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

yes.

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.

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).

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

edit: doublepost

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

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

Also interestingly Google Chrome just surpassed IE.

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.

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.

YES