Just Cause 2 will not support Windows XP

By Tom Bramwell Published 24 February, 2010

"Written to take advantage of DirectX 10".

Update: Square Enix has told us this was actually confirmed last year (whoops), and here's a copy of the relevant statement on the issue:

"Just Cause 2 is an incredible looking title with one of the most richly detailed landscapes ever seen in a computer game, and to achieve this on the PC, the minimum specification includes a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card and operating system. The DirectX 10 and 10.1 APIs have allowed us to achieve an unparalleled level of visual quality, adding features and routines that simply would not be possible under DirectX 9. As a result, the graphical and performance gains have allowed us to create a game which raises the bar significantly in PC gaming and offers the player one of the most immersive and enjoyable gaming experiences."

Original story: Square Enix has said that Just Cause 2 will not support Windows XP.

"Yes that is true... there is no XP support for Just Cause 2," community manager Mike Oldman told VE3D.

"This is because the game has been written to take advantage of the extra performance offered by DirectX 10 and sadly Windows XP does not support that application."

Our friends at Rock, Paper, Shotgun responded by noting stats from Steam's latest survey, which suggest 42.15 per cent of gamers still use XP.

We've asked Square Enix if it has anything else to say on the matter.

Just Cause 2 is due out for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on 26th March.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (68) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • kestral #1 2 years ago

    It's about time, 2 os versions behind.

  • Tangled #2 2 years ago

    *jumps out of the phone booth as Captain Obvious*
    Well, someone had to go first. DX10 already has been out for 3 years. I wonder when games requiring 64-bit will come out.

  • Hypercube #3 2 years ago

    Well, Vista was shit, and I'm still undecided on the merits of Windows 7 in all honesty. My XP installation has been very stable for many years.

    I don't think Just Cause 2 is, on its own, enough to get me to upgrade right now. It'll happen eventually, of course.

  • Caimbeul #4 2 years ago

    Why not support DX11?

  • ryandsimmons #5 2 years ago

    Seems a bit early as Windows 7 has only just come out. Everyone I know is still on XP as no one was willing to touch Vista with a bargepole.

  • dfunked #6 2 years ago

    Anyone I know with PC good enough to run new releases already has either Vista or Win7... Its about bloody time they stopped supporting a 9 year old OS and moved on with the times!

  • NewbieZilla #7 2 years ago

    Only games that will command respect should take this step. Not sequels to games with derivative missions.

  • ignatiusjreilly #8 2 years ago

    Agreed that DX10-only games are bound to come out eventually, but it seems a bit strange that it is a game that is also on the consoles, which don't support DX10 anyway.

    Nearly 50% of people on the Steam survey had XP, making it by far the most popular operating system among gamers, but hopefully some clever person will hack it to run on XP soon enough.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 24/02/10 @ 09:53

  • ShinMegami08 #9 2 years ago

    but does it support Windows 95?

  • obscured021 #10 2 years ago

    "It's about time, 2 os versions behind" I have to agree with kestral, its also 2 DX versions behind, i switched to win7 back in october and there is now no going back to xp ,and i have been using xp from launch, i used to use vista and xp dual booted, but never used vista much only for the odd DX10 game.

  • Quint2020 #11 2 years ago

    This was always going to happen and should really surprise no one, I still believe XP to be a legitimate choice for business use, it's an OS that's proven to be stable and Win 7 really offers no benefits to business users, however if you're a gamer you really have to move with the times on everything from hardware to OS.

  • Cadence #12 2 years ago

    Hmmm, but if the steam stats are accurate then that's a hell of a lot of gamers that won't be able to run it.

  • peteb #13 2 years ago

    @Cadence

    Yea but if they are using Windows XP then perhaps a significant proportion of them wouldn't have the hardware to run the game anyway.

  • bad09 #14 2 years ago

    Didn't Steam do a survey saying 40% are still on XP?

    Smart move....

  • jellyhead #15 2 years ago

    It's a shame about XP and DX9, they've served us well. I updated my hardware last year, i'm running Windows 7 and got a new gfx card last week. Can't wait for this game. The only thing to put me off now would be ridiculous DRM.

  • login_name #16 2 years ago

    I wasn't too happy about upgrading to Vista but it came with the PC and to be honest, I've never had an issue. The updates and service packs must have sorted out a lot of the problems. I have a copy of Win7 sitting on my desk, had it since launch, and still haven't installed it yet. I installed it on my wife's comp and there really isn't that much difference, so far as gaming is concerned.

