Vista client screenshots and a new "trailer"

[Yoru]

Woah, are you telling me they won't be upgrading past DirectX9 for anything but Vista?  That would pretty much well force every PC gamer to upgrade.  That is huge.

That is correct. Windows Vista is also going to have an "Extended DirectX 9" or DX9ex, which will incorporate some features from DX10 but remain compatible with DX9. I don't know if DX9ex will be back-ported to Windows XP.

Driving consumer adoption of WinV is Microsoft's #1 concern; setting gamers up on a forced early-adoption path allows them to have a wider 'power-user adopter' group, which I think they're hoping will evangelize WinV via word-of-mouth.

[Reg]

Somehow I just can't see the major PC gaming companies forcing their customers to upgrade any time soon. Why on earth would Blizzard even consider trying to force millions of WoW players to spend a couple hundred bucks on a new OS?

[Yoru]

I doubt most of the game companies will go exclusively DX10 for a while, but there's still Microsoft to consider as a publisher, as well as a developer thanks to Microsoft Game Studios. We know how much weight a publisher has. They also might cut a deal with the other larger publishers. If EA, Ubisoft and Microsoft all won't fund a PC title without at least DX10 support, I'm guessing most developers would be up shit creek.

But that last bit would be a question for the rednames here - just how much pull does a publisher have for dictating technical specifications like 'thou shalt have a DX10 engine'?

[dwindlehop]

That is correct.

[Endie]

Somehow I just can't see the major PC gaming companies forcing their customers to upgrade any time soon. Why on earth would Blizzard even consider trying to force millions of WoW players to spend a couple hundred bucks on a new OS?

True up to a point, but MS will be throwing money at developers.  Halo on PCs will be Vista only from now on, for instance.

[dwindlehop]

That's not a particularly good example because Microsoft owns Bungie.

[Endie]

That's not a particularly good example because Microsoft owns Bungie.

Like pretty much every gamer in the world, I know about MS and Bungie: hard to get past the loading screen for Halo without seeing it.  But them buying studios like Bungie or Lionhead is a great example of how they can solve the problem by throwing money at it, whether that's purchase, exclusive tie-ins, or the more indirect route of providing consultants (often free of charge) to provde rapid ramping up of new techs.

In Halo's case, MS is throwing opportunity cost money at the problem.

[MahrinSkel]

I doubt most of the game companies will go exclusively DX10 for a while, but there's still Microsoft to consider as a publisher, as well as a developer thanks to Microsoft Game Studios. We know how much weight a publisher has. They also might cut a deal with the other larger publishers. If EA, Ubisoft and Microsoft all won't fund a PC title without at least DX10 support, I'm guessing most developers would be up shit creek.

But that last bit would be a question for the rednames here - just how much pull does a publisher have for dictating technical specifications like 'thou shalt have a DX10 engine'?

Depends on how much of the money the publisher is providing.  In the typical case, they are providing most of it, and they can (and do) place such requirements.  Even halfway (or more) through the development cycle.

--Dave

[Strazos]

Erm, anyone know if MS Vista will be shipping with both the 32-bit and 64-bit installs on the discs?

I'd really like to NOT have to buy the OS twice.

[Trippy]

Supposedly every edition except for Vista Starter (only available in "emerging markets") will have both 32-bit and 64-bit installs on the same DVD. Microsoft expects 64-bit computing to become the standard during the Vista's lifetime.

[Venkman]

The devs are saying that you're going to be able to play the game at the same settings you are using now without taking performance hit. All you need is Vista.

Hmm, I didn't see this thread before visiting the Eve booth, so didn't ask. I did get the impression though that the new models and textures were going to be a free upgrade not specifically requiring people run WinV. They have another overhaul that would compel WinV, but just swapping objects and textures doesn't seem like that much of a reason.

The changes look hot though. They haven't done the effects yet, but it already is night and day.

[Venkman]

Just read Issue #3 of EON and they mention in their Editor's Letter that Vista will not be a requirement. Of course it'll be a benefit, but only for those psychos who buy a new Microsoft OS less than 18 months after it first launches 

[Yoru]

The devs are saying that you're going to be able to play the game at the same settings you are using now without taking performance hit. All you need is Vista.

