Amazing games consigned to the dustbin by lazy developers

Medieval: Total War is set in medieval Europe. The expansion pack is called Viking Invasion, and the combined edition is called the Battle Collection. It was one of the best-selling games in the Total War series. Medieval: Total War is not compatible with newer computer systems (even in compatibility mode) due to a video card issue, though on some systems the game will run when the user limits their system RAM to 2 GB in msconfig.

Click to expand...

There appears to be a lot of people with this issue:

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=medieval+total+war+windows+7

Total War is still a massive brand. They must have profits available for use. Is there any particular reason why they can't take all the code from the game and simply tweak it to be compatible with Dual-Core systems?

What no.1 games have you had major problems with installing since the closure of XP?

And who do you blame?

In SWTOR there is an issue with sound not playing in Windows XP in the GSF part of the game.

This is how "modern" gamers think :

And? Requirements may change over the years.
You should stop using Win XP anyway at this point so stop complaining.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's the same for the game you mentions, only the other way round ...

At some point a XPBox is going to be made to emulate Window XP.

It's not realistic to expect dev to update old codes. The 3rd parties or libs linked with the code won't always be compatible with new systems and you'll end up having to make a whole new engine. At that point you might just make a new game (or a HD/EE version) and sell it at "full" price.

So is it Microsoft's fault?

Nobody is a fault beside "evolution": hardware changes, security fixes, programming evolution, performance changes, "updates", etc.

Sometimes the issues is minor and sometime you have to rewrite big chunk of your code to accommodate. I had to rewrite a section of an application in Java because of a security fix in a Java 6 update once. Lets not talk about Java 7, I can't even compile under that because of all they changes they made.

I even had issues bringing an old Visual Studio 6 C++ application into a newer Visual Studio version. Everything compiled fine, but one part of the application wasn't working at all despite that (same PC, just different IDE).

So we have to accept that some games will be dead forever?

Yes and no. Yes from the developers perspective, but no from the standpoint that modders will almost always find a way. Whether its something like DosBox or rewriting code. You just can't expect that a game that is significantly old is always going to be playable on the latest and greatest hardware. If you're that attached to those games, keep an old XP box (or at least an XP dual boot) on hand for it.

I'm not sure why you'd consider developers lazy because they're not being paid to work on old code. They've had a contract that's been honored by completing the game and some patches - and they're not responsible for what the publisher decides to do with the future of the product.

The people who own the code and the franchise are the ones that could potentially decide to fund further development.

Would that be nice of them? Sure - but they're not to blame for people upgrading their OS, and they're not obligated to keep the game compatible with future software indefinitely.

When you buy a game, the supported operating systems are listed on the box. Those are the systems you can expect the game to work on, and that's it.

Calling developers lazy because they don't spend their free time trying to fix something they have no control over is pretty unreasonable, if you ask me.

That said, the VAST majority of XP games can run on Win7 and Win8 - though a few games might take a little fiddling and some technical know-how. I don't think I've encounted a single Win95+ game I haven't figured out how to run, either by myself or using some community mod.

Wow (not that unmentionable MMO which I no longer play). I agree with the musketeer. Completely.

pibbur who wonders if he should feel uncomfortable (or comfortably numb) because of this. And if the musketeer has become more docile.

Oh, so easy to say. Really, standard blame shuffling and philosophical clap-trap. Such fine eulogising to say nothing that encourages has-been games some additional pressure to be kept alive. Work-arounds and unlikely options as a substitute for positive action.

Perhaps?

Or?

Computer games are not media like we know it?

If I buy a book, I can own that book my entire life. The book will never change. If looked after well, the book may well last long after my lifetime. The written word can change over milleniums, via problems of translation (book-patches), but the original text is always available in its original form.

Likewise, film and television has the means by which it is easily transferred from one technology to the next. Small changes are noticed and identifiable (film/tv-patches), but the core product will never really change that much. It is quite feasible to ensure you can have access to your favourite film/tv throughout your entire life.

But for some reason we don't have any human desire to apply this concept to computer games. As if there is no form of 'community preservation' when it comes to computer games. Computer games are treated like penny dreadfuls that had no sales. They are treated like soap opera episodes.

Computer games have no sense of 'the original', continually altered and perma-patched beyond recognition until their time of natural death somewhere in the cycle of 5/10 year technological upgrades. Out with the old, in with the new. Like philistines marching through an ancient city of wonders, tearing down masterpieces to build military bunkers and grain barns.

If Steven King was told his books would become technologically unviable, he would find a way to make his products viable again - because he has pride in his canon. Steven Kings fan's would apply social pressure to make King's work available in their original form. Like-wise, Spielburg and Spielburg's fans would do the same for all his products.

