Many games have content that, for whatever reason, is not used by all--I live in central Wales (UK) and my internet speed is at best  just over 500kps!!! so many multiplayer games are just not functional, but if a game is inherently good enough to interest me I grit my teeth at 'paying' for multiplayer usage that will not be available to me. Bottom line as always: is it commercially realistic? Given that games players tend to have expensive machines, I think the answer must be yes.

I think the question should be "will 64 bit improve the game?". The mass migration to 64 bit started 3 years ago and the commercial potential from selling a superior product to the many who have 64 bit machines far outweighs the lost sales from the few who continue to languish in the 32 bit world. I think this is reflected in the poll results thus far.

A far more important question from a PC developers point of view is whether it's worth while to support Windows RT on tablets - 4x games should be well suited to that platform. Right now it looks like Microsoft will basically have to give Windows RT away free if they want Windows tablets to be price competitive and simply being competitive may not be good enough to buy their way into this market.

Since some people throw around baseless opinions about how prevalent or not 64-bit platforms are I'm just putting this up here:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Just to clear things up. Those stats are for all Steam users, I'll leave speculations as to how precise this is for the subset of turn based strategy gamers to others.

Interesting to see those results, HappyNihil. I wish they'd show how many of those users are laptop users.

How many units are in those games at once? 8? 10? You're confusing GPU power with memory use.

And by number of units, I don't think he means total number of units, but rather how many different units are there.  10 copies of the same character model takes less memory than 1 copy each of 10 different character models.

As this is a single player game it would be fine.  However the last pole was about the possibility of adding multiplayer, if that is something that is still being considered then it is a bad idea.  It would split the community down the 32/64-bit line and restrict who you could play with, so long as the game is available in both formats the DLCs should be in both formats.  Again this is only relevant if the idea of adding multiplayer is still on the table, if not then as I said it is a fine idea.

I don't think I am. I chose memory intensive games on purpose (Rage was a bad example since AFAIK megatextures aren't RAM critical, they are just huge) . But the sheer amount of objects and size of terrain (not instanced, but updated realtime) in the case of let's say Arma (nowadays popular thanks to Day-Z) at least seems definitely much bigger than what Elemental does.

But I'm sure somebody better versed in this would pick better examples. Let's assume I'm completely wrong about this which I very likely am.

My choice of examples is irrelevant since correct ones exist, unless Elemental is the most RAM intensive game ever made. Is it? If yes then why and what would bringing it into 64-bit exactly accomplish? Why does nobody else do it yet (obviously the time will come at some point)?

I'm sure I come off badly here, but while I like Stardock (or more specifically GalCiv2) it really isn't technologically leading company as far as games go, Elemental is a turn based strategy, a genre usually for obvious reasons less demanding than most other genres, Elemental doesn't look better or (to laymen's eyes) bigger than competing products and yet it's the first time I see serious mention of 64-bit only content.

Which is peculiar. At the very least.

So I'm simply asking hopefully simple questions.

full disclaimer in case this sounds worse than intended: I bought Elemental: War of Magic when it came out, found the game horrible but didn't ask for refund (as it was my fault for buying it almost blindly) hence my free copy and interest in Fallen Enchantress. But after previous experiences (not only Elemental) I do not have the most faith in Stardock (other than Kael obviously). So consider me a skeptic.

More memory isn't going to affect the game's graphics.  It affects the size of maps, the number of units you can have, the number of different objects you can have. 

Play diablo 3 and ask yourself, given their budget why are the items you get so similar or identical? It's a memory constraint. It's why sins doesn't have a 4th race, it's why galciv map sizes top out.

Deleted (not relevant any more).

...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?

I think you asked a GOOD Question, HappyNihil, in your Reply #57.  I sure didn't know the answer.  In fact, if I had guessed an answer, I  WOULD  have guessed that 3D graphics was the reason ...

So I learned something interesting here; thanks to Mr. Wardell's patient (to those of us who do not have technical knowledge) Reply #69, and thanks to your question.  Thanks to you both!  

I think it would be a bit unfair to those users who aren't using 64-bit and likely lead to a lot of confusion down the road where people buy dlc to a 32-bit game that they can't play. Personally I am using Win7 64-bit and I recommend MS users using an older version to upgrade as soon as reasonably possible if they enjoy gaming, especially if you are using something ancient like Vista or 9x versions (I'll let XP pass for now ). Though I guess there is a 15%-ish chance that you are using Win 7 32-bit so you might be better off gambling on Windows 8 being an upgrade.

On a related note Steam puts out monthly surveys and here are the latest stats for OS use.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I offer this opinion based upon my testing of the beta's of the mess and the overwhelming set of opinions in various locations in the web as a computer tech.

harpo

The odds are actually far less than 15% anyways. I misread what I posted, 15% are actually still using XP 32-bit not 7 32-bit which I find a bit shocking. I am guessing these people just gave up on Windows after Vista and haven't tried out Win 7 yet, or perhaps the 32-bit version isn't stocked as much as the 64-bit versions at retailers. I highly doubt the average consumer is more informed than figuring that 64 is a bigger number than 32 which makes it better probably. If they were then they would not be paying 5x more for electronics, unnecessary extended warranties, and get most of their software online causing most of brick and mortar retail stores to go bankrupt. There is a funny chart somewhere online demonstrating the Window's cycle of layering bad and good versions. Having what I'm sure will be the best version of Windows for at least a couple years still I probably won't update from Win7 64-bit until Windows 9 which will henceforth be known as the Pony 5000.