  • ignatiusjreilly #17 2 years ago

    Although I still can't get on with Vista, I do like 7 a lot, but I really can't see any real reason (any suggestions?) to spend £70 on buying it, as there doesn't seem to be anything it can do that I can't do already.

    A few games being DX10 exclusives will probably be the motivation I need.

  • the_mtfr #18 2 years ago

    It is an obvious marketing decision. Microsoft has been artificially pushing their new releases of various software onto users forever. I'm not really blaming Microsoft, they are a business trying to make money. But personally I despise this move, since the game will run on DirectX 9 on Xbox 360.

  • FooAtari #19 2 years ago

    This really MS's fault for not adding DX10 support to XP. Can't expect developers to support DX9 forever.

    I think Vista get's a lot of stick. I have been running it pretty much since it was released and never had any major problems with it.

    Anyway as others have said, if your gamer, just like consoles or any other part of a PC you have to upgrade your OS eventually to keep playing the latest games. XP is 9 years old now, time to move on.

  • mkreku #20 2 years ago

    Great. Another thing that will lead to dismal PC sales and then they can put that old "piracy kills PC gaming" record on repeat yet again.

  • jellyhead #21 2 years ago

    Well at least they haven't put "Comfy Couch" on the requirements like they did with Alan Wake :D

  • ignatiusjreilly #22 2 years ago

    @Bloodkult

    Forgive my cycnicism, but just about every developer says that regardless of how little or how much time and effort goes into the PC version.

  • jellyhead #23 2 years ago

    [link url=http://i45.tinypic.com/ifbajp.gif
    ]http://i45.tinypic.com/ifbajp.gif
    [/link]


    NEEEEEEEEEED!

  • bad09 #24 2 years ago

    "Eidos have been pimping the PC version as a not just a port, but a proper PC version"

    "proper" PC version just means same as the console versions just with no pad support ;)
    Edited by bad09 at 24/02/10 @ 10:50

  • dudefella #25 2 years ago

    That's pretty dumb. I'm still on XP.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #26 2 years ago

    Adding D3D10 support to XP isn't as easy as people assume. For starters, D3D10 is designed around the WDDM driver framework, which simply doesn't exist in XP. I'm as cynical as the next person about the motives of corporations like Microsoft, but I suspect this wasn't as underhanded a move as we might expect. It's why the attempts to back-port D3D10 unofficially have never really taken off.

  • kangarootoo #27 2 years ago

    "That's pretty dumb. I'm still on XP."

    Two seemingly unconnected statements ;)

  • Munster #28 2 years ago

    I suspect that DX10 was necessary to support the streaming tech that Just Cause 2 uses. Memory management is the one area that consoles have had an advantage over PCs using DX9.

  • Quak #29 2 years ago

    I skipped Vista completely, having used it on the test machine at work and found it to be horrendous. However, I got Windows 7 on the first week of sale and haven't looked back. I've since installed it on my girlfriend's computer and on my laptop - it really is so much better than both XP and Vista.

    Having said that, to not support XP is a pretty stupid move. Half of Windows PCs are still running XP (thanks to Vista being so shit of course) so that's half of their potential market out the window at kick-off. With them also making the game for the 360, it's not like they haven't got a DX9 code-base available to them to use for the PC.

    A little nit-pick would be to correct where they say "DX10 is not supported by XP" with "DX10 works fine on XP but because Microsoft hoped it would encourage people to "upgrade" to Vista, they made it too difficult for the average user to get it working".

  • mashk #30 2 years ago

    I'd expect this kind of move from say Crytek's next big PC killer or ID's latest effort. But from a mere 'console port'? Regardless of what the developers say, it's going to be 'gimped' to accommodate the consoles. Probably requires horrendous PC specs.

  • sarcasmoidosis #31 2 years ago

    Vista vanilla was utter shit. After SP1 it was actually nice. I'm running 7 at the moment and I could never go back to XP. XP is... not so fluent when compared.

    Still, "Written to take advantage of DirectX 10". I'll believe it when I see it.

  • Rubarack #32 2 years ago

    This is pretty dumb, 42.5% of PC users are on XP.

    Better?