Hmm, I didn't see this thread before visiting the Eve booth, so didn't ask. I did get the impression though that the new models and textures were going to be a free upgrade not specifically requiring people run WinV. They have another overhaul that would compel WinV, but just swapping objects and textures doesn't seem like that much of a reason.

The changes look hot though. They haven't done the effects yet, but it already is night and day.

Read more closely; the Eve Vista upgrade is what Wolf was referring to, not Windows Vista. They know they'd be nuts to assume every Eve player was going to run out and get Windows Vista the second it's out.

[Margalis]

I highly doubt they will do that.

Prediction: 6 months after Vista comes out they will backport DX10 to XP, if not sooner.

[Soukyan]

Just read Issue #3 of EON and they mention in their Editor's Letter that Vista will not be a requirement. Of course it'll be a benefit, but only for those psychos who buy a new Microsoft OS less than 18 months after it first launches 

You just called me a psycho... 

[Strazos]

Since we're kinda talking about 64-bit and Vista....

How will all of our older 32-bit programs work in a 64-bit environment? Is it all kinds of "backwards compatible"?

[Yoru]

Since we're kinda talking about 64-bit and Vista....

How will all of our older 32-bit programs work in a 64-bit environment? Is it all kinds of "backwards compatible"?

64-bit Vista (and the already-available 64-bit XP) has a neat little thing called Windows-on-Windows64 (or WOW64, if you want to get confusing). It essentially 'translates' 32-bit apps so that they can run with only a little extra overhead on 64-bit machines. What it precisely does and how heavy the overhead is depends on what you're running. Consumer-grade 64-bit P4s and AMD64 processors are much faster at 32-bit emulation than certain other IA-64 processors (mostly ones built for use in servers) since they have a 32-bit compatibility mode built in.

So, in theory, "all" of your 32-bit programs will be able to run on a 64-bit machine without modification. In practice, I find that most user-mode applications will run fine. Applications that deal with Windows or the system more directly (e.g. Perfmon) is much more likely to not work, and anything that uses a device driver (e.g. most consumer security apps, anything with Starforce, CD-drive emulators) almost certainly will not work.
Various flavors of Unix have been doing this for a few years now.

[Samwise]

The WOW thing is the same thing they did for 16-bit apps when Windows went 32-bit.  Lots of older apps, or apps that require backwards compatibility with ancient machines, are still actually 16-bit executables that get run under WOW - you can spot them by bringing up the task manager and looking for "wowexec" running at the same time they do (I think that's the one).

[Strazos]

So all my old games will still work? Cool.

[Yoru]

So all my old games will still work? Cool.

In theory. It remains to be seen how well DirectX versions 1-8 will be translated.

[Yegolev]

Various flavors of Unix have been doing this for a few years now.

True, although we normally don't have to worry about third-party libraries that aren't compiled correctly.  You'd think if IBM could make this work, MS could as well.  But then, IBM can't seem to get Linux working on a Power CPU last I bothered to look.

[dwindlehop]

I was browsing dev posts and whatnot and found these links to feature lists:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/plannedfeat.asp - ideas they like
http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/indevelopment.asp - ideas they're working on

From the indevelopment page:

Modifications or Modding

Enable players to utilize Modifications (Mod's) to upgrade sub-systems of their ship or modules.

Next-Gen Research & Development

Next step in Research & Development, utilizing Reverse Engineering and changes to Research Agents. Reverse engineering enables players with the right tools, skills, items and knowledge to get inefficient limited run blueprint-copies.

Salvaging - New Mini-Profession

Salvaging will be mostly used to harvest ingredients to manufacture Tech I and Tech II mods for both modules and ships. You salvage Wrecks, which are created on destruction of player and npc ships instead of cans. You will remove loot from wrecks as usual, but to salvage the additional ingredients you require Salvaging equipment and skills.

Triple woot. I am extremely glad that custom modifications, reverse engineering for limited run T2 BPCs, and salvaging are all independent game mechanics. I was worried they were all related or something.

I want an optimal range mod.

