar difference between emulating hardware, compared to actually having hardware. There are some damn good emulators for various platforms out there, but none of them compare to owning the proper hardware.

  44. boredgamer says:

    Throw the old, bring the new…this happens anywhere, and it’s very visible when it comes to computer hardware/software.

    I know some people won’t like it, but it has to happen. I can see it being the norm for the next couple years, in an attemp to phase out XP.

  45. Tei says:

    XP is working great for me, I have not reason at all for upgrade (downgrade in the case of vista or windows 7)

    If Microsoft has paid these guys to make this a “DX 10 exclusive”, I have only one thing to say: Good riddance.

    • Starky says:

      I utterly disagree.

      Windows XP (sp2+) >>> Vista RC = Downgrade.
      Windows XP (sp2+) >>> Vista SP1 = Sidegrade
      Windows XP (sp2+) >>> Windows 7 RC = Upgrade (one which will only get better over time).

  46. Patrick says:

    I still have no reason to move to Win7, sorry. This sure as hell isn’t one. If Win3.1 did everything I needed it to I definitely would still be using it; it didn’t. XP does. I’ll move on if it becomes unsecure because MS stops updating it; if there is some feature that I actually care about in a new OS; or I get it for free on a new computer (I build mine, so probably a laptop).

    That second one still hasn’t happened. Video card makers and MS are having a hard time getting me to care about new DX versions. The jump to a programmable pipeline/3.0 shaders was game-changing, paradigm-shifting stuff. The jump to slightly higher resolution textures? Not so much. Certainly not worth buying a new OS for.

  47. Anthony Damiani says:

    Man, about freaking time we had /somebody/ make a PC title that actually pushed system specs forward. I mean, DX10 came out in 2006. Dx11 is out.. We’re still developing for DX9, which came out in 2002 (OK, 9.0c). Microsoft hurt us pretty bad when they made it ‘vista only’ and then gave us an OS nobody wanted to upgrade to.

    If we want PC gaming to take its rightful place as home to the prettiest games, we really need to have some that work natively on software (and hardware) with features the consoles can’t support. That’s got to mean DX10+

    No, I can’t run it.

  48. Sean says:

    I recently upgraded to Windows 7 from Vista. It is light years better than Vista or XP. I love being able to boot up within 20 seconds compared to the 4 minutes it took to start up my Vista. Windows XP was good but I didn’t enjoy having to reinstall it every six months. Neither XP or Vista will be missed.

  49. fulis says:

    I’m on XP but I’m not going to complain

    It’s an old OS and I can understand developers leaving it behind. It’s for the greater good

  50. VHATI says:

    no, if it was a crappy port, it would run on dx9 and not support dx10 or 11. Like MW2.