Blizzard's Games Will Stop Working on Windows XP and Vista Later this Year

Blizzard's Games Will Stop Working on Windows XP and Vista Later this Year

wow-320

Blizzard has announced that it is ending support for some older version of Windows in 2017.

If you're a fan of Blizzard's games who is still running Windows Vista or XP, you may want to think about an upgrade. The company announced over the weekend that it will be ending support for those two OSes later this year, which means that its games will no longer run in those versions of Windows.

The news comes from a post in the World of Warcraft forums by community manager Ornyx. Ornyx writes that, "Starting later this year, we will begin the process of ending support for Windows XP and Windows Vista in World of Warcraft, StarCraft II, Diablo III, Hearthstone, and Heroes of the Storm."

The rationale for ditching the two old OSes is simple: Microsoft has already ended support for XP, and will cease providing Vista support on April 11. Ornyx doesn't mention that specifically, but instead says, "Microsoft ceased mainstream support for these versions of Windows in 2009 and 2012, respectively, but since a decent portion of our audience was still using them at the time, we continued supporting them. However, there have been three major Windows releases since Vista, and at this point, the vast majority of our audience has upgraded to one of the newer versions."

So if you're still using XP or Vista, what does this news mean to you? In short, if you don't upgrade to a newer version of Windows before Blizzard makes the switch, you won't be able to play any Blizzard games on your PC. "After these older operating systems are no longer supported, the games will not run on them, so we encourage any players who are still using one of the older OSes to upgrade to a newer version."

It's not all that surprising that Blizzard is making this change. It's been a long time since Microsoft ended XP support, and with Vista support coming to an end in a few months, it's hard to fault Blizzard for wanting to move on from what is probably a painful process of making their games work on that old software. As one of the first commenters on the thread linked above said, "If you're still running XP or Vista, you're not running an OS you're running a security risk."

There's no date set yet as to when this change will go down, but the post does mention that it will be rolled out on "a staggered schedule," so you can likely expect a lot of nagging from Blizzard's launcher before it affects you.

Permalink

Does ending support mean the games will no longer work, or that they won't be providing patches/support for issues that arise when you run them on those OS'?

Solkard:
Does ending support mean the games will no longer work, or that they won't be providing patches/support for issues that arise when you run them on those OS'?

ffronw:
So if you're still using XP or Vista, what does this news mean to you? In short, if you don't upgrade to a newer version of Windows before Blizzard makes the switch, you won't be able to play any Blizzard games on your PC. "After these older operating systems are no longer supported, the games will not run on them, so we encourage any players who are still using one of the older OSes to upgrade to a newer version."

OT: Geez, I remember playing WoW on my old, shitty, Vista laptop during Wrath. My laptop was so bad, that I couldn't even enter Dalaran without my game locking up.

Guess this also means that I can no longer slack off at work whilst playing Hearthstone on the old XP PC in the server room. Ah well, good thing we have phones, eh?

Anyway, sad to see it go, I guess, but I haven't seen anyone actually running XP or Vista in years. Would be interested to see the numbers on how many people actually play on these systems, long term.

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

xxobot:

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

Not all IT departments are created equal.

In other news Blizzard needs to get with the times. I mean if Nintendo is now offering account-bound virtual store purchases we MUST be far enough into the future that Blizzard is offering CRISPR mutations into your avatar for $30 right? Oh wait, no, they're still using bloated hotbars and telling you where to stand.

Blizzard really needs to get with it. Just about every other F2P MMO on the market has better gameplay than WoW now. If they care about that franchise at all they need a reboot, PRONTO.

xxobot:

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

I work at a company making software for a few of the largest companies in my country, and our dev stack still includes VS 2008, winCVS and a XP vm.

And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working? TES Online stopped working in DirectX 10 but at least they added bells and whistles from DirectX 11 to the game.

xxobot:

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

Because these places don't think the benefits of upgrading their stuff would make up for the cost in money and time to make the switch.

Last year I graduated with a degree in Computer Informations. In a class on eCommerce, we took a trip to a local company that specializes in remote control technology, and I saw soooo many machines still running XP.

Czann:
And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working?

This. Like, WTH? I totally get not wanting to support these old OSes any longer but why are they deliberately shutting down access to their games with a patch? wat?

Arnoxthe1:

Czann:
And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working?

