Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

64bit operating systems (like Windows 7-64bit) pave the way to expanding games in interesting ways.  Bigger worlds, more players, more unit types, more stuff.  It wouldn’t be fair to those who don’t have 64-bit OSes to have to pay for features and content they can’t use.

So the question is, would you support the creation of future DLC that is only available to those who have 64-bit?

To vote, go here: http://www.elementalgame.com/journals

  

//
Comments (Page 7)
on May 21, 2012

Frogboy
I worry about 32-bit systems for the BASE FE. 

If you have a 64-bit OS, FE will see 4GB.  But if you have a 32-bit OS, you only see 2-GB.  If it uses more than that, the game will crash ungracefully.

It's amazing how much memory things take now.

For instance, a modern ICON uses about 400k - compressed (And games deal with bitmaps under the covers).

Let's assume FE has 250 spells by the end.  The icons for those could eat up 100 MEGABYTES of memory when compressed.  Just the icons. Memory gets eaten up so fast now. 

Master of Magic, by contrast, was 320x200 with 256 colors. Or, to put it another way, the full screen resolution of MOM was about the size of a modern Windows icon and the icon has 4X the color depth.

The DOS machine that ran MOM would crash if it tried to store in memory 3 modern day icons.

Where do I sign away my life savings so you guys can make a game that uses all 12 GB of my systems memory?

on May 21, 2012


yes.

on May 22, 2012

I would love to see the game be able to take advantage of the extra mem with 64bit, but I feel it would mostly just be a tack on at this point.... and probably not well supported (as maybe a majority on non-beta buyers, aren't playing on 64bit?) but if the proposal is we have some simple way to cache more of the game in mem- if only we had 64 bit machines to run it on- then by all means, let my game run faster, but pls no extra gimmicky extra 64bit only features, there is a lot of high priority things to fix/improve for the game w/o creating distractions.

on May 22, 2012

I wouldn't count on Windows XP being the main PC gaming platform for much longer.  Despite resisting it for about two and a half years, I installed 7 this month, and I've basically got my compatibility issues licked.  And I've got better performance in games.  Those are the main things that gamers are worried about (plus the hefty price of course).

on May 22, 2012

dctrjons
...it's why how PC's are different better than consoles...

 

Man, I know on thing this poll taught me.  I have to throw in my XP towel soon.  Sniper Elite V2???  I think it is, wouldn't let me install.  I thought, meh.  Well according to this poll, the vast majority have moved on.  Dare I ask...being this is somewhat off-topic, any recommendations on how / which OS to get?  AND Should I get a package deal...IE from the store or just buy the OS.

I know people say build your own, but I've done that for years.  Cheaper and you don't get tag-along software to annoy your windows experience.  Thing is I tried to build my last one and the price was near the same.  Also there isn't the risk of me goofing something up and being SOL.  AND that system came with barely any extra crap on it what-so-ever.  1st Gen gateway dual core...but it's showing it's age.

Any advice?

There are lots of small local shops (and some websites) that will do custom building for you, to eliminate the risk. It will cost more, because the big companies use cheap stuff and get paid by Mcafee and coyo put their crapware on new PCs. Custom build doesthat have that. Microsoft actually offers a $100 service to upgrade to a crapware free 'signature' version of windows.

You get what you pay for in this case. 

on May 22, 2012

It's not the map itself that uses the memory. It's all the stuff ON the map.  You could have a crazy sized map if you restricted each of say 3 players to 100 units. 

But people want large maps so that they can have huge HUGE games with more cities, more armies, etc. 

 

Could there be a way to sacrifice the esthetics to have bigger map where those with 64 bit OS will not have to make that sacrifice?It's like when increasing screen resolution force you to lower the color depth of the game.

I do not mind if there is a 64 bit version of the game as long as the game play features does not change. If the only difference is that 32bit os player will have to power down their game to run bigger map, they somewhat assume the sacrifice of having less trees or uglier textures while playing the game.

Second, if the 64bit does not affect gameplay, it will be easiser to make 32bit and 64bit communicate to each other in case of multiplayer. It might make maintenance of the code later much more easier.

on May 22, 2012

It wouldn’t be fair to those who don’t have 64-bit OSes to have to pay for features and content they can’t use.

That is an interesting way to look at it.

Would this then apply also to DX versions? With the base game being DX9, and then you can buy a DX10 or DX11 upgrade?

Personally I hate DLCs with a passion because apparently the difference between DLC and an expansion is that DLC is based around micro-transactions, reactivating portions of the game that are there but were disabled and never should have been, and cheating items. Also exclusivities. I would prefer a 64bit Expansion to DLC. One purchase that includes a whole set and a significant amount of content for a higher price. Likewise for DX11 btw.

on May 22, 2012

larienna
Could there be a way to sacrifice the esthetics to have bigger map where those with 64 bit OS will not have to make that sacrifice?It's like when increasing screen resolution force you to lower the color depth of the game.

It's the stuff on the map, specifically units.  So really, decreasing the textures to the minimum doesn't make much difference if your map has to track and potentially display thousands of units (though you'd have to have a big screen to see many of them).  At some point, the memory limitation imposed by 32-bit is going to hurt so much you will want to upgrade.

Besides, scaling down for 32-bit on larger maps basically ensures that you will not get your money's worth.  True, it's not exactly cheap to buy Windows 7, compared with the cost of a game, but I think of it as a one-off expense that lets me enjoy far superior gaming now and in the future.

on May 22, 2012

MarvinKosh
I wouldn't count on Windows XP being the main PC gaming platform for much longer.  Despite resisting it for about two and a half years, I installed 7 this month, and I've basically got my compatibility issues licked.  And I've got better performance in games.  Those are the main things that gamers are worried about (plus the hefty price of course).

Windows XP hasn't been the main pc gaming platform for a long time. But there's a (continuously decreasing) percentage of people using it, and so developers have to sink to their level or risk not turning a profit.


http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey#cat0

on May 22, 2012

edit: doublepost

on May 22, 2012

the biggest issue with the steam survey is that it is STEAM only, as an example in MY personal network I have 18 computers (2 with steam on them and gameable) 7 machines that are gameable systems (ie atleast dual core 2ghz 4gb ram geforce 8600gt and better), and the remaining 11 are lower specs ie from a 486/100 up to a athlon 2800xp.

and a bit of further info with my top three machines, the slowest has steam, but the two fastest do NOT.

harpo

 

on May 22, 2012

MarvinKosh
I wouldn't count on Windows XP being the main PC gaming platform for much longer.  Despite resisting it for about two and a half years, I installed 7 this month, and I've basically got my compatibility issues licked.  And I've got better performance in games.  Those are the main things that gamers are worried about (plus the hefty price of course).

Windows XP is already old news: http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-weekly-201120-201220

Also interestingly Google Chrome just surpassed IE.

on May 22, 2012

Yes I was quite interested to note that Windows XP is completely dead in Antarctica.

You might even say...

...it had a chilly send-off!

In contrast, China has much less uptake of Windows 7.

on May 23, 2012

That was punny. Anyways, worldwide Win7 has quite a lead over XP.

BTW, check out US figures http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-US-weekly-201120-201220

45% Win7, 20% WinXP, 15% MacOS.

on May 23, 2012

YES

Meta
Views
» 36066
Comments
» 128
Sponsored Links