64-bit Windows Operating System Required for Generals 2?

[Sonic 292]

A tweet posted by Johan Andersson, who works at DICE on the Frostbite 2 engine, could possibly indicate that when Generals 2 releases in 2013 a 64bit Windows operating system could be required. Meaning no support for 32bit editions of Windows.

 

 

This is just speculation, the system requirements for Generals 2 have not been confirmed yet. But if you're stuck on an older 32-bit edition of Windows, now might be a good time to make the upgrade. You can read the original post right here.

[Guest Sonar]

Great opportunity, eh?

 

So I'm expected to take this requirement as an "opportunity" to upgrade. I think it'll be the other way around. I'll someday upgrade to 8, and decide "Oh, here's an opportunity to actually play Generals 2."

[Sonic 292]

He doesn't mean Windows 8 specifically. He followed up with 2 tweets....

• 
  
• 
  

So any 64 bit edition of Windows, Win7, Vista and of course Win8 but I doubt WinXP 64bit will be officially supported.

 

More developers should be pushing the system specs up. They can't keep supporting older operating systems like XP for ever. I used a computer with XP on it last week and reliased how much better Windows 7 was to find stuff. XP looked so old and so plain.

[Plok 319]

They can't keep supporting older operating systems like XP for ever.

It's still one of the most widespread OS's. DICE was just being selfish and lazy when they created Frostbite 2 only for DX10+.

 

but I doubt WinXP 64bit will be officially supported.

Of course it won't. It doesn't have DX10 support.

[Sonic 292]

Another article about this here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-05-21-some-frostbite-games-will-require-a-64-bit-os-in-2013-dice

[Lauren 77]

It's still one of the most widespread OS's. DICE was just being selfish and lazy when they created Frostbite 2 only for DX10+

Why is it selfish to only use DX10+? The optimizations that can be done are worth much more than supporting a system that should have been buried 5 years ago.

[Inferno 22]

It's rather inconsiderate.

[Jarzka 1]

Great opportunity to upgrade to Windows 7 64bit because Windows 8 will be a big flop ._.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Jarzka

[Nmenth 289]

Windows 8 will be a big flop ._.

Actually it will probably be a commercial success, not because it deserves it, but because the idiots of the world outweigh the non-idiots.

 

[Aircraftkiller 9]

It's rather inconsiderate.

 

Of what? People who want to play PC games designed for 2012 systems that own 2002 to 2008 systems?

[Plok 319]

2012 systems support XP

Well, in this time of global crisis, you can't expect people to waste their money on upgrading a computer.

[PurpleGaga27 37]

One thing I like to say about the system requirements: UNACCEPTABLE!!!

 

Not many C&C players ever go to the Internet and play games under a 64-bit system of Windows 7 and I am still using Windows XP 32-bit to access the Internet, even if Origin is required. At this point of time, Generals 2 should be using DirectX 12 graphic technology on the Frostbite 2 Engine by now due to the existence of Windows 8.

 

2012 systems support XP

Well, in this time of global crisis, you can't expect people to waste their money on upgrading a computer.

 

...and with a 64-bit OS.

Edited May 24, 2012 by zocom7

[Luk3us 63]

That seems a tad odd for a game firm to restrict its player base...

 

I'm all for it by the way. Filthy XP users and people with ancient (2010) hardware.

[Inferno 22]

Of what? People who want to play PC games designed for 2012 systems that own 2002 to 2008 systems?

Irrelevant. If a large number of people still play on an old OS, it's just inconsiderate to ignore this player base. It's also not the smartest thing to do.

[Aircraftkiller 9]

You're implying that a game company has to be "considerate" of you. Be aware that you are nothing more than a number on their demographic spreadsheet, the one cell that says "Unable to play due to system constraints". It isn't designed for you. Get a new system, they're not that expensive. I spent $1,500 to buy a top of the line set of hardware for my modeling and art development in February. You could easily get something to come within 60% of my system specifications for less than $1,000 that will last you quite a few years.

[Gben 20]

Can i haz $1000 to buy a new laptop Ack?