But computer gaming does not have this core human sense of continued access? That suggesting such a desire for such an access is somehow… idiotic? Stupid? Unreasonable? Where content creators are not expected to 'care' for their own product and where fans are not 'expected' to continue their access desires?

I would say that this is a very unusual and 'unexpected' state to suggest humanity be 'meekly accepting' of…

If blaming people not responsible makes you feel better somehow, I guess that's one way to respond to something unfortunate.

To me, it's the response of a child unwilling to accept that whining to his mother won't make her any more responsible for that ice cream falling to the ground.

What an appalling metaphore.

Philistine:

a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts.

Click to expand...

If a work of art is lost, one must find blame somewhere, no?

Do you not think that 'pride in art' would be reason enough for a creator to maintain the access to their art?

Or do you not perceive computer games as art? Do you think computer games are an inherently philistine product?

I get that you're the sort of person who feels best when you can blame someone for what's bad in life, regardless of that someone actually being responsible or not.

But that's common enough - and people do enjoy their lashing out.

I have to say I find it amusing that you consider computer games developed under the publisher model "art" that the developers should take full responsibility for - and that you expect them to carry the burden of ensuring everything they've ever worked on will work on any combination of OS and hardware setup now and in the future.

It's not enough that they've toiled away under contract in an industry that's infamously harsh and ridiculously demanding on people not in suits - but they should also take personal responsibility for whatever hardware manufacturers, Microsoft, and consumers decide to do in the future.

I'm going to have to assume you have a very limited understanding of the realities of the gaming industry - because the only alternative is that you're an excessively self-serving individual.

Well, you could be both - I suppose.

But I don't want to assume the worst.

@MinorityReport: I don't think your comparisons are completely relevant.

Yes, you can keep a book "forever", but that's because you keep the hardware (paper). Just as you, as others have pointed out, can play your old games if you keep that XP PC. But not every book is or will be available as an ebook or an audiobook. And if you lose that book, you have a problem, because quite often the book is out of plrint. Similarly, not every movie on VHS is transferred to DVD or Bluray. Not every LP is rereleased on CD.

Of course, in general, and especially when it comes to the popular titles they are, but then you have to pay the full price again, sometimes even more. For the CD, the DVD, the Bluray and so on. Even if it's the same music, the same movie, and not necessarily anything extra.

I don't think gamers in general are willing to pay full price for getting their games on a new hardware/OS platform, just look at the discussions about the price of the extended editions of the Baldur's gates.

pibbur who is happy that there is a GOG.

So… you take the philistine approach and choose to attack me rather than accept that there is an inherent problem within the computer gaming industry.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. It doesn't help anyone, but then, what do you care?

Bill Gates on the importance of game transference 1995:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIJpovlHwE#t=14

Not just whining, it's a 'topical' 'issue':

Microsoft has defended its decision to skip backwards compatibility in the newly revealed Xbox One.

Microsoft Interactive Entertainment president Don Mattrick has confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that there are no plans for any form of backwards compatibility on the new system, saying 'if you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards.'

According to Mattrick, only 5% of customers play older titles on a new system and the option was therefore deemed unnecessary. Whether this statistic encompasses both Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 players is unclear and there is no mention on whether it also factors into the fact that the Xbox 360 was not fully backwards compatible with all original Xbox titles.

By contrast, Sony is being less strict in the backwards compatibility area and have plans to include a cloud-based streaming service to play older titles on its new console, possibly leveraging cloud gaming companyGaikai which it acquired last year.

At its launch, the Xbox 360 was capable of running 279 titles from the original Xbox library, although this number whittled down over time due to new bugs being discovered by players and updates to the console hardware.

Sony's Playstation 3 had a marginally better offering with backwards compatibility with earlier models allowing for Playstation 2 titles to be played from them and all models allowing for original Playstation titles to be run.

Microsoft's upcoming Xbox One was revealed earlier this week and has sparked a great deal of discussion in the gaming community, in particular surrounding its ill defined stance on the second-hand games market.

Click to expand...

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2013/05/23/microsoft-backwards-compatibility-is-backwa/1

Lots and lots of discussion on the topic:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2420963,00.asp

Beyond the results speaking for themselves, I’ll argue that it takes a better engineer to move a platform forward while at the same time making sure things don’t break. It’s pretty easy to wash your hands of something and declare it to be someone else’s problem.

Click to expand...

http://ianmurdock.com/platforms/on-the-importance-of-backward-compatibility/

It's all very well pouncing on a forum user and just reading from your book of 'modern internet insult memes' (spoilt, entitled, whining blah blah blah) at whatever the subject is, but, by doing so, you are just using many and varied words to say "I don't care".

