bit-gamer.net

Just Cause 2 won't run on XP

Just Cause 2 won't run on XP

Eidos has revealed that Just Cause 2 will be a DirectX 10 only game that won't run on Windows XP.

Eidos has made a brave announcement today, revealing the system requirements for upcoming sandbox shooter sequel Just Cause 2 and declaring it a DirectX 10 only game. It won't run on Windows XP regardless of how spiffy your hardware is, in other words.

The minimum requirements reveal that the game will need at least a Geforce 8800 or Radeon HD 2600 Pro to run, or an equivalent DX10 card with 256MB of video memory.

DRM-watchers will also want to know that you'll need an active internet connection to register the game after installation.

While the lack of support for Windows XP is unlikely to worry most bit-tech.net readers (what with the tech-savvy ways and spiffy hardware), it's still going to be a big problem for the majority of PC gamers. A quick glance at the latest Steam hardware survey reveals that Windows XP is still the OS of choice for the majority - 42.15 percent of Steam users, to be exact.

Check out the minimum and recommended system requirements below, then let us know your thoughts in the forums.

Minimum:
- Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Windows XP is unsupported)
- Processor: Dual-core CPU with SSE3 (Athlon 64 X2 4200 / Pentium D 3GHz)
- Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 8800 Series / ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro with 256MB memory or equivalent DX10 card with 256MB memory
- Memory: 2GB RAM
- DirectX: Microsoft DirectX 10
- Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
- Optical Drive: DVD-ROM drive
- Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible sound card
- Internet Connection: Internet connection required for product activation
- Input: Keyboard and mouse (Microsoft Xbox 360 controller optional)

Recommended:
- Operating System: Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Windows XP is unsupported)
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz or AMD Phenom X3 2.4GHz
- Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 Series with 512MB / ATI Radeon HD 5750 Series with 512MB or equivalent DX10 card with 512MB memory
- Memory: 3GB
- DirectX: Microsoft DirectX 10.1 with Vista SP1
- Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
- Optical Drive: DVD-ROM drive
- Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible Dolby Digital 5.1 sound card
- Internet Connection: Internet connection required for product activation
- Input: Keyboard and mouse (Xbox 360 controller optional)

Discuss in the forums.

57 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
proxess 24th February 2010, 11:06 Quote
Oh well... there dies out my DX9 hardware... (not that it's any good anyway).
g3n3tiX 24th February 2010, 11:07 Quote
Well it won't be the first game to enforce this : a recent one is Shattered Horizon. (although it might not be as big a game as Just Cause)
AngusW 24th February 2010, 11:14 Quote
Meh i don't care because people need to stop using a near decade old os especially considering how good windows 7 is and how cheap it was on release. Windows XP cant even make full use of most gaming rigs.
mi1ez 24th February 2010, 11:14 Quote
Hopefully this means a much better implementation of DX10!
tron 24th February 2010, 11:22 Quote
One of the reasons so many people don't upgrade is because they haven't been given a reason to upgrade.

More DX10/11-only games like this should create a significant change in the statistics and shift more PC gamers away from an ancient operating system and into the year 2010. Either upgrade to Windows 7 or upgrade (downgrade) to a current gen console.
sotu1 24th February 2010, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
One of the reasons so many people don't upgrade is because they haven't been given a reason to upgrade.