[klandri 2]

You're implying that a game company has to be "considerate" of you. Be aware that you are nothing more than a number on their demographic spreadsheet, the one cell that says "Unable to play due to system constraints". It isn't designed for you. Get a new system, they're not that expensive. I spent $1,500 to buy a top of the line set of hardware for my modeling and art development in February. You could easily get something to come within 60% of my system specifications for less than $1,000 that will last you quite a few years.

 

You fail to take into account that you're in the US where hardware is cheap and people have got (relatively) high income. I don't know how it is in Europe (where the biggest fan base is) but where I am at hardware is ridiculously expensive.

[Inferno 22]

You're implying that a game company has to be "considerate" of you. Be aware that you are nothing more than a number on their demographic spreadsheet, the one cell that says "Unable to play due to system constraints". It isn't designed for you. Get a new system, they're not that expensive. I spent $1,500 to buy a top of the line set of hardware for my modeling and art development in February. You could easily get something to come within 60% of my system specifications for less than $1,000 that will last you quite a few years.

1. It's not about me, I can run it just fine.

2. It's not a single individual we're talking about here, but a considerable portion of the gaming market.

3. What Klandri said.

[Traymen 6]

According to this (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp) table, nowadays most popular OS on PC is Windows 7. I may only suspect, that some part of users of Windows 7 had already bought 64-bit version system, and number of those users is still growing by 2 % per month. Of course there is still big part of involvement in Windows XP, but you have to consider that "deadline" of supporting this system is closer day by day. In 2014 is expiring (i guess), but even now there are some games that are not coded for Windows XP.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Traymen

[Aircraftkiller 9]

2. It's not a single individual we're talking about here, but a considerable portion of the gaming market.

 

I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of a statement that come at a time when computer parts are incredibly cheap in relation to how powerful they are. That being said, you missed my entire point. I will restate it for you. EA ran a demographic for this game's development. They already know who can and cannot run it. If at any time they felt that they would make more money by developing for a 32 bit OS, they would do it. You do remember that they thoroughly enjoy making a considerable profit off their investment, I hope. It has nothing to do with being "considerate" and everything to do with being a business that cares about turning a profit for their shareholders.

[Lauren 77]

According to this (http://www.w3schools...browsers_os.asp) table, nowadays most popular OS on PC is Windows 7. I may only suspect, that some part of users of Windows 7 had already bought 64-bit version system, and number of those users is still growing by 2 % per month. Of course there is still big part of involvement in Windows XP, but you have to consider that "deadline" of supporting this system is closer day by day. In 2014 is expiring (i guess), but even now there are some games that are not coded for Windows XP.

Also if someone gets a new Win7 that is only 32bit he or she is an idiot.

[Plok 319]

Also if someone gets a new Win7 that is only 32bit he or she is an idiot.

That's because 32-bit versions are cheaper. There's a global crisis going on here, hello! You rich megalomaniacs bathe in money and you can afford such ****. Some people live outside the USA and Western Europe, in case you didn't know.

[Lauren 77]

I know, but it makes more sense to wait longer, and get a x64 system and OS instad of an x86 which is outdated the next year.

And no, I don't bathe in money.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Lauren

[Aircraftkiller 9]

You rich megalomaniacs bathe in money

 

 

Also, if you're too poor to afford a 64-bit motherboard and CPU, you should seriously reconsider video gaming. The whole industry is moving that direction because computing itself is moving that direction. Or are you a "rich megalomaniac bathing in money" since video games cost $60 USD?

[Doctor Destiny 40]

I don't see why everyone is bitching about this. Well, I expect it from purplescrin because he's an idiot, but everyone else is just... wow. It's 2012, not 2006. XP cannot last forever and it's finally showing how antiquated it really is with system requirements. It's not getting the most out of today's hardware for one thing and it can't even run DX10 or better. I mean, the last DX release that XP supported was released in 2004. It's time to move on from things that were useful six years ago. Besides, gamers tend to throw more money at their PCs than most other segments on the PC market so it's no surprise we're seeing a trend towards games that have more heavy system requirements.