This. Like, WTH? I totally get not wanting to support these old OSes any longer but why are they deliberately shutting down access to their games with a patch? wat?

I doubt it would be an update specifically intended to stop the game working on older OS's but rather some functionality within an update require a modern OS feature that the older ones don't have.

But that's just a guess.

Czann:
And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working? TES Online stopped working in DirectX 10 but at least they added bells and whistles from DirectX 11 to the game.

Arnoxthe1:
This. Like, WTH? I totally get not wanting to support these old OSes any longer but why are they deliberately shutting down access to their games with a patch? wat?

In the case of DirectX, by adding DX11 shaders and no way to differentiate between what your machine has (DX10 or DX11), they forced incompatibility. More than likely, the devs likely didn't just, 'flip a switch' and then went "Oh, well, we could add this."

In the case of Blizzard's move, Here's a few theories.

Blizzard's games and B-net checks what OS you're running. It will likely warn, or refuse to run on older versions of windows. Blizzard's games likely have a compatibility layer for old OS's. This code could be removed from the games, reducing HDD usage. Alternatively, they'll simply stop working on this layer, and let future updates sort out the stubborn. Are you missing core Windows 7 libraries? Tough shit. Get with the times. Putting in a Support Ticket won't work either, as they'll simply state, "Sorry. We don't support that Operating System."

Wither or not it will still continue to run is purely up to a little bit of code that checks if your system is compatible. If they use it, then we could just get an error message when we try to run the game. If they don't, then the game could act up, crash, or just generally not work as intended.

BeerTent:

Czann:
And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working? TES Online stopped working in DirectX 10 but at least they added bells and whistles from DirectX 11 to the game.

Arnoxthe1:
This. Like, WTH? I totally get not wanting to support these old OSes any longer but why are they deliberately shutting down access to their games with a patch? wat?

In the case of DirectX, by adding DX11 shaders and no way to differentiate between what your machine has (DX10 or DX11), they forced incompatibility. More than likely, the devs likely didn't just, 'flip a switch' and then went "Oh, well, we could add this."

In the case of Blizzard's move, Here's a few theories.

Blizzard's games and B-net checks what OS you're running. It will likely warn, or refuse to run on older versions of windows. Blizzard's games likely have a compatibility layer for old OS's. This code could be removed from the games, reducing HDD usage. Alternatively, they'll simply stop working on this layer, and let future updates sort out the stubborn. Are you missing core Windows 7 libraries? Tough shit. Get with the times. Putting in a Support Ticket won't work either, as they'll simply state, "Sorry. We don't support that Operating System."

Wither or not it will still continue to run is purely up to a little bit of code that checks if your system is compatible. If they use it, then we could just get an error message when we try to run the game. If they don't, then the game could act up, crash, or just generally not work as intended.

That seems extremely dickish, these are people who bought a game that would work on their system and this just screws them without giving a good reason. I would hope they're willing to pay those people since they're taking the game from.

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Czann:
And how will this work? Will they release an update just to make the games stop working? TES Online stopped working in DirectX 10 but at least they added bells and whistles from DirectX 11 to the game.

Arnoxthe1:
This. Like, WTH? I totally get not wanting to support these old OSes any longer but why are they deliberately shutting down access to their games with a patch? wat?

In the case of DirectX, by adding DX11 shaders and no way to differentiate between what your machine has (DX10 or DX11), they forced incompatibility. More than likely, the devs likely didn't just, 'flip a switch' and then went "Oh, well, we could add this."

In the case of Blizzard's move, Here's a few theories.

Blizzard's games and B-net checks what OS you're running. It will likely warn, or refuse to run on older versions of windows. Blizzard's games likely have a compatibility layer for old OS's. This code could be removed from the games, reducing HDD usage. Alternatively, they'll simply stop working on this layer, and let future updates sort out the stubborn. Are you missing core Windows 7 libraries? Tough shit. Get with the times. Putting in a Support Ticket won't work either, as they'll simply state, "Sorry. We don't support that Operating System."

Wither or not it will still continue to run is purely up to a little bit of code that checks if your system is compatible. If they use it, then we could just get an error message when we try to run the game. If they don't, then the game could act up, crash, or just generally not work as intended.

That seems extremely dickish, these are people who bought a game that would work on their system and this just screws them without giving a good reason. I would hope they're willing to pay those people since they're taking the game from.