Agree with you here. Win7 is much much better but considering most people will still only use their PC for Foozbook, MSN and Office there's not really a need to change. Win7 doesn't feature any killer apps. I think I remember a friend saying they're running out of ideas for a new OS and that they're only updating the OS for SKU purposes! (That's what he said, don't flame me!)
dinjo_jo 24th February 2010, 11:33 Quote
This is quite a old news.
eddtox 24th February 2010, 11:39 Quote
I'm still running WinXP on both my PC and my laptop, but that is because they are both from 2005 and I'd rather wait until I build a new rig later this year, than splash out for 7 now. However, I certainly don't expect the latest games to run on my rigs when XP has been superseded twice. XP was dreadful, then it was awesome, now it's just old. It's served us well for 9 years but it's time to let it go. Windows 7 is an excellent OS, as far superior to XP as XP is to 98 and the vast majority of people would do well to upgrade as soon as they can. Hell, even Vista is ok now, after a shaky start.
AngusW 24th February 2010, 11:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotu1
Agree with you here. Win7 is much much better but considering most people will still only use their PC for Foozbook, MSN and Office there's not really a need to change. Win7 doesn't feature any killer apps. I think I remember a friend saying they're running out of ideas for a new OS and that they're only updating the OS for SKU purposes! (That's what he said, don't flame me!)
This is true but these people won't be playing just cause 2. Also i reckon with the steam survey that there is probably alot of players that only play a bit of CS source on pc and obviously they won't need to upgrade from there "dual core 8800gt 2gb ram xp" type systems.
Unknownsock 24th February 2010, 11:50 Quote
Sorry but this is almosty an exact copy and paste from Kotaku Oo

Steam surverys fail anyway, they dont take into account alot of other info we need.
CardJoe 24th February 2010, 11:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Sorry but this is almosty an exact copy and paste from Kotaku Oo

Steam surverys fail anyway, they dont take into account alot of other info we need.

Shouldn't be, since I haven't read their story. In fact, I try to avoid Kotaku as much as possible. I hate the site with a passion, tbh and will only be led their through a link from another site - which didn't happen here.
B1GBUD 24th February 2010, 12:02 Quote
I don't recall the 1st Just Cause.... did you guys review it?
RichCreedy 24th February 2010, 12:09 Quote
you think people still using xp is bad, i have in the past few weeks, been out to a couple of customers who were still using win98 and dial up, i was able to pursuade them to update thier machine to win7, and broadband, which they are now on.
rickysio 24th February 2010, 12:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichCreedy
you think people still using xp is bad, i have in the past few weeks, been out to a couple of customers who were still using win98 and dial up, i was able to pursuade them to update thier machine to win7, and broadband, which they are now on.

I still have a system sitting around with Win95.
PureSilver 24th February 2010, 12:17 Quote
I really liked the first Just Cause (I don't think anyone else did) so looking forward to this...
CardJoe 24th February 2010, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
I don't recall the 1st Just Cause.... did you guys review it?

Before my time here, but a quick google says no.
wuyanxu 24th February 2010, 12:21 Quote
good, it's about time we move on.
Judge Zetsumei 24th February 2010, 12:36 Quote
I agree with the majority of people here. PC gaming has always been at the cutting egde of gaming. We need to move on from XP. This doesn't bother me as I'm on windows 7, Heck even my dad is!
devdevil85 24th February 2010, 13:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Hopefully this means a much better implementation of DX10!
I'm with you on that one!
gavomatic57 24th February 2010, 13:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
I really liked the first Just Cause (I don't think anyone else did) so looking forward to this...

I loved it too, got my 1000 achievement points on my Failbox 360 before it died. Very much looking forward to the sequel and very glad they're not supporting XP.
shanky887614 24th February 2010, 13:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Hopefully this means a much better implementation of DX10!
I'm with you on that one!

i doubt this wil hapen with direct x11 cards becoming available at under £100 becasue of this i think directx10 days are numberd
pizan 24th February 2010, 14:00 Quote
I like how they specify that XP is unsupported. Otherwise tons of people who dont read the requirements will have something of a case when they start bitching how they wasted there money n a game they can't play.
erratum1 24th February 2010, 15:03 Quote
It's taken a while but we are finally seeing dx10 as the minimum, also my 8800 has now become a minimum requirement. I knew this day was coming, gulp !!
Fruitloaf 24th February 2010, 15:24 Quote
"While the lack of support for Windows XP is unlikely to worry most bit-tech.net readers (what with the tech-savvy ways and spiffy hardware)"

Really? My gaming hardware is DX10 but runs Windows XP and I've never had a reason to pay to upgrade. I'm as tech savy as you get and have no real plans on paying money for zero extra features.