[dwindlehop]

This here is also highly awesome. Objectives?

New Gang System - Combat Organization Project

The new gang system features a hierarchial structure, with broadcast messages, waypoints, navigation abilities and objectives.

[Viin]

Sounds very cool to me. I want it now!!!

Hopefully it'll post on Test soon (if not already?) so we can check it out.

Wonder if you'll have to be in a command ship to use the full features of the new gang structure?

[Endie]

We used to have to write targeting Win32s when coding for mixed 16/32 bit systems, and it worked surprisingly well.  Not just that, but it was fast enough that we saw no discernable speed difference between native and emulated modes.  Of course, that was largely dependent on whether one was running 3.1, WfW3.11, win95 or whatever, rather than the underlying chipset.  Thunking was the official Microsoft term for the translation process, as I remember.

Happily, the compiler target matters less to me these days, but I'll bet that they have implemented this iteration even better than the last.

[Roac]

Microsoft has historically been fanatical about ensuring that applications run well on their OS.  The famous example is where they wrote custom code to ensure that Sim City worked on 95; there was a memory bug in Sim City that would have prevented it otherwise, but the game was so popular they couldn't ignore it.  No telling how far they will go with the 64 bit stuff, but I'm sure they are well aware of how many apps run in 32 bit, and the outcry that would result if suddenly a sizable percent no longer worked.  They have an effective monopoly on the PC market, and they DO NOT want to lose it as it is by far the most critical product that MS produces.  In almost every sense of the analogy, expect MS to protect the client-Windows relationship like a Godfather after his own mother. 

[Engels]

I've been running XP 64 bit for about a month now and just about every 32 bit game, from EQ2 to small titles all seem to work in the X86 emulated mode within xp 64. Its really rather awsome that they've pulled it off.

As far as performance goes, the 64 bit OS on my system seems crazy fast by comparison to the 32 bit. Its nearly as if I'd gone out and bought a chip thats twice as fast. I know, that's actually what's meant to happen, but I didn't think it really would be that big a difference considering all the other factors involved.

The x86 games themselves may not be running faster in emulated mode, but having the background OS chugging along at 64 bit in the background seems to lend additional speed and 'pluck' to the system overall.

[bhodi]

Microsoft is many things, but one thing it is not is stupid.

Microsoft knows that desktops and computer gaming in particular is it's last most stable bastion and they'd be stupid to do anything but throw as much money at the problem as they can.

Microsoft has lost market share completely with IIS, it's losing market share on the receiving end to firefox; It's losing server share to linux; It's got the MS office market pretty well tied up, and it's got exchange, but the real thing that keeps it afloat is PC gaming. Locking in the entire computer gaming and desktop world and requiring windows to be installed on every computer sold is how you create a monopoly. You maintain it by an almost constant cycle of upgrade and end-of-lifeing older products. If vista doesn't work flawlessly with every game and program that you have installed right now than it will flop; no one will upgrade.

The gaming market is excited due to their saying something like "DirectX 10 will provide a 30% performance increase over DirectX 9.0c". I think this is a bunch of horseshit but we'll see when the benchmarks come out. From the few things I've read it looks like they haven't managed to pull it (the performance, stability, or security) off; vista is shaping up to be a buggy piece of trash becuase of all the security 'fixes' they've put in it. Currently it's so bad they've gone through several dev staffs and are throwing huge amounts of money at it. If there isn't sufficient reason to upgrade, no one will. People will gradually start looking to develop on other platforms and their lock on the gaming market will break.

They won't let that happen if it can be at all avoided.

[Venkman]

Read more closely; the Eve Vista upgrade is what Wolf was referring to, not Windows Vista

Ok, got a bit confused I think.
First question: Is it just that to take advantage of the crazy upgrades coming to Eve we need Vista but that we can otherwise still play the game at it's still current-beauty without XP?

Second question: Is there a difference between Eve upgrades on a 64-bit system and Eve upgrades under Vista? Like, if I get smacked with a bag of money this summer and buy a 64bit system, I'll be getting WinXP 64 knowing I'll later need to upgrade to Vista. What it is specifically about Vista that is tied to Eve improvements?

