Unreal Engine 4, etc.

According to the Steam hardware survey it is already at less than 10% - it’s around 6% and declining. 64-bit XP has 0.33% of the total share (and is obviously also declining). You’ve seen this yourself and quoted it in your own stats. XP is not 29% of the market and if you’d looked further than the little chart on the Wikipedia page you probably got that statistic from, you might have noticed a few important things:
A) Very significant numbers of those machines will be things like ATMs, which usually run on XP (19 in every 20 ATMs are a Windows XP box). There are millions of ATMs in the world, and they’re not going to be buying your games.
B) The same Wikipedia article cites that “25–35% of all Windows XP machines are illegal.”. These people are also unlikely to buy your games.
C) The same Wikipedia article cites that Wikimedia’s own estimated count for XP users (based on those browsing the site) is way down at 7%, slightly higher than the Steam estimate, which isn’t surprising because it’s a popular web page.
D) You’re still missing the point that the majority of XP boxes that are still in use are not going to be owned by people who have hardware to run your games. Windows XP ceased being shipped on the majority of home machines in early 2007; or shortly after previous gen consoles and the Geforce 8 series became available. That’s a full eight hardware generations behind.

Windows XP is a dying operating system used by a few hardcore hangers-on and people on antiquated boxes that don’t use their machine for anything other than basic tasks, so won’t upgrade. Doing the hard work to cater for it is absolutely bonkers.

I didn’t get the stats from is unreliable most times. I don’t believe Windows XP is at 7%. It’s at 29% and I got those stats from I don’t remember which article it was though. Windows XP still has life in it. Just because it doesn’t have DirectX 11 features like tessellation doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be supported. If every single PC versions of video games that run on Unreal Engine 4 get Windows XP support and Unreal Engine 4 gets Windows XP support from Epic Games I will purchase each and every single video game that runs on Unreal Engine 4. Windows 7 and DirectX 11 is not that much of a huge jump from Windows XP and DirectX 9 like Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (ME), and Windows 2000 and DOS-BOX was to Windows XP and DirectX 9 and neither is Windows 8. If Windows 9 is a huge jump from Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 8 and DirectX 13 is like from DOS-BOX and Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (ME), and Windows 2000 to Windows XP and DirectX 9 was then Windows XP should not be supported. I want PC gamers who will not purchase new Windows Operating Systems (OS’s) any time soon to be able to still purchase their PC versions of video games on Windows XP. Exclusivity sucks. OpenGL works on Windows XP and I think every version of OpenGL works on Windows XP. I don’t know because I don’t use OpenGL. I want to develop PC versions of video games on Windows XP with Unreal Engine 4. Especially if I am going to pay $19 dollars (USD) for Unreal Engine 4’s source code and engine. Epic Games will earn a lot of money from a lot of indie video game development companies and indie video game developers.

I use Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 8, and Windows 8.1 as well as DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 every week. I still have not gotten to using DirectX 11.1 and DirectX 11.2 and I won’t be using DirectX 12 either I will probably be using those 3 versions of DirectX by 2020 because I am developing video games and video game engines and using existing video game engines like Unreal Engine 3, CryEngine 2, CryEngine 3, and CryEngine on my own no one is helping me I am drawing the art, programming, scripting, etc by myself. Which takes a long time. I love to tinker with lots of software.

1.OMG. DIrectx 9 ,seriously? Everything so bad?! (buy normal computer)
2.19 dollars ,guys stop it please! every third topic about 19 $ .Is that so big amount!!! don’t eat humburger for 1 day or what do you eat…
3.So you want everything right now! The more the better -your credo ,right?
4.The same questions about source code…
5.Dude, look what you’ve asked in 1 question, now you are talking about directx12 ,you are so unpredictable…

P.s To sum up - I personally didn’t understand what this guy wanna get asking these questions ,maybe he needs just to talk to somebody ,who knows…

1.Because it’s not fair for PC gamers who play only on Windows XP to not be able to play PC versions of video games that don’t have Windows XP support.

  1. What?

  2. I didn’t say I want everything right now. I also don’t want windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (ME), and Windows 2000 support or DOS-BOX support or DirectX to DirectX 8.1 support. Because those are at 1% or below 1%. So there is absolutely no reason to support those.

  3. I’m confused. What?

  4. Still confused.

People using XP most likely have PC that can’t run UE4 in first place. I really don’t see point in this discussion. Supporting ancient tech, does nothing expect dragging down everything else.
We need to bury DX9 as soon as possible. DirectX 11 for that matter as well. And move to DirectX 12/OpenGL 4.4.

Well I have 5 PC’s and my PC that runs Windows XP cannot run Unreal Engine 4 but it will be able to once I upgrade it. I have 1 PC that runs Windows XP, 1 PC that runs Windows Vista, 1 PC that runs Windows 7 which is my main PC, 1 PC that runs Windows 8, and my 5th PC runs Windows 8.1. I am pretty sure there are PC gamers who have powerful PC’s that have Windows XP installed and can run Unreal Engine 4 as well. Some of my real life friends are one of those PC gamers as well as some PC gamers I talked to on a bunch of video games websites forums.