I've got nothing against Windows 7, its very nice on my laptop but there is nothing except a little eye candy that it could add to my PC. I'd say you're a brave developer to cut off 40% of your audience unless thats going to reduce your costs by 40%.
[PUNK] crompers 24th February 2010, 15:56 Quote
well 40% of the PC market, which is miniscule compared to what it'll sell on consoles. i doubt they're too worried. its primarily a console title anyways
devdevil85 24th February 2010, 17:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
Quote:
Originally Posted by devdevil85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Hopefully this means a much better implementation of DX10!
I'm with you on that one!

i doubt this wil hapen with direct x11 cards becoming available at under £100 becasue of this i think directx10 days are numberd
I think what he/I meant was that since this a DX10-only title the DX10 features should be better-implemented than had it been a DX9 game with DX10 features added on to right before release.
frontline 24th February 2010, 18:39 Quote
Frostbite engine in Bad Company 2 also doesn't include AA in DX9 mode, DX10 or DX11 are required to enable it, from what i gather.
brave758 24th February 2010, 21:30 Quote
Good evolve or die. Its time to move forward
RichCreedy 24th February 2010, 22:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruitloaf
"While the lack of support for Windows XP is unlikely to worry most bit-tech.net readers (what with the tech-savvy ways and spiffy hardware)"

Really? My gaming hardware is DX10 but runs Windows XP and I've never had a reason to pay to upgrade. I'm as tech savy as you get and have no real plans on paying money for zero extra features.

I've got nothing against Windows 7, its very nice on my laptop but there is nothing except a little eye candy that it could add to my PC. I'd say you're a brave developer to cut off 40% of your audience unless thats going to reduce your costs by 40%.

if you want this game there is a reason to upgrade, simples
Showerhead 24th February 2010, 23:47 Quote
Seems odd to be Dx10 or above only as (i assume) it will be out on consoles to. I thought the Dx the 360 used was 9?
NethLyn 25th February 2010, 01:01 Quote
Last year it would've mattered, but I upgraded to 7 today with more RAM. Next month the graphics card will round it off.

Still got XP but in dualboot on another drive, so I can play both new and old games without a hitch.

So I think Eidos are looking at the PC userbase of the last three years which may have shipped with Vista from the off - and are targeting them rather than people with good specs but without Vista minimum. They're in business and have to perform for their new owners, so it's their decision. I didn't do my upgrade just for AvP or this game but because my graphics card was underpowered. Doing the upgrade will let me keep gaming and the next time it falls behind I'll just build another one or go to consoles.
tron 25th February 2010, 06:59 Quote
This DX10-exclusive move might also prove to be an effective way of reducing piracy :)
l3v1ck 25th February 2010, 07:53 Quote
"While the lack of support for Windows XP is unlikely to worry most bit-tech.net readers "

Speak for yourself. I'm still running XP here and I don't have the money to waste on Windows 7 at the moment.
rollo 25th February 2010, 09:10 Quote
thats correct about battlefield 2 bad company

its all on there forums no AA in direct x 9 you must enable 10 or better for AA to work.

so 2 new titles both really require vista or above

win7 could be had for as little as £50 back on release thats when i got it.
xaser04 25th February 2010, 09:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Seems odd to be Dx10 or above only as (i assume) it will be out on consoles to. I thought the Dx the 360 used was 9?

Technically the 360 has its own version of the DX API which is not directly comparable with the pc version. However, I remember reading that it is somewhere between DX9 and DX10 (sort of a DX9.5), this would make sense given the hardware is somewhere between DX9 and 10.