While "I don't care" might be a valid position to take in any debate, it offers nothing to the topic and nothing to humanity. By repeating it over and over without any increase of 'interesting content' you're just 'thread wrecking' rather 'contributing'.

Yes mate, it's a hard life. Still, we manage to preserve art. George Clooney has just made a film about the true story of where allied forces in the second world war were accompanied by art specialists, ensuring masterpieces weren't destroyed in the horrors of war.

Now, those poor unfortunate slave-suits might well have a hard life, they might have pressures us poor 'entitled' individuals don't understand, but they are most certainly not 'fighting for their lives' and they most certainly don't have death as the potential outcome of 'trying to save a piece of art' - perhaps it's you who is 'misunderstanding' the 'pressures' of 'modern life'…

pibbur who said:

I don't think gamers in general are willing to pay full price for getting their games on a new hardware/OS platform, just look at the discussions about the price of the extended editions of the Baldur's gates.

Click to expand...

The desire to crunch every topic down to 'money' is the problem is it not? Isn't that the entire issue between philistine/art?

Nobody 'pays' to look at a statue in a park. But someone goes to the effort to make a statue in the park...

Nobody 'pays' to look at a book in a library. But someone goes to the effort to make sure the library has whatever book someone wants...

Why is there no 'library' of games, where minimally paid 'volunteers' ensure games stay relevant? Like GoG.com, but on a level of humanity rather than on a level of 'profit'.

If you are American then... I understand... but most other nations have concepts which they consider 'important beyond money' that they enact for a sense of 'humanity'...

Inherent problems? The industry looks for this kind of obsolescence.

The industry displays shaky potential to evolve gameplay. There is a cope out by transferring more and more games as a conduit for stories but for certain games, it is not easy.

Total war games illustrate the risks: Rome 2 has issues in terms of gameplay putting it under previous games in the series. As the previous games get obsolete because of platform non compatibility, it helps.

ChienAboyeur said:

Inherent problems? The industry looks for this kind of obsolescence.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, a wonderful sentence and I thank you for posting it

'profit' directly contradicts with 'preservation'. A problem for the consumer is the benefit to the maker.

This is the entire 'problem' with technology all-round is it not? A massive disparity between what a problem actually is and who's eyepoint we look through when we establish what is or isn't a societal problem.

MinorityReport said:

….
If you are American then… I understand… but most other nations have concepts which they consider 'important beyond money' that they enact for a sense of 'humanity'…

Click to expand...

Fortunately, I'm Norwegian. And I agree that there are things 'important beyond money', like some of the things you mentioned. But I don't think games belong to that category.

pibbur who

MinorityReport said:

So… you take the philistine approach and choose to attack me rather than accept that there is an inherent problem within the computer gaming industry.

Click to expand...

There are many problems in most industries, but that doesn't mean accusing the people not responsible for one you don't understand is a smart thing to do.

It's all very well pouncing on a forum user and just reading from your book of 'modern internet insult memes' (spoilt, entitled, whining blah blah blah) at whatever the subject is, but, by doing so, you are just using many and varied words to say "I don't care".

Click to expand...

Care about what? If I feel the need to blame people for something, I usually think about it for a bit until such time as I can reasonably establish their responsibility.

But, then again, I'm not obsessed with placing blame.

I like to look for solutions rather than dwell on the past - and I certainly don't see the point in blaming people who don't seem to have anything to do with the problem.

Yes mate, it's a hard life. Still, we manage to preserve art. George Clooney has just made a film about the true story of where allied forces in the second world war were accompanied by art specialists, ensuring masterpieces weren't destroyed in the horrors of war.

Click to expand...

I suppose this movie means it's ok to call developers lazy for no logical reason, then?

Now, those poor unfortunate slave-suits might well have a hard life, they might have pressures us poor 'entitled' individuals don't understand, but they are most certainly not 'fighting for their lives' and they most certainly don't have death as the potential outcome of 'trying to save a piece of art' - perhaps it's you who is 'misunderstanding' the 'pressures' of 'modern life'…

Click to expand...

Oh, so since they're not risking their lives - that makes your position reasonable?

I'm afraid I don't follow.

If this is about preserving "art" (again, an amusing look at the factory line products known as the Total War series) - maybe you should focus on providing solutions?

You know, how do you propose to ensure eternal compatibility in a world where operating systems and hardware platforms are developed by completely different segments in a cut-throat corporate environment?

Maybe if you came up with something other than irrational and emotionally driven whining - I could take you seriously.

We can certainly agree that it would be nice if all games remained fully playable on all setups for all time - but we're not living in Never-never land. We have this reality standing in our way.

But please let's hear your solution. If you can't come up with one, you must be lazy - because it's not like your life is at risk.