TheNetAvenger said:
Just was going back through some old messages, and noticed your replies.
You know very little, yet act like you are an inside expert. Strange.
Live for XP was not planned, and was one reason why Vista was required for
Halo2. As the Vista version of Live used 'features' from the new WCF and
Vista network stack, it was not JUST marketing for the Live components to
require Vista.
Even if a person factors in the performance differences, moving Live to XP
will be risky for MS, as the latency and CPU usage incurred could cause
problems in games like Halo2 because it no longer has the integrated IPv6
stack, and instead is having to work through the hybrid network stack on
XP.
You also don't seem to understand the WDDM very well, as this was also a
factor for the bungie team, as they could still use DX9 but 'assume'
features of the Vista subsystem would be doing its job, like pre-emptively
multi-tasking the GPU between rendering, physics calculations, and also
handing higher quality textures to the game even if the user's VRAM was
small. So by focusing on Vista, they didn't have to optimize or self yeild
the GPU for good FPS as the OS 'Vista' would do the work for them. So even
if the game is only using the DX9 libraries, if you are targeting Vista,
you have a LOT more latiture in what you can push your game to do and
whether you have to worry about VRAM sizes or GPU locking. This makes the
development process 'DIFFERENT' from targeting a DX9 game at XP,
considerably.
Sure Halo3 could be made for the original XBox, but then they would have
to remove 90% of the features and graphics quality. Do you not understand
the hardware requirements to push the levels of detail, AI, physics, and
audio that is in Halo3 would drop an XBox to its knees, let alone the fact
that its hardware won't even support the features? Take even something as
simple as a freaking texture, the texture size for the Original XBox was
tiny in comparison to the size of textures allowed on the 360.
Please don't respond to my posts again until you have a clue.
-TheNETAvenger
Warning: Clue still missing, but wanted to respond anyways.
Mr. TNA,
As I've said before, I don't really see that Halo 2 uses some uber network
code that only Vista can run. There are IPv6 drivers for XP, could Microsoft
patch their OS to support all these wonderful words you posted that I have
no idea what you're talking about? I think they could. The way I see it, as
a consumer with a bit of technical knowledge, Micorosoft launched Windows
Live on Vista to force people to upgrade. Some of your explinations make
sense, but I do not accept that Micorosoft can't run all this stuff on XP.
(sorry for the XNA code comment, a buddy of mine explained that too me, made
sense at the time, i'll have to double check with him)
I may not have a clue, but I don't think I need your kind of clues to enjoy
a video game, and I don't enjoy Halo 2, maybe I have to appreciate all these
VRAMs and DX9 libraries, etc to really comprehend whatever you are talking
about, but my god why would I want to learn all that stuff just so I can
play a game like Halo? Why would I want to play Halo, Halo really is a
mediocre FPS.
My point, and I understand that you don't agree with me, and that is 100%
FINE, believe me... Here's my point...
"Graphics (and I guess in this case, network code) do NOT make good
gameplay."
My favorite game to this day is a tossup between Civilization 2 for the
Atari ST, Guitar Hero for PS2, and System Shock 2 for XP (doesn't run very
good on Vista). I don't need all this stuff you're talking about, I don't
play games much against other people online, but I'm not against the idea,
and as for textures I usually don't pay any attention to them so long as the
gameplay is fun and interesting. Halo 2 PC depressed the hell outta me not
because the background textures looked zoomed in on and un-smoothed, but
because the story was pathetic. I gave it points for multiplayer though,
once I got the game to connect for more than 10 seconds without kicking me
off.
If Microsoft really wanted Windows Live to make an impression they should of
launched more games by now and at least had some anticipated PC games come
out backing Windows Live. There's just nothing interesting there, and if a
company doesn't want to take a small investment to ensure the game works
with both XP and Vista, well thats their loss. Vista is making a huge
splash, good for them, but XP is still out there. I think at this point
you're just shooting yourself in the foot if you don't support both.
That said, i'm glad they changed the head of Games for Windows recently
(someone stepped out, someone else stepped in), maybe we'll see some
improvements in the coming months.
Also, what's with all the hate dude? No need for name calling, if you'd like
to trade blows, email me sometime and we can go boxing or surfing or
something. I also stand by my comment that Halo 3 could run on XBox 1. and I
don't think they'd have to cut out 90% of the game. In fact gameplay wise I
bet you could get an identical experience from XBox as you get from XBox
360. No, you won't get the same graphics, and multiplayer may not be 99.98%
perfect (whatever), but I bet you could get an identical version gameplay
wise. Would you want to do that? Does Bungie "need" to do that? No, all the
Halo fanbois have their XBox 360s already, so they are in the majority, no
need to support the left behind xbox.
-A.