They have a good reason. Windows XP has been fucking End Of Life for almost three years. Vista was never properly adopted by the consumer base because of the manufacturers, so Microsoft is about to declare that End Of Life.

I'm all for ripping on Blizzard, sure, but supporting something that even the developer of that something doesn't want to support is a hassle, a waste of money, and a liability. The IT world changes. People need to learn to change and adapt with it instead of holding the rest of us back and generating more needless work.

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

In the case of DirectX, by adding DX11 shaders and no way to differentiate between what your machine has (DX10 or DX11), they forced incompatibility. More than likely, the devs likely didn't just, 'flip a switch' and then went "Oh, well, we could add this."

In the case of Blizzard's move, Here's a few theories.

Blizzard's games and B-net checks what OS you're running. It will likely warn, or refuse to run on older versions of windows. Blizzard's games likely have a compatibility layer for old OS's. This code could be removed from the games, reducing HDD usage. Alternatively, they'll simply stop working on this layer, and let future updates sort out the stubborn. Are you missing core Windows 7 libraries? Tough shit. Get with the times. Putting in a Support Ticket won't work either, as they'll simply state, "Sorry. We don't support that Operating System."

Wither or not it will still continue to run is purely up to a little bit of code that checks if your system is compatible. If they use it, then we could just get an error message when we try to run the game. If they don't, then the game could act up, crash, or just generally not work as intended.

That seems extremely dickish, these are people who bought a game that would work on their system and this just screws them without giving a good reason. I would hope they're willing to pay those people since they're taking the game from.

They have a good reason. Windows XP has been fucking End Of Life for almost three years. Vista was never properly adopted by the consumer base because of the manufacturers, so Microsoft is about to declare that End Of Life.

I'm all for ripping on Blizzard, sure, but supporting something that even the developer of that something doesn't want to support is a hassle, a waste of money, and a liability. The IT world changes. People need to learn to change and adapt with it instead of holding the rest of us back and generating more needless work.

It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of leaving it alone. The games work fine, make the next one not work on XP and Vista. Give me Starcraft 3 that needs 7 or newer. Leave the current games current. I can't imagine anything they could do to them that would need an OS change.

xxobot:

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

Another company uses it to connect to our system, from time-to-time. I dont ask questions about why, what for, or how it got there, but at least it isn't one of the Windows 95 PCs that one of our other departments uses.

Proto Taco:
Oh wait, no, they're still using bloated hotbars and telling you where to stand.

Blizzard really needs to get with it. Just about every other F2P MMO on the market has better gameplay than WoW now. If they care about that franchise at all they need a reboot, PRONTO.

Not really, it's still the most played, so they can't need to "get with it" that much.

I mean why? Do you think the game genuinely needs a reboot, or just because you don't like it?

The game is also 13 years old, and despite that, still boasts the highest sustained playerbase, especially for an MMO with a sub fee. Why do you think it would be a good idea to throw that away and fundamentally change how the game plays? Wouldn't that just severely piss off the player base?

xxobot:

Laggyteabag:
...on the old XP PC in the server room...

I should know better than to ask... But why is there an old windows XP computer in the server room?!

Probably because the computer runs legacy software that is not compatible with new OSes, and there is no new, updated version because said software was custom developed or was very limited in its deployment. To upgrade they'd have to research and buy a new computer, and then they'd have to research and buy/commission new software, all of which costs $$$$. Whereas keeping the PC and software they currently use costs $0 above operating costs, or to hire someone to understand and take care of it is far less in the short run than to upgrade. (Easier to pay a little more over time than a little less all at once.)

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:
That seems extremely dickish, these are people who bought a game that would work on their system and this just screws them without giving a good reason. I would hope they're willing to pay those people since they're taking the game from.

They have a good reason. Windows XP has been fucking End Of Life for almost three years. Vista was never properly adopted by the consumer base because of the manufacturers, so Microsoft is about to declare that End Of Life.

I'm all for ripping on Blizzard, sure, but supporting something that even the developer of that something doesn't want to support is a hassle, a waste of money, and a liability. The IT world changes. People need to learn to change and adapt with it instead of holding the rest of us back and generating more needless work.

It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of leaving it alone. The games work fine, make the next one not work on XP and Vista. Give me Starcraft 3 that needs 7 or newer. Leave the current games current. I can't imagine anything they could do to them that would need an OS change.

