Does any game from Stardock support DirectX 10? Great that Microsoft develop DirectX. To bad that there is just a few developers that utilize the library.

Birger

Nope, still not enough user base to justify it really since it requires Vista.

Am I looking forward to DX11? Only if it has all the advantages of DX9 and DX10 without DX10's disadvantages (terrible performance).

Very little games have made good use of DX10, and those that did the general consensus was that the average user experience was better off had in DX9.

The DirectX 10.1 version of Assassin's Creed performed well. But Ubisoft claimed that is was "unstable". However, I have my reasons to believe that NVIDIA was the one that asked them to remove it. Since it ran well on ATI cards, and not cards from NVIDIA do to the lack of DirectX 10.1.

Birger

Since I know that Windows 7 is in the pipe, that pretty much guarantees that I won't go to Vista. And, if DX11 is tied to Vista+ that mean I won't give a crap about it until W7 comes out (and even that relies on it being work while.)

I didn't go to XP until Civ IV came out, and I needed something higher than 98. I suspect that it will be the same with these OS's.

Hmm... it's too soon for DX11... just a hunch...

No way in hell I am putting Vista on my computer. XP runs everything smooth as hell, Dx9.0c runs games great. If Dx11 is vista/7 (wtf is win7???) only, I won't buy games that aren't made to run on XP/Dx9. If microshaft makes Dx10/11 for XP too, I and many other Vista haters will be quite happy.

Maybe M$ should work on vista itself instead of Dx11 and people won't be running like chickens with their heads cut off buying XP Pro to put on their new computers.

I went with XP Pro only after Sp1 was out for 6 months. I ran 98Se for ages and still have it on a Dx4-100mhz laptop with 20mb ram and a 1 mb video card -runs smooth as silk and has never had a BSOD.

Consoles are perfect for the standards war concept, PC's always moved too fast for the market to keep up. I mean game developers have to learn the new standards and that usualy means thier first try at a new technology is not very good, their second attempt will always be better (which is why expansion packs are such great ideas for both sides). By the time their second effort is out the door, the technology which they are now good at is obsolete, lol.

The PC market is about solid, in depth, fun gameplay. Consoles are about fast time-to-hold interest which usualy means getting rid of in depth concepts that take the user time to think out. Flashy grpahics are PUUUURfect for this idea.

Crysis should have been a lesson for everyone. FPS wise: HL (1!) is far more interesting. Wargame/multiplayer wise it has nothing on proper simulations. With physics it does some niffty stuff (ram a hut with a car) but it quickly becomes see-through and gimicky since only small items are effected - not to mention spending 30 minuets trying to get my humvee out of a hut). The plot wasn't particularly good...

Oh but it had great shiny effects...

Yeah.
Im happy for the consoles to lead the way in the graphics department, as long as PC's lead the way in the gameplay department (not to mention modding)!

DirectX 11 is planned for both Windows Vista and Windows Vienna. Not sure which who will get the support first.

Birger

For a lot of people it may as well be windows 2050.

Personally, I enjoyed Crysis's gameplay. A lot. The whole "snipe and hide" mechanic was fun fun fun.