Carmack blasts Vista gaming initiative
id Software's John Carmack isn't ready for his studio to make the jump to Windows Vista. "Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren't any for Vista," Carmack recently told Game Informer during a lengthy interview, which also featured id colleague Todd Hollenshead.While Carmack remains keen on Xbox 360, he thinks the Vista initiative is bogus, accusing Microsoft of using the new OS's "artificial" tie with DirectX 10 to lure consumers (and developers). "They're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it," concluded Carmack. Good news for those content with XP.
[Via GamesIndustry.biz]
See also: Games for Windows Vista: how the new brand & OS will change PC gaming
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
LuckyCharm2007 @ Jan 11th 2007 11:42PM
Im not content with XP , but if i get the chance to upgrade to Vista without paying extra ill do it ,Vista is just XP with a new skin.
Draco @ Jan 11th 2007 11:50PM
I would use DOS if I could, but sadly thats just not practical, we need to keep moving forward, even if its baby steps, there steps none the less.
that being said, Vista beta ran like shit, I hope the retail version is much better.
RedStar @ Jan 11th 2007 11:51PM
Carmack has had it in for direct X from the beginning.
At one time it was ID openGL only.
It is unsurprising to have him continue his assault on Direct X.
Mike @ Jan 11th 2007 11:52PM
The OS may have an "artificial" tie to DX10, but is there any other way to use the new Shader and driver models? I don't thinks so. That being said I won't be getting Vista for quite some time.
syco @ Jan 11th 2007 11:55PM
The man speaks truth. There's no reason for Vista, WinXP is about as good as they can get this codebase... What they needed to do was to just take WinXP and clean it up. That right there would have taken 5 years at least, XP is such a pile of speghetti code that it's a miricle it actually work, and it only does work if you have a gargantuan amout of CPU and RAM... The thing almost refuses to run on 128MB, which with almost every other operating system in existance is more than enough. I am sure you can't even get Vista to boot on 128.
Ideally everyone would just be using Macs now but since most PC games are writting for Win32 people are stuck with it, so the least Microsoft could do is clean up their current version of it without chunking a bunch of useless featurecreep at us...
ttr @ Jan 11th 2007 11:57PM
First he don't like PS3, now he don't like Vista. Carmack is obviously a 360 fanboy. Either that or he's too lazy to learn to make games for anything new. So instead he sticks with 360 which runs on old PC software.
Matt @ Jan 11th 2007 11:59PM
#3:
John Carmack is considered one of the important opinions in the computer hardware, software, programming, and gaming industries. I'd watch who I criticize.
Anyway, John does have a point. Most users really won't find a reason to upgrade to Vista except for gaming. Microsoft knows this, that's why they've made DirectX 10 Vista-ONLY. Don't think for a second that something in Vista MAKES DX10 Vista-only but Microsoft's will. It's the only way they'll sell new copies. PC gamers are going to need to buy Vista in the next half a year or so if they want to play new games... Supreme Commander, Crysis, Spore... the list goes on and on.
maktattack @ Jan 12th 2007 12:02AM
Carmack's obviously a good developer. You don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading. It's the most basic engineering principle. KISS. That said, he does sound like a XBot360 luva.
Matt @ Jan 12th 2007 12:04AM
#6:
Did it ever occur to you that iD Software simply writes such complex code that it takes long enough to work with as it, and the obstacles of a new system just make it worse.
That is, I would imagine, John is against the Playstation 3, and is also against Vista. That's one more thing to worry about when him and his company are busy creating industry-leading code. Care to guess how many games are based off of the Quake and Doom game engines (and not just shooters)?
John Carmack is an industry luminary, ironically not tied down to a single industry, and his word is very respectable, even if you may not nessicarily agree with it. Keep with it, fanboys, your commentary on issues you most likely know little about amuses me.
Props to the few who know what they're talking about, by the way. :)
OmahaGTP @ Jan 12th 2007 12:04AM
Fanboys are going to have a tough time trying to wrap their head around this one.
RedStar @ Jan 12th 2007 12:09AM
i know who carmack is..it does not mean we accept his word as gospel. sheesh :)
as for this whole direct X 10 can easily be done in XP conspiracy, it really is beyond tiresome at this point.
joe @ Jan 12th 2007 12:13AM
The reason DX10 is tied to Vista is the new driver model. Virtual VRAM and the unified shader support are big changes. I don't think there will be any DX10 exclusive games for a while - but it sure makes texture management a tad easier.