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

They have a good reason. Windows XP has been fucking End Of Life for almost three years. Vista was never properly adopted by the consumer base because of the manufacturers, so Microsoft is about to declare that End Of Life.

I'm all for ripping on Blizzard, sure, but supporting something that even the developer of that something doesn't want to support is a hassle, a waste of money, and a liability. The IT world changes. People need to learn to change and adapt with it instead of holding the rest of us back and generating more needless work.

It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of leaving it alone. The games work fine, make the next one not work on XP and Vista. Give me Starcraft 3 that needs 7 or newer. Leave the current games current. I can't imagine anything they could do to them that would need an OS change.

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

Look at someone who enjoys the campaigns there is nothing else they can really add, those are perfect. There's nothing they could really add that would change things in a meaningful way.

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:
It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of leaving it alone. The games work fine, make the next one not work on XP and Vista. Give me Starcraft 3 that needs 7 or newer. Leave the current games current. I can't imagine anything they could do to them that would need an OS change.

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

Look at someone who enjoys the campaigns there is nothing else they can really add, those are perfect. There's nothing they could really add that would change things in a meaningful way.

So they should stop updating all their games to preserve the experience for a handful of people running an OS which is abandoned by its own manufacturer? You really need blizzard to be the bad guy here that badly, or just straight up don't understand the issue?

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:
It's not a matter of supporting it, it's a matter of leaving it alone. The games work fine, make the next one not work on XP and Vista. Give me Starcraft 3 that needs 7 or newer. Leave the current games current. I can't imagine anything they could do to them that would need an OS change.

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

Look at someone who enjoys the campaigns there is nothing else they can really add, those are perfect. There's nothing they could really add that would change things in a meaningful way.

This is about more than just StarCraft. I too, was shocked to find that Blizzard has more in their library than just the one game I like. (OW)

Either way, SC2 will still need those updates, lest the multiplayer becomes stagnant. SC2 SP and MP are the same game. Nobody said that they're changing the single player campaign to magically become exclusive. I only posted theories up above. Just don't expect any offical support when you run into any problems running XP or Vista.

If they take the smart route, more than likely, you won't notice anything come April, but if they go for the 'nuke all' approach, then yeah, XP users might have to, *Gasp* get with the times in order to continue. Either way, IT changes quickly. It'll leave people, including myself, in the dust.

Again, games are changing. We've gone beyond the NES days of "one version on a cart only." We have updates, online multiplayer, complicated games with new mechanics, and crafty-ass players who are A-okay with trying to break the game, hence the need for balance changes. Sure, your campaign is fine, but there could still be bugs, and it'd be a hell of a lot easier to solve those bugs with libraries from a modern OS, than with libraries from a 15+yo OS.

Elijin:

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

Look at someone who enjoys the campaigns there is nothing else they can really add, those are perfect. There's nothing they could really add that would change things in a meaningful way.

So they should stop updating all their games to preserve the experience for a handful of people running an OS which is abandoned by its own manufacturer? You really need blizzard to be the bad guy here that badly, or just straight up don't understand the issue?

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:

BeerTent:

Blizzard is consistently updating their games with newer content. Newer models, new maps, and new gameplay elements. Each model and each map needs to be built with both, newer technologies, and with older technologies. If we say, take Dx9 shaders, and apply it to a map that uses Dx11 shaders, the game could become unplayable with black backgrounds of transparent textures, or provide a player with an unfair advantage by allowing them to see something that players on newer hardware/software cannot. This is the biggest plus-side of Consoles. You only have to built for one hardware configuration. If you want your PC game to be compatible with a wide range of systems, you basically need to rebuld all of your content to be compatible with, say, OSX, Ubuntu, Include some functions and alternate code for old Legacy drivers for Radeon cards... Etc, Etc.

Edit The exception to this is if your game uses a relatively simple technology that is already compatible across a wide range of systems. Cross Code, for example, uses it's own modified version of Chromium to run a HTML5 setup. (By the way, That's fucking genius.) A larger AAA game like Overwatch, or GTAV with their own en gines would need far, far more work to ensure compatibility across multiple hardware configurations.