I must admit I am not too bothered about JC2. I played the first one and thought it was decidedly average at best. My main pc is running Vista X64 so if I did wich to play it at least I can.
phuzz 25th February 2010, 10:13 Quote
@all the XP users
How many DX10 only games releases will it take before you upgrade?
Or are you going to wait until 2014 and the product end of life?

(*edit, this sounds more snarky than I intended, I meant it as a genuine question)
klimatekhange 25th February 2010, 13:13 Quote
There were a few games that supported Direct X 10 only (Halo 2 for example) when Vista first came out an age ago. These games weren't good enough to move people to Vista then ...

Until Just Cause 2 comes out who can say if it's the killer game that makes people desperate to move OS. I've got Win 7 and like it a lot. I'm dual booting less and less into XP. If games makers really wanted to make a seismic shift they would move to Direct X 11 only games.
Star*Dagger 25th February 2010, 22:11 Quote
You are not a PC Gamer if you do not have Win7, it really is that simple.
Saivert 25th February 2010, 22:34 Quote
just get a fast harddrive. that is what slows most PCs down these days. not the os.
AstralWanderer 25th February 2010, 23:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
...Windows 7 is an excellent OS, as far superior to XP as XP is to 98 and the vast majority of people would do well to upgrade as soon as they can.
Excuse me? Win2K/XP (based on the WinNT codebase) was a complete overhaul compared to Win9x and offered significant features like better stability, multiple-processor support, a radically better filesystem, security/permissions settings and an end to the 64K User/GDI/System heap restrictions (which could greatly limit Win9x's ability to multitask).

In comparison, Vista/7 added a new network stack (and yes, wasn't everyone over the moon over the "massive" improvements it made to Internet access and LAN file copy speeds) and moved the graphics subsystem out of the kernel (resulting in slower performance - speed was why it was moved into the kernel in WinNT 3.51). Oh, and lots of eye candy (which Win2K/XP can also do with third party software) and a few UI tweaks (either present-but-not-in-your-face with Win2K/XP or doable with extra software, free in many cases).

The downsides, lest anyone forget, include more obnoxious "anti-piracy" checks, slower performance (in part due to greater use of redirection/emulation, in part due to design flaws) and (generally) an increasing price (Windows 7 Pro £219, Vista Business £289, WinXP Pro £260, Win2000 Pro £260,WinME £139, Win98 £162 - listing the "professional" prices since 64-bit Win7 Home Premium has an artificially low memory limit, 16GB versus 192GB).
Quote:
Originally Posted by phuzz
@all the XP users
How many DX10 only games releases will it take before you upgrade?
Or are you going to wait until 2014 and the product end of life?
Well, the PC this is being typed on (not my gaming system) is running Win2K and I've no plans to change it. As for DX10/11 exclusives, I'll just give them a miss - I find XP barely tolerable (needing extensive registry work and customisation via XPLite to remove the dross) and this seems to be an increasing trend with Microsoft ever since WinME, making it harder for end-users to control what their system is doing.

As such the most logical migration choice would be to Linux using Wine for gaming - unlike Microsoft, the Wine project have no commercial interest in trying to limit access to DX10+.
tron 25th February 2010, 23:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
... and moved the graphics subsystem out of the kernel (resulting in slower performance - speed was why it was moved into the kernel in WinNT 3.51). Oh, and lots of eye candy (which Win2K/XP can also do with third party software) and a few UI tweaks (either present-but-not-in-your-face with Win2K/XP or doable with extra software, free in many cases).

The incredible improvements in the processing power of modern graphics cards, other PC hardware and drivers now, compared to when XP was first released, totally cancel out any valid reason to remain on XP even if you manage to get 2 extra frames per second in a particular game in XP.
AstralWanderer 26th February 2010, 00:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
The incredible improvements in the processing power of modern graphics cards, other PC hardware and drivers now, compared to when XP was first released, totally cancel out any valid reason to remain on XP even if you manage to get 2 extra frames per second in a particular game in XP.
The difference can be more than 2 frames - e.g. in this test XP managed 53 frames in Crysis compared to 48 for Vista/Win 7.