FSK405K @ Jan 12th 2007 12:14AM
Wait? Are we sure Spore will not work on XP?
rokobungi @ Jan 12th 2007 12:16AM
it's likely most if not all the games coming out later this year WILL work with xp and dx9 you just don't get quite as much pretty. besides most pc gamers stick with the sub $200 video cards anyways which probably won't have all the dx10 feature support/shaders/etc. for a year into vista anyways.
if not the games will only sell into the more hardcore gaming crowd. these games should run on anything that a big seller like the sims 2 or half life 2 ran on. (at a lesser resolution graphics turned down of course.)
Leto @ Jan 12th 2007 12:26AM
I HIGHLY doubt Spore would require DX 10. Not only does it look like it can be done on DX 9, it would be foolish to limit sales to just the Vista owners.
Crysis, which looks incredible, is rumored to be ported to the consoles, this means that it can definitely be done on DX 9, it just won't look as nice as it would on a DX 10 system.
Rubang B @ Jan 12th 2007 12:34AM
If I need Vista to play Spore or Portals, I won't play them.
Earl @ Jan 12th 2007 12:52AM
Sad thing is they will force Vista upgrades over the next few years. Won't allow dev to make software for XP and whatnot
Matt @ Jan 12th 2007 1:11AM
#17:
Exactly. That is how Microsoft will make it's money. They aren't the world's largest software company simply because they sold a few hundred million copies of Windows XP and stopped right there. Obviously they need Vista (and Office 2007, for that matter) sales to survive, it's their bread and butter.
Something has to support the Xbox brand's large overhead. =P
twolf @ Jan 12th 2007 1:34AM
Carmack is right, but was there a fundamental reason to upgrade to newer hardware outside of graphics enhancements on any new platform by and large since ever? No doubt gameplay has advanced through the years via hardware advances on the processing side of game code (especially AI), but visuals are what drive this business. I don't know, maybe it's a longing for the days when the visual arts didn't mean so much to gaming due to what you could do with what you had, but those days are gone.
It's becoming an artist driven media, and less of a programmer driven media more and more. Doesn't mean I like, doesn't mean I hate it; it's just how I see it.
hohoho @ Jan 12th 2007 1:50AM
I haven't been impressed by id for some time. Doom3 is pretty much demo for the doom engine. His affection to ibm-pc compatible is understandable given his whining about ps3. well he's been a pc centric developer for well ever. For someone who proclaimed such love for x360, you'd expect a better ports. id games on xbox had been nothing sort of bugfest.
But i have to agree on his take on vista. Hell you could say xp wasn't necessary. win2k was doing pretty fine.
Otter @ Jan 12th 2007 1:53AM
If enough people dont upgrade to Vista, eventually they will have to make DX10 for XP. FINALLY a chance to tell Gates that he is reaming us up the @$$ for the price of an OS.
p-diddy @ Jan 12th 2007 1:58AM
>> does work if you have a gargantuan amout of CPU and
>> RAM... The thing almost refuses to run on 128MB,
>> which with almost every other operating system in
>> existance is more than enough. I am sure you can't
>> even get Vista to boot on 128.
>> Ideally everyone would just be using Macs now but
OK, I'm writing this on my iBook, so don't call me a Mac hater. OS X will not run on 128MB RAM and I'm pretty sure my Mandrake box needs more than that too. OS X needs AT LEAST 512MB RAM, and I always have installed at least a gig.
Though I was really leaning towards Vista, Carmack makes me really reconsider it. I personally haven't bought or played an id game since...well, I don't when. But Carmack knows game development, and if he says there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade for games, there isn't. QED.
-p-
syco @ Jan 12th 2007 3:00AM
I know OSX needs a lot of RAM, and I'm not happy about that, but at least underneath it is a strong and robust commandline OS that is nearly as featurefull as the GUI, which is not something I could say of WinXP. Also, Macs are absurdly full of Eyecandy, so I'm willing to give them some slack. I really wish they'd spend some time on optimizations, though.
But Mandrake needing more than 128Mb of ram just tells you how crappy Mandrake is... My friend has a full installation of Slackware with Dropline Gnome installed and he barely comes close to half filling his 128Mb, and never touches his swap file unless Firefox springs a leak, which happens to him since he'll keep it running for a month with 20 some odd tabs open at the same time...
fawazr @ Jan 12th 2007 5:25AM
It's scary how many readers support MS' shoe-horning of Vista onto DX10. As others have said before, Vista simply isn't an economical choice if it isn't more efficient than XP. Carmack knows that, as do most people with any rudimentary knowledge of the code. That's not fanboyism.
FrankTheCrank @ Jan 12th 2007 9:00AM
Another dolt that needs to go away!!!
Carmack, go and hide in your mansion...leave us alone.
Your time has come and gone...now leave!
oh yeah, STFU!!!
Augusto @ Jan 12th 2007 10:30AM
All this means is no DirectX 10 games on PC for a while, since it doesn't make much sense to make a PC Vista only game for the next couple of years.
Dumb idea MS.
Uh_Oh @ Jan 12th 2007 1:18PM
We can all sit here and whine about this but you know everyone of us we'll have vista in a few years time. If it makes the pc gaming market grow, i'm all for it.
majortom1981 @ Jan 12th 2007 1:23PM
The only reason I am upgrading to vista is because I got 2 copies for free.
1 from microsoft themselves and 1 from dell with my new comp.
But vista does have more security and less crashing then xp , unlike what most people will say I call xp hard freezing and explorer closing on me crashes.
So this will help gamers in the stability and crashing departments.
Spence @ Jan 12th 2007 1:56PM
Yeah, DOOM was so great...
iD won't be missed.
Matt @ Jan 13th 2007 2:35PM
"His affection to ibm-pc compatible is understandable given his whining about ps3"
"Yeah, DOOM was so great...
iD won't be missed."
Both of those statements make me giggle.
The PC is John's platform of choice, as it has been for twenty years. That hardly makes him a fanboy. And when he discusses the Xbox 360, he's mostly reffering to the ease of development, which naturally means the ease of porting his (and other PC developer's) programs to the console.
Negative comments he's made about the Playstation 3 are, again, strictly about programming. It's well-known that the Playstation 3 is difficult-as-piss to code for, particularly compared to other platforms. That's simply a developer making an observation, or potentially one praising his favorite console platform. John is as much a threat to any aspect of the console gaming market as Jack Thompson is a threat to gaming as a whole... if you disagree with his comments, just disregard them. They don't mean much, on the console side anyway.
As far as the "id won't be missed", where exactly do you consider id to be "going"? Away? Doubtful. Their engines have powered a large percentage of computer games for the past decade and a half, and that isn't going to change. Doom 3 was a beautiful game in it's day, and with the correct environmental setup it was scary as hell. With that being said, id Software makes a hundred times more money through game engine licensing than they do through their own, first party game sales. id Software owns PC gaming like Microsoft owns the computer market, get over it. :)
NCP10 @ Jan 14th 2007 1:31PM
Pretty simple solution which I have been waiting for forever: time to switch to a console for games, and a MAC or Linux for general computing needs. Game over!
James @ Jan 15th 2007 6:26PM
Well my Windows gaming PC is going bye bye anyway. I bought a 360 and now since my gaming needs are covered Windows has become obsolete. I'll probably be switching to an iBook and ditch my desktop PC and desk altogether.
dude @ Jan 29th 2007 9:01PM
"Carmack has had it in for direct X from the beginning... It is unsurprising to have him continue his assault on Direct X."
Posted at 11:51PM on Jan 11th 2007 by RedStar
RedStar, in case you didnt notice, Carmacks favourite platform at the moment is the 360, which runs on *shock horror* Direct X!!!
You cant say he's biased against DX anymore because the truth is that he prefers dx9 to GL these days.
jon @ Feb 4th 2007 9:31AM
dude, why do you say Carmack prefers dx9 to GL these days. Any quotes/links to back this up?
From the GAMEINFORMER article:
"Both ATI and Nvidia are going a great job on the high end. Internally, we’re still using more Nvidia cards, but it’s not necessarily because we’ve done a careful analysis and we decided that they’re superior in some way. They have better OpenGL support, but they’re all good cards right now. Personally, I wouldn’t jump at something like DX10 right now."
Sounds to me like he still favours OpenGL for the PC.