By saying "Leave the Current Games Current" you're saying, "Don't add new characters to your games. No new Maps. No new gameplay tweaks. No new bugfixes." Games have changed significantly over the years. You're prettymuch saying, "Let these games fall into obscurity." Which, a lot of Blizzard fans might not enjoy the notion of.

Look at someone who enjoys the campaigns there is nothing else they can really add, those are perfect. There's nothing they could really add that would change things in a meaningful way.

This is about more than just StarCraft. I too, was shocked to find that Blizzard has more in their library than just the one game I like. (OW)

Either way, SC2 will still need those updates, lest the multiplayer becomes stagnant. SC2 SP and MP are the same game. Nobody said that they're changing the single player campaign to magically become exclusive. I only posted theories up above. Just don't expect any offical support when you run into any problems running XP or Vista.

If they take the smart route, more than likely, you won't notice anything come April, but if they go for the 'nuke all' approach, then yeah, XP users might have to, *Gasp* get with the times in order to continue. Either way, IT changes quickly. It'll leave people, including myself, in the dust.

Again, games are changing. We've gone beyond the NES days of "one version on a cart only." We have updates, online multiplayer, complicated games with new mechanics, and crafty-ass players who are A-okay with trying to break the game, hence the need for balance changes. Sure, your campaign is fine, but there could still be bugs, and it'd be a hell of a lot easier to solve those bugs with libraries from a modern OS, than with libraries from a 15+yo OS.

I just don't get why they'd change something that isn't broken, why they make a masterpiece but then keep painting over it. What we have is great, I love it, it's one of my favorite RTS series. I feel like people who paid for a game deserve to be able to keep playing the game. It was designed for their systems, let them keep enjoying it. Make Starcraft 3 not work on them, don't just take away a game from people. It seems like kind of a mean thing to take people's money and then take the game from them.

Xan Krieger:
[...]I just don't get why they'd change something that isn't broken, why they make a masterpiece but then keep painting over it. What we have is great, I love it, it's one of my favorite RTS series. I feel like people who paid for a game deserve to be able to keep playing the game. It was designed for their systems, let them keep enjoying it. Make Starcraft 3 not work on them, don't just take away a game from people. It seems like kind of a mean thing to take people's money and then take the game from them.

Money.

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:
[...]I just don't get why they'd change something that isn't broken, why they make a masterpiece but then keep painting over it. What we have is great, I love it, it's one of my favorite RTS series. I feel like people who paid for a game deserve to be able to keep playing the game. It was designed for their systems, let them keep enjoying it. Make Starcraft 3 not work on them, don't just take away a game from people. It seems like kind of a mean thing to take people's money and then take the game from them.

Money.

I mean, depends what you mean by that. They certainly aren't making any money from Windows sales. You could argue they're saving labour costs in not working on ensuring their patches work on defunct systems, I guess?

Xan:
The games aren't separate single player and multiplayer titles. They're a single title, and you're essentially asking for the MP component to be paused forever, so that people running abandonware can play the single player. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at MS for leaving those OS's behind. Not unaffiliated developers for no longer being able to justify putting time and effort into defunct systems.

The only ground you stand on, is asking for a 'permanent offline' patch being offered to those systems, to preserve the experience for those individuals without stagnating the titles for everyone. But even then, given their online infrastructure, that's still work towards a problem they didn't create.

Elijin:

BeerTent:

Xan Krieger:
[...]I just don't get why they'd change something that isn't broken, why they make a masterpiece but then keep painting over it. What we have is great, I love it, it's one of my favorite RTS series. I feel like people who paid for a game deserve to be able to keep playing the game. It was designed for their systems, let them keep enjoying it. Make Starcraft 3 not work on them, don't just take away a game from people. It seems like kind of a mean thing to take people's money and then take the game from them.

Money.

I mean, depends what you mean by that. They certainly aren't making any money from Windows sales. You could argue they're saving labour costs in not working on ensuring their patches work on defunct systems, I guess?

[...]

Hey man, that all adds up over time. They're a business. While I won't say their support services are crazy expensive, Blizzard and other publishers are in the game to make money, and cutting costs is one of the ways of making it.

Developers need to ensure current patches work on the operating system. That's training, sandboxes, extra work, extra testing, and a support side of things, you have additional training and logging.

I don't see how this is a surprise. Microsoft Office doesn't work on Vista anymore, so why would Blizzard's games?

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here