However saying that more powerful hardware justifies more sluggish software makes as much sense as hiring a builder to extend your house and then an arsonist to burn it down.
GiantStickMan 26th February 2010, 06:56 Quote
I'm still running XP which means I won't be buying this game, even though i loved the original. I still can't see enough reason to upgrade OS. When it's time to upgrade the hardware - sure. But for the time being there is nothing that Win 7 can offer me that i don't get with XP.
tron 26th February 2010, 10:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
The difference can be more than 2 frames - e.g. in this test XP managed 53 frames in Crysis compared to 48 for Vista/Win 7.

However saying that more powerful hardware justifies more sluggish software makes as much sense as hiring a builder to extend your house and then an arsonist to burn it down.

The modern 'sluggish' software is 'sluggish' for a reason. It contains more features (including kernel security) that benefit the user.

It's like saying you won't buy a modern cellphone because it's operating system is 20 times bulkier, it requires more RAM, and the phone boots 20 times slower than a cellphone from 15 years ago. Even if you are going to benefit from all the modern applications and features (including the eye candy) that were not available in the past.

You wouldn't run a modern cellphone OS on 10+ year old hardware.

The objection about requiring more RAM and other hardware for newer PC operating systems is also backwards.
trek554 26th February 2010, 12:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
The incredible improvements in the processing power of modern graphics cards, other PC hardware and drivers now, compared to when XP was first released, totally cancel out any valid reason to remain on XP even if you manage to get 2 extra frames per second in a particular game in XP.
The difference can be more than 2 frames - e.g. in this test XP managed 53 frames in Crysis compared to 48 for Vista/Win 7.

However saying that more powerful hardware justifies more sluggish software makes as much sense as hiring a builder to extend your house and then an arsonist to burn it down.

how about a little bit newer test that has 7 Vista and XP basically even. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/articles.php?articleid=137&pageid=10
PureSilver 26th February 2010, 13:37 Quote
I understand the desire of people like AstralWanderer to enjoy the simplicity and efficiency of W98 etc, particularly as he seems very knowledgeable about tweaking and controlling the OS way past the knowledge of 99% of Windows users.

The rest of us - i.e., the buying majority of the market, to whom OS makers cater - continue to appreciate the increased ease of use afforded by updated GUIs and the increased stability of 7 over Vista in particular. There are a whole host of other reasons I prefer 7 over XP and I'd add that increased hardware capability entirely justifies more taxing software - the entire reason I keep my computer upgraded is so that it can handle the increased demands of software. It's the same with my phone - my first Nokia could barely handle Snake II, but my iPhone runs an OS (technically a POS) that can run many hundreds of thousands of custom-designed programs that can do a million things the Nokia could not. In much the same way, for the average user - maybe not for the author of W98 For Dummies - Windows 7 can do many things W98 cannot. For sure, if software was exhaustively re-coded and optimized, maybe I wouldn't need hardware specification increases. But that would increase the cost of the software in comparison to the reduced cost of hardware. I'm just about happy with the balance as it is.

It's no surprise that game makers go where the money is, and if you won't buy a new OS, what reason do they have to believe you'll buy their games?
fargo 26th February 2010, 15:43 Quote
It will take a much better game than just cause to get me to switch from xp although eventually
I will but am in no hurry. Just for the record the 25 million or so steam accts the biggest percentage still use xp so nobody else is in a hurry to jump to win7 either.
Anfield 26th February 2010, 18:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saivert
just get a fast harddrive. that is what slows most PCs down these days. not the os.

Except of course for the fact that Windows 7 is the only OS in existance that properly supports both SSDs and gaming.

About windows 7 using some more ressources than windows xp (or hell, since some people mentioned it windows 98), who cares? ever looked at how much faster hw got in the last 10 years?
Phil Rhodes 26th February 2010, 20:26 Quote
Oh well, I guess that'll be one thing you can't do on XP that you can do on 7.