A Unreal Engine 4 developer said that OpenGL works on Windows XP and will make OpenGL 4.x to work on Windows XP. So why not just add support for DirectX 9 preferably DirectX 9.0c as well?

Why bury DirectX 9 and DirectX 11? Nvidia is working on improving DirectX 11’s performance to match AMD’s Mantle API just like Microsoft is working on DirectX 12 to be a low-level access API.

They can’t have powerfull PC simply because there is no driver support for high end hardware in XP.
XP 64 bit is ****, and you need 64 bit to support more than 3.5Gb of ram.
You GPU will have 2-3GB of ram. You system at least 4GB (though I don’t think anyone buys less than 8GB), this gives you combined of 10 to 11GB memory. 32 bit system can use only 3.5GB of it (512MB is reserved for other needs).

Driver support for XP 64-bit is non existent.

You might buy super hardware and install XP on it. Just keep it mind, you are choking it.

Because DirectX 9 holds rendering back. Lack of support simple things like Compute Shaders is enough to bury it and forget that it exists.
DirectX 11 is causing way to much overhead, for what it gives back. NVIDIa is most are foremost trying to convince everyone to use OpenGL and their low-level extensions for it.


  1. DirectX 9, don’t have even franction of functionality that OpenGL 4.4 provides.
  2. Because it will be holding renderer back.
  3. Because you will need another completely separate code path to maintain, which for 5% of possible user base is simply not worth it.
  4. Because OpenGL 4 scale down far more gracefully, and if by some miraculous chance you don’t have GPU that is supporting OpenGL 4.3+ feature level, it will work on it.

At this point you really should realize, that support ancient hardware and software is doing nothing but bad. It hold everything back, because you must consider what will work and what will not work on old hardware.
It adds big costs for maintance, as new techniques will usually not work on old hardware, so you have much more code to maintain.

Epic is already supporting lots of hardware, give the scale of their engine. Mobile/Consoles/PC-Windows/PC-Linux, is huge undertaking as it is.
What is common between all those devices and system is that they support common feature level, if they are not as powerfull as high-end PC.

Yes even, mobile phone (not all of them bear in mind) support more features than DirectX 9 on XP…

The PC I have that has Windows XP 64-bit installed has only a 2 core CPU and 1GB of RAM and a graphic card with 512MB of VRAM. But it runs good for me. I play the PC version of Unreal Tournament 2004 which released in 2004 for sale and has Windows XP 64-bit support and runs fine for me. Windows XP 64-bit can hold up to 128GB of RAM.

How does DirectX 9 hold rendering back? I use DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 every week for the video game engines and video games I develop. No I have not put those video games up for sale yet I only do stuff like this for my own leisurely time. I have been modding since 1998 when I purchased Unreal then in 2002 I started coding and scripting every now and then then in 2010 I started coding everyday.

I said Nvidia is working on improving DirectX 11 to match or be better than AMD’s Mantle low-level access API or decrease the overhead.

  1. Neither does OpenGL have the functions that OpenGL 4.4 have like tessellation at least I don’t think it does yet Epic Games will add support for OpenGL 3 up to 4.x in Unreal Engine 4.

  2. It won’t hold render back I can do it and a few other video game development companies that developed their PC versions of video games did it. Like the PC version of Metro: Last Light it has DirectX 11 and tessellation support yet still has support for DirectX 9.0c and Windows XP.

  3. Windows XP is 29% not 5%.

It is a huge undertaking to maintain so much hardware I get it but I don’t think it costs hundreds of millions of dollars (USD) to support Windows XP and DirectX 9 which runs on DirectX 11 graphic cards. I play the PC version of Metro 2033 on my Windows 7, DirectX 11 graphic card PC I switch to DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11 lots when I play cause I enjoy switching.

Please, lets just add support for OpenGL 1.1.

Edit: This would fix everything.

#1 Yes because you’ve got one of two things. Indie games alot of which don’t really require the power of AAA titles and Steam is releasing a lot of old games from the early 00’s now when XP was the dominant OS. 2 - The 360 and PS3 but as we move on to the new consoles 64-bit will be the base line requirement. I’m a PC Gamer first and foremost but its a fact that the new consoles will drive the upgrade.

#2. Doom 3 BFG was a re-release of Doom 3 with a few extra shiny features. Look how long it took for the source code to come out from the original release and what changes were made. Rage hasn’t been made open source yet and won’t for quite some time either if it does. Doom 3 originally came out in 2004.

#3. Still unlikely.

#4. I’m talking about ESSENTIALLY defunct now that epic has released UE4. Support will slow down for it, become less frequent and eventually stop as they move over to supporting UE4.

#5. You can do whatever the **** you like with your money. I was only asking why you have one for each OS.

XP does not have years of life left in it. It has 1 tops.

Like somebody else mentioned the ATM’s don’t play games.

With your logic, should EPIC support my Gameboy?


Not every PC gamer in this world has Steam you know there are 600 million PC gamers world wide with a total of only 285 million PC gamers having high end PC’s. No I don’t think Nintendo Gameboy should be supported or DirectX to DirectX 9.0b in Unreal Engine 4.