  • Quak #33 2 years ago

    This is pretty dumb, 42.5% of PC users are on XP.

    Better?

    No, because it's 42.5% of Steam users. Unless literally every PC has Steam installed, the percentages will be different.

  • tossetaz #34 2 years ago

    The Xbox 360 directx api support all the features of directx 10 (and actually also some of the directx 11) that doesn't rely on specific hardware so it might just be that they are using such features. Besides Windows XP is so old people should have seen this coming sooner rather than later.

  • ignatiusjreilly #35 2 years ago

    Besides Windows XP is so old people should have seen this coming sooner rather than later.

    I do see your point, but there were many people who really did not want to switch to Vista and for them (us), the only viable upgrade for XP has been out for just 4 months.

  • mkreku #36 2 years ago

    I've recently switched to Windows 7.. and I don't really like it. More problems with my applications (worked perfectly in Windows XP), more problems with older games, takes a shitload of resources just to have the OS running (1.3 GB for an OS?!), lots of annoying little bugs (icons disappearing from system tray, USB drivers failing to respond after sleep mode etc.). I checked the kernel and it's version 6.1. Vista was 6.0. Windows 7 IS Vista.

    I will still get Just Cause 2 though. It looks phenomenal so far.

  • Les #37 2 years ago

    "Windows 7 IS Vista."

    Of course it is. What did you expect so soon after Vista? Marketing rules the world.

  • Quak #38 2 years ago

    Windows 7 IS Vista.

    Windows 7 is Vista is XP is 2000 is NT.

  • sneetch #39 2 years ago

    Wow. I wonder if this will go the same way as the Vista only games? As in, fall flat on its ass?

    I still think it's too soon to be dropping XP. Most gamers I know skipped Vista because there was no need (just about every game worked on DirectX 9.0c) and because of poor performance at its launch. I still think Windows 7 is still too fresh for all that many to have upgraded.


    @dfunked
    Anyone I know with PC good enough to run new releases already has either Vista or Win7... Its about bloody time they stopped supporting a 9 year old OS and moved on with the times!

    I just upgraded to Windows 7 when I built a new PC, my old PC (5 years old) was still more than good enough to run new releases: it still exceeded the recommended settings of most games that come out.

    No real need to upgrade, I'm just a tech whore. ;)
    Edited by sneetch at 24/02/10 @ 12:56

  • makeamazing #40 2 years ago

    This is pretty lame from a gaming point of view. XP is ultra stable, I dont recall having any bluescreens from it. I went to Vista and security issues and general hassle, but overall it was stable. Running Windows 7 now, and its bluescreen twice when playing games so far... not that impressed with it. Like many people i suspect i was actually considering moving back to XP.

    No one wanted to move from XP to Vista because it just wasnt that good, lots of people dont want to move from XP to 7 because the cost/hassle of upgrading with their license issues (upgrade or clean install crap)/features not that great. Not only that half the features have been half assed (two monitor support on docking of apps just doesnt work correctly).

  • sneetch #41 2 years ago

    @Quak
    No, because it's 42.5% of Steam users. Unless literally every PC has Steam installed, the percentages will be different.

    Good point, but as Steam users are all gamers, there are millions of them and that's the target market I reckon it's a pretty good indication of the overall number of gamers that have each.

    [link url=http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
    ]http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
    [/link]

    It is interesting to note that in the January survey the number of XP users is dropping and the Win 7 users are rising at a fairly good rate, if those trends continue or accelerate then it could be good:

    Windows XP 32 bit (-1.93%) 43.81%
    Windows 7 64 bit (+2.79%) 19.04%

    I'm quite interested in this just from a discovering "just what can be done with DirectX 10" point of view. Only 50% of Steam users actually have DirectX 10 systems.

  • AphoticCosmos #42 2 years ago

    Good.

    It should be illegal not to have a Windows 7 install on a Windows PC. Seriously - Vista was mediocre at best, but 7 is a thing of beauty. It's about time someone made a move like this.

  • Quak #43 2 years ago

    Good point, but as Steam users are all gamers, there are millions of them and that's the target market I reckon it's a pretty good indication of the overall number of gamers that have each.

    True to a point, but over 14% of total Steam users are running shader model 2.0 video cards and 18% have a 1GB or less of RAM, so it seems that not everyone with a Steam account is the type of gamer who would buy this game either. We're talking Peggle users and people who signed up to play HL2 back in the day and haven't bought anything substantial since.
    Edited by Quak at 24/02/10 @ 13:32

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    Square Enix will have various reasons for this decision. Number of people with XP currently installed is only one of them.

    If the ONLY thing that mattered was the installed base numbers as they stand today, it might be an obvious error. As it is, they also have to consider what the software can do, whether people will upgrade soon anyway, how their choice of platforms affects support from Microsoft, future patching of the title, expansion packs, etc etc etc.

    As always, if it appears to some posters that a really obvious and stupid decision was made by an experienced company, the situation is perhaps simply more complex than the reader believes it to be.

  • muscleblade #45 2 years ago

    I just hope this game is better than the first fun but very flawed title.

    Its on my maybe list.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #46 2 years ago

    "This is because the game has been written to take advantage of the extra performance offered by DirectX 10 and sadly Windows XP does not support that application"

    That's odd, because the Xbox 360 version will have to have been written in DirectX 9...

  • kangarootoo #47 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    Can the 360 support DX10?

  • BobsUncle #48 2 years ago

    "Can the 360 support DX10? "

    No.

  • ignatiusjreilly #49 2 years ago

    As always, if it appears to some posters that a really obvious and stupid decision was made by an experienced company, the situation is perhaps simply more complex than the reader believes it to be

    Everyone realises that, we're just trying to figure out what those reasons may be. Your point that this is a 'real company' therefore their decisions shouldn't be questioned or debated is is a running theme in your posts but I still don't buy it.

    There's only been one poster who called the decision 'dumb' as far as I can see, and even then it didn't seem like anyone agreed with him.

  • FooAtari #50 2 years ago

    Amazing how quickly people forget about all the problems XP had when it was released. I also remember the same cries of people not wanting to upgrade from 98.

    Just like Vista XP needed a service pack to properly sort it, and it wasn't until SP2 that it became the stable OS we have now. After 9 years you would hope it's pretty damn stable... Yet if Stability is what your after you should be looking at Linux really, which I use for all my "day-to-day" computing, resorting to my Windows box only to play games.

  • sneetch #51 2 years ago

    @FooAtari
    I have had precisely zero problems with Windows 7 so far and none with XP for ages (as in I truly can't remember the last problem I had with XP). Well, apart from not knowing that in Windows 7 I have to run Mass Effect as administrator until a colleague patiently explained it to me, pointing me to the Steam shop page (I bought it from Steam) where it plainly told me I'd have to run it as administrator. So, not so much a problem with Windows 7 as a user failure. It's been 100% stable so far not, so much as a hiccup.

  • kangarootoo #52 2 years ago

    ""Can the 360 support DX10? "

    No."

    I don't get the confusion then. They wanted to use the most recent version of DX on each respective platform, assuming DX10 is the most recent version... which as I write this I have a premonition of someone telling me that it is not :)


    @ignatiusjreilly

    Ok. Fair enough. I'm not saying the decision shouldn't be questioned. I am just saying we should be a little more constructive in our questioning.

    "There's only been one poster who called the decision 'dumb' as far as I can see"

    That was exactly the post that got me involved :) ... though I concede, it was only one post.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 24/02/10 @ 15:11

  • ignatiusjreilly #53 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    It's not ;)

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_11
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Dir...[/link]

    But if a developer made a mainstream game DX11 only, there'd be a few more people making "dumb developer" comments :D
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 24/02/10 @ 15:17

  • Les #54 2 years ago

    "Just like Vista XP needed a service pack to properly sort it, and it wasn't until SP2 that it became the stable OS we have now."

    For me personally, it has little to do with stability. Wouldn't consider XP to be very stable TBH but it consumes less resources than Vista/7 which for me is important as I mainly run Windows in virtualization in my Mac to access work applications. The occasional Windows game is a side benefit.

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    DAMMIT :)

    Hey wait a minute, I have "see into the future" powers. Cool!

  • ignatiusjreilly #56 2 years ago

    Well I have only tried the beta of Windows 7, but even from that it was obvious that my PC ran significantly faster in 7 when compared to Vista and boot up and shut down times were much quicker.

    As most of the functionality I need is in XP, Vista or 7, performance is pretty much the most important factor in making an OS decision and it was very clear to me at the time that Vista was the worst of the three.