To add to the... oh yes... no things you previously couldn't do on XP that you can do on 7.
GravitySmacked 26th February 2010, 21:12 Quote
Times change, tech changes, OS's change that's just the way it is. It's an amazing feat that XP is still going so strong (more thanks to Vista's lacklustre take up)

It's inevitable more and more games wont be compatible with XP as we move forward, although I think it will be in slow progressions, as XP has such a high user base still.
GiantStickMan 27th February 2010, 00:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
Oh well, I guess that'll be one thing you can't do on XP that you can do on 7.

To add to the... oh yes... no things you previously couldn't do on XP that you can do on 7.

True enough, but is one game I am interested in worth AU$470 (since realistically that's what the OS would cost me)?
No. Not even close.
Don't get me wrong, I know the industry has to move forward, a lot of the advances we have seen wouldn't have been possible if everything still had to run under Windows 95, but for me as a user, I have not seen enough reason to splash out such a large sum of money when I am happy with the current OS. Once my hardware is outdated and I need to upgrade, sure I will defnately move on but for the time being XP suits my needs, and if that means I don't play Just Cause 2 until 1-2 years down the track, it won't be that much of a loss to me.
Ebo 28th February 2010, 10:04 Quote
Actually, i dont care about the cost, it just the way it is. Ive gone from xp to Vista 64-bit and im happy about it, after a bad start vista can do the trick for you, or it did it for me anyway.
What i dont understand is why some people upgrade their entire system spending a lot of money on topnotch hardware and still refuse to change OS, it dosent cost that much extra anyway when youre in the spending corner.

OS will surely have a much shorther lifetime than xp had thats a fact, and i dont care if i have to spend money on a new OS every 3-5 years, its just development. I spend so much money on upgrading anyway that the extra cost of a new OS dosent matter in the big picture. Can it do the things i want/need for the next 3-5 years, in my mind its money well spend and time to move on.
eddtox 28th February 2010, 14:22 Quote
Anyone else reckon Ebo is from MS PR department?:D
rollo 28th February 2010, 15:22 Quote
astral 5 fps isnt any better than 2

min fps is what matters in a game like crysis and if your above 30 all the time your good

if you had 33 on xp and 27 on win 7 i might grant you that one.

Problem is if you have such low fps its time for an upgrade anyway.

most peoples performance issues come down to 1 problem and that is hard drive. SSD vs normal hard disk even the fastest the change is massive. ( xp doesnt support SSD trim so you cant even go SSD)
Devolve 1st March 2010, 07:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
I don't recall the 1st Just Cause.... did you guys review it?

Before my time here, but a quick google says no.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/xbox-360/2006/10/09/Just_Cause_Review/1
AstralWanderer 3rd March 2010, 06:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
astral 5 fps isnt any better than 2
In that test it represented a 10% improvement and would likely have allowed for higher graphics settings (e.g. better AA) while still remaining playable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
( xp doesnt support SSD trim so you cant even go SSD)
Sorry, but that is utter balderdash.

TRIM may not be built into XP as it is in recent releases of Linux or Windows but it can be implemented via third party utilities, until it is incorporated into the ATA specification. Once that happens, it should be a case of downloading updated ATA drivers for your OS of choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek554
how about a little bit newer test that has 7 Vista and XP basically even. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/articles.php?articleid=137&pageid=10
Thanks for the link (though that site has the boneheaded idea of using Flash to display graphs - due to privacy/security concerned I don't have Flash installed so can't view them). It does however use the 64-bit version of XP which has its own peculiarities (e.g. Patchguard scanning the kernel 10 times a second, different graphics drivers) so shouldn't be considered the same as 32-bit XP.
yousufsabar 14th September 2010, 01:12 Quote
When I start Just Cause 2 then nothing happend what i do plzz tell me im using xp3 and i check vista to but same problem
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums