A little more EA hate for you

I’m still one of the fossils running Win98. The demo for Medal of Honor Pacific Assualt supported Win98. I preordered the game long before the demo, but kept the preorder alive after the demo. I like this kind of game, and really wanted a Pacific Theater version of a WWII shooter.

So, I finally get my new video card installed and dig out the preordered copy of MOHPA that my wife had held as a Christmas present. As I try to install it, I learn the retail version of MOHPA doesn’t support Win98.

I don’t care if developers decide not to support Win98 at all, but to support it with the demo and then remove that support in the retail version? I feel so ripped off.

I hate to say it but Win98 is getting a little long in the tooth. I can’t blame EA for releasing a game without support for it even if the demo did work on it.

An upgrade copy of Win XP Home is $100. Time to make the investment.


Does the box state XP or above? I understand you pre-ordered, but hard to find any hate for EA if it is clearly on the box that it doesn’t run on 98.


I had a paragraph in there before explaining my lack of plans to upgrade, but cut it out thinking we would get more than one post before the “You should upgrade” suggestion. Guess I should have left it. I’m not upgrading because I need to upgrade all the computers in the house, which will mean 3 copies, and I want remote desktop and some of the other management tools, so that means XPPro. Three packs of Pro are $439 at Newegg.

Chet, the box says XP or 2000. However, despite installing hundreds of games over the years, I never bothered rechecking the written system requirements after the game’s demo worked on my machine. It seems illogical to go back and check the written requirements after the demo worked.

Is there a particular reason you can’t upgrade a single machine now and the rest later?

Hey moron, either buy the OS for him yourself since you think it’s so cheap, or shut the fuck up.

“JUST SPEND MONEY!!” answers are about the most antiproductive responses there are to an issue like this.

The point is that since the demo runs on 98, there’s almost certainly no reason inherent in how the software is built to require anything more. That turns this situation into one where EA is going out of its way to help MS out in the pocketbook. There’s no good reason for that.

If it’s support issues (drivers et al) they’re concerned about, all they need to do is make it policy not to provide support for anything below XP. Allowing the game to try to install itself on non-XP machines doesn’t hurt anybody except the person who bought it if it doesn’t work.

Or a portion of the code not included in the demo uses API calls that only exist in 2000 and above, or the code changed since the demo was done (which is possible in cases where the demo isn’t derived from the GM)…

Somehow I doubt that EA is making games Win2k/WinXP only out of a benevolent feeling towards Microsoft.

The time it takes to explain to someone that the game is unsupported on that OS (especially if the person starts getting irate about how it should be supported on that OS) is likely to be enough to utterly remove the profit margin on the game, and quite possibly make the sale revenue negative.

It would be one thing if the box didn’t list the OS requirements. But it did.


Running Windows 98 is really a recipe for disaster these days. Recent experiments show that WinXP often gets owned in about 45 minutes on the net, and Win98 gets owned before you actually install it.

Maybe this is the moment for you to upgrade.

You want to play this game on all three computers then? Will you also buy three copies of the game?

Yes, it’s a conspiracy. A grand, orchestrated conspiracy. :roll:

A far more likely explanation (and one that doesn’t require me to wear a tinfoil hat) is that a bug was found late in testing cycle that only occurs on Win98, and the decision was made that fixing the bug to maintain support of Win98 was not worth the time and/or money. That would explain why the demo supported Win98, but the final version does not.

Frankly, they were probably looking for any and all excuses to stop supporting a 7 year old OS. The fact is that it doesn’t make good business sence for a software company to support old hardware or old OSes. It drives up QA and Support costs, and as more and more users upgrade supporting outdated platforms, it becomes more of a liability than a feature. At the company I work for, our QA team has to verify bug fixes across multiple hardware architectures, multiple OSes, and multiple configurations of our software. Making even the smallest of changes to the product late in the cycle would require regression testing accross all supported platforms. We are constantly evaluating what OSes it makes sense for us to support, and which have become a cancer for our product.

Yep, and since I started using XP, i’ve had exactly one “mystery” OS crash in about 2 years or so, when I had them all the time in Win95/98. The memory management is MUCH better; what it should have been all along, and it is overall much more robust than any previous incarnation of Windows (along with 2000, maybe). I dropped Win95 support for my own recent game, and plan on possibly dropping official Win98 support soon for future projects.

My vote (assuming money isn’t too much of an issue) is upgrade, and for more practical reasons than playing a certain game. :)

Stormcloud Creations

The reality of the situation is that few, if any, games will support Win98 next year. We’ve had several discussions about it this year and I think we pretty much eliminated it from our support list and marketing has come to terms with it. The only issue, really, is that Win98 is considered “required” if you want to sell into PC game rooms in South Korea, which is potentially a huge market.

Riddick PC didn’t support Win98, with some tinkering you could get Tribes to work on it, but not well. Almost certain that FEAR will not.

Funny, I had far fewer problems with 98 than I’ve had with XP.

Hey moron, either buy the OS for him yourself since you think it’s so cheap, or shut the fuck up.

Give me a break. It’s been out for what, 2? 3 years? 5 bucks a month in the pot and he could buy it by now, and most people can save a fuckload more than that in a month.

It’s like people have never heard of saving.

Oh sure, just be different already.

XP is love.

You might think about looking at the various VNC options (RealVNC, TightVNC, UltraVNC) which have good to extensive Windows integration and, IMO, beat the pulp out of Remote Desktop. There’s Win98 client support as well, so you won’t have to upgrade all of your boxes at the same time.

Between TightVNC & the various utilities at sysinternals.com, I haven’t found myself taking advantange of any of the WinXP Pro features except networking client features. (Which should have been included in Home for crying out loud.)

Just a thought.


P.s. I thought MOHPA was a darn fine game. It’s worth the hassle.

I recommend you purchase one copy of WindowsXP for good concience and then… acquire the other copies.

Hell, I can even help you out in that regard. :wink:

All microsoft haters on this forum should bookmark this post, so you can use it as proof again and again, see XP SUCKS!!!

All microsoft haters on this forum should bookmark this post, so you can use it as proof again and again, see XP SUCKS!!![/quote]

Now now chet, don’t get too down on the MS haters. XP is pretty good, until you install any game which uses Starforce or even worse STEAM. Things start going wrong pretty quick at that point, until there is no choice but to use ctrl-alt-dropkick.

EDIT: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

But that’s not true. I’ve installed plenty of games that use Starforce and I have Steam installed, and I’ve never had a problem with XP.