    I guess Vista has made performance improvements since then, but as far as I'm aware Windows 7 is still a much more efficient OS.
    Edited by ignatiusjreilly at 24/02/10 @ 17:22

  • djed #57 2 years ago

    Of course my graphics card supports dx 10 (it even supports dx11). But I won't pay through the nose just to get access to it. For there is no other reason for me to upgrade from XP. Nor is there another reason why XP doesn't have DirectX 11 (Microsoft wanting me to pay through the nose, that is).

    @Watkins381
    That's the reason many people call Windows 7 for Windows Millennium 2 Service Pack 7 ;)

  • Miths #58 2 years ago

    I've had absolutely zero issues with Vista x64 on my current system - and extremely few (but still very annoying, very infrequent BSODs) with Vista 32-bit on my older laptop.

    Turn off that crazy User Account Control thing as the first thing you do, and (though not recommended) if you can live with having your regular data backups to rely on, do the same thing (or at the very least look into the schedule settings) with System Restore to cut back on excessive disk trashing, and Vista is a great OS these days.
    Although for current XP users there's probably no reason not to skip straight to 7 now. It just doesn't really seem to be worth the upgrade for users with a stable Vista system - although I imagine there could be performance increases here and there that I just didn't notice in my brief sessions during the Christmas holidays on my father's Windows 7 PC.

    I doubt I'll bother with Windows 7 until it's time to buy my next PC - or if Windows should be in dire need of a reinstall before the "expiration date" on this PC.

  • rommy667 #59 2 years ago

    Xp forever man :)

  • yagisencho #60 2 years ago

    I think they've made the right business decision.

    1) Most computer buyers never upgrade their graphics hardware (gamers != most computer buyers).
    2) Game publishers aren't targeting their new AAA titles to owners of single core, DX9, WinXP-based machines.
    3) Most people who bought new machines over the past 2-3 years are running either Vista or Win7.
    4) Testing costs money, and WinXP is losing market share to Win7.
    5) WinXP extended support ends in 2012.
    6) New machines with dedicated graphics cards are all DX10 or DX11 based.
    7) Gamers who own DX10 and DX11 cards want to titles to take advantage of the new APIs.

  • Spekingur #61 2 years ago

    @djed: Even if your graphics card supports DX10 you aren't going to get the full amount of its DX10 capabilities when running WinXP - mostly since DX10 is not fully supported by MS on WinXP.

  • Lord_Gremlin #62 2 years ago

    PS3 version for me.
    It's not my fault that Vista and 7 are crap.

  • IneptPercy #63 2 years ago

    "takes a shitload of resources just to have the OS running (1.3 GB for an OS?!)"

    1, lookup prefetching.

    2, I pay for loads of ram and would like my computer to use it.

    I have been getting sick of the relic known as XP holding things back, seriously move with the times.

  • FooAtari #64 2 years ago

    You have a point IneptPercy. Yet other OS's can provide the same bells and whistles using half the ram.

    But hey, I don't have much against Win 7,it will no doubt be on my next gaming PC

  • Xinch #65 2 years ago

    Fair play to all you commenters for still playing PC games. After buying three games last year and finding out that none of them would play even single player without DRM up the ass and a permanent active internet connection and finding out that I couldn't exchange or refund them AND knowing that my machine was way overspec and that at least one of them ran like shit on it, I swore off PC games.

    Now on the PC, I play my old win98 games -- xcom, dark omen, avp2000 and facebook games and it suits me fine. I spent money in the day pushing the computer industry, and I am glad other people are now.

  • vegard #66 2 years ago

    i'm sure others have said did, but i'll just say it again: this had to happen sooner or later.

  • the_mtfr #67 2 years ago

    @IneptPercy, "I pay for loads of ram and would like my computer to use it."

    Do you apply the same algorithm of thought for your other PC resources too? Would you also like your OS to consume by default a large portion of your CPU, internet bandwidth and HDD for no real reason, just because you paid a vanload for them, and that you like to see them being used no matter how?

  • Rubarack #68 2 years ago

    "No, because it's 42.5% of Steam users. Unless literally every PC has Steam installed, the percentages will be different. "

    The way I see it is that it's idiotic to exclude a huge part of your market for absolutely no reason, but if it has to be 42.5% exactly for this to count for you then I really don't want to argue the point.