Really? Hardware so out of date at this point I’m amazed you’re even arguing for support of UE4 at the point.

Yeah but you aren’t pushing rendering tech forward and I highly your own work amounts to what will be seen coming out of big budget titles.

Link the up to date article that XP support among gamers (<— Your target market) is at 29%. Steam says otherwise and Steam is the largest place to get your games if you are on PC.

Yep and again Metro 2033 was also made to run on last gen consoles. Tech needs to move as evidenced by the specs of your XP machine above. Go ahead and play Metro 2033 on your dual core, 1gb ram machine (if it’ll even run) and tell me you get a solid 60fps.

What about the likes of G-sync. Should nvidia hold that back because old hardware won’t support it?

Actually I find the whole AAA game source code release arguement pretty funny. Besides iD who else has done it? There’s probably only been a handful and even then it’s taken years, YEARS for it to come out.

I said I am going to upgrade that PC that has Windows XP installed.

No I am not pushing rendering tech forward like AAA video game publishing companies and AAA video game development companies are because I don’t got that much money and I work on my leisurely time to add as much as I can slowly 300+ video game engine developers should be able to do it faster than me.

Not every single PC gamer on Earth has Steam installed on their PC. Some PC gamers hate Steam and refuse to install Steam on their PC because it is Digital Rights Management (DRM) there is and physical boxed versions of PC versions of video games that don’t require Steam, Steam Works you know.

The PC versions of Metro: Last Light looks way better than the PC version of Metro 2033. It’s one of the best looking PC version of a video game that released for sale in 2013.

What? I never said Nvidia to hold G-synce back because of old hardware that won’t support it. There’s a difference in hardware and software. All DirectX 11 graphic cards can run DirectX 9 on Windows 7 you know.

iD Software is the only AAA video game development company that I know of that has released the source code for the PC versions of some of their video games and some indie video game developers. I said all video game development companies should release the source code for the PC versions of their video games and in order to use the source code you have to purchase the video games or if your gonna develop stand alone mods release those mods for free not sell them otherwise you will be asked to take the mods down if you try to sell the mods.

Its on life support. You are in a small minority that will stick with XP and continually upgrade the hardware behind it. Look at the OS usage stats and link an up to date article.

Yes and by supporting that old software you hold back rendering tech. Just because you have no need for those features doesn’t mean people with the budget for it shouldn’t research and push that stuff forward.

Yeah not every one does but its a small amount of people. Look at how much Steam sells, look where all the big budget titles get released and you’ll see its a majority.

Yeah and Last Light still ran on last gen consoles. The point still stands go ahead and run it on your old XP machine.

Arrgghh!!! I know you never said anything about it. It was a comparison.

Did nobody read what the Unreal Staff said on Page #1? They’ll be adding OpenGL support for XP computers.

Dude can you read? I said I have 5 PC’s. My main PC has Windows 7 installed and has a graphic card that supports DirectX 11.

I said I have added support for 64-bit only and DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 support to a video game I developed. I have only tessellation and image based reflections added. I will add more as time passes by but it’s going slow for me because I work 9 hours a day 5 days a week and hang out with my family most of the day. I will not be adding DirectX 11.1, DirectX 11.2, and DirectX 12 support until probably like 2020 because I am 1 person working by my self which is a bigger challenge than 300 video game engine developers working for x days a week for x amount of hours a week.

I know Steam sells a lot of PC versions of video games. But there is this AAA video game development company CD Projekt RED who will release the PC version of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free physical boxed version to brick and mortar retailer stores world wide it will have no Steam, Steam Works and a 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free version on as well as a Steam version sold specifically on Steam using Steam Works.

Metro: Last Light ran on last gen console but it the PC version of Metro: Last Light looks way better than any PC version of a video game that got released for sale in 2013 even better than the PC version of Battlefield 4. If I upgrade my old Windows XP PC to have 8GB of DDR3 RAM,a Nvidia GTX 780, and a 8 core Intel processor I will be able to run the PC version of Metro: Last Light on my Windows XP on DirectX 9 at max settings and I will be able to run it on max settings on my Windows 7 PC. So I don’t know what you are trying to say.

You have source code. Fork engine, and add DirectX 9 support. Noone is stopping you. You can maintain it if you wish.

Epic is not going to bother with it, when they can and will add support for OpenGL, that is supported on most obscure systems you can imagine.

This entire thread just crossed border of ridiculous and I’m tempted to start posting cat images…

That’s why I am going to stop talking now. We are just arguing back and forth. I will just wait for a Epic Games Unreal Engine 4 developer employee to respond what Epic Games thinks about this. I am getting exhausted.

Direct X 9 is a outdated system, UE4, with its next gen focus, doesnt want to add support for an old system. It will use Opengl, wich is multiplatform, and will be the same code in legacy windows, mac, and linux. OpenGL 4 is equivalent to directX 11, and is what UE4 has at this moment. For the DX12 part, we can be almost completely sure they will add support, and for other platforms than windows, opengl 4 ( or 5 if they create it) with modern additions that allow for mantle-like performance on every OS.