[bhodi]

Windows Vista = DirectX 10. Preported to give huge visual enchancements as well as an overall performance improvement (the 30% figure is being thrown around). Most games will likely play fine but you won't get the "extra effects". For instance, if you have an older card that only supports directx 7 or 8, you won't see heat shimmers or water effects in doom 3 or half-life 2; It just doesn't do the renders. I'm guessing eve has effects like that you just won't see unless you upgrade.

64 bit is a mixed bag. Some games work better, some games work the same, (very few) work worse. The game has to specifically take advantage of 64 bit, otherwise it just runs in 32 bit emulation mode.

[Yoru]

Read more closely; the Eve Vista upgrade is what Wolf was referring to, not Windows Vista

Ok, got a bit confused I think.
First question: Is it just that to take advantage of the crazy upgrades coming to Eve we need Vista but that we can otherwise still play the game at it's still current-beauty without XP?

Second question: Is there a difference between Eve upgrades on a 64-bit system and Eve upgrades under Vista? Like, if I get smacked with a bag of money this summer and buy a 64bit system, I'll be getting WinXP 64 knowing I'll later need to upgrade to Vista. What it is specifically about Vista that is tied to Eve improvements?

Brief version of Half Of The Thread:

1. Eve Vista. Graphical improvement coming this fall. DirectX 9, does not require anything new from you except maybe better hardware if your old stuff sucks. Higher-resolution textures, more polys in models, maybe some new shading effects.

2. Later on (in 2007), Eve for Vista, which is a DirectX 10 engine upgrade for Eve, along with any necessary Vista compatibility updates. (Not sure how extensively Eve makes use of directories and registry keys that Vista restricts access to; these would be the primary things that need changing.) DirectX 10 is Windows Vista only (at least, that's what Microsoft is saying), so in order to take advantage of this upgrade, you'd need to upgrade to Windows Vista. I presume the older DirectX9 client would remain available.

3. 64-bit Eve. This wasn't mentioned to me. Maybe it'll be a part of #2. Mostly unrelated, some people report better performance when migrating from a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware to a 64-bit OS on 64-bit hardware even when running 32-bit applications.

[Nija]

I've been running XP 64 bit for about a month now and just about every 32 bit game, from EQ2 to small titles all seem to work in the X86 emulated mode within xp 64. Its really rather awsome that they've pulled it off.

No kidding? I've got two 64bit AMD processors now, but I've still not taken the plunge. It's really worth it?

[dwindlehop]

If all your apps are 32 bit, there's no advantage to running a 64 bit OS.

[Nija]

If all your apps are 32 bit, there's no advantage to running a 64 bit OS.

Well, of course they're all 32 bit. It's not that I'm looking for a GAIN by switching to 64 bit, I'm just looking for "not a loss". Know what I mean?

edit: it's chicken or the egg type stuff.  I'm not using a 64 bit OS because there aren't really any 64 bit Apps that I'm missing out on. And there's no 64 bit Apps, because there aren't any 64 bit Users.

[Engels]

I've been running XP 64 bit for about a month now and just about every 32 bit game, from EQ2 to small titles all seem to work in the X86 emulated mode within xp 64. Its really rather awsome that they've pulled it off.

No kidding? I've got two 64bit AMD processors now, but I've still not taken the plunge. It's really worth it?

If all your apps are 32 bit, there's no advantage to running a 64 bit OS.

Let me put it this way:

I have my 32 bit OS on 2 sata drives at raid-0. You know, the fast configuration.
I have my 64 bit OS on 1 pata IDE drive. An old clunker.

The 64 bit OS boots faster. At least twice as fast. It is more responsive and in general runs all OS-based operations, including web browsing, file transfers, application switching, etc, far more smoothly than my 32 bit OS.

The only reason I had the balls to try it is because I had an old HD lying around and my work got a bunch of licenses for 64 bit that it isn't going to use, so I am unnoficially 'testing' it out. I keep my 32 bit os in case my boss decides the testing period is over <grin>.

Sooner or later I'm going to take those SATA drives and put the 64 bit on it.