Thought Watch Dogs had high reqs? LOTR:SoM reqs >>>

GS Link - Is this the new normal?

I5 minimum? 8GB recommended? Is this the new norm? Can't blame Ubisoft for this one...

Minimum:

• OS: 64-bit: Vista, Win 7, Win 8
• Processor: Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz | AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4 GHz
• Memory: 4 GB RAM
• Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 | AMD Radeon HD 6950
• DirectX: Version 11
• Network: Broadband Internet connection
• Hard Drive: 25 GB available space

Recommended:

• OS: 64-bit: Win 7, Win 8
• Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz | AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | AMD Radeon HD 7970
• DirectX: Version 11
• Network: Broadband Internet connection
• Hard Drive: 40 GB available space

Yup wont be getting SoM for PC.

I thought herms wanted games that pushed PC hardware... wasnt that what they've been asking for the entirety of last gen?

sounds good

Yeah but such a fuss was made over the Watch Dogs reqs then I see this. I'm thinking this is the new norm, can't blame Ubisoft for this one.

Is that unreasonable? I'm rather out of the loop, but 16GB RAM will cost you $150. When building a PC, I shoot for $1500-$2000.

Yeah, but Watch dogs recommended is a high end i7 paired with a mid-low range 560ti/7850. At least in this case it's an i7 paired with a 670/7970

I generally shoot for about half that. I really think you are probably in the minority at that price point.

Unless there are solid figures, then we really have no clue. I was just speaking for myself, obviously.

Regardless, you could probably build at an $1100-ish price point with those specs. My lazy math may fail me :P

My friends, we have been held back by the shackled of inferior hardware for around 8 years. Now, due to the inferior hardware becoming ever so slightly, less inferior, specs will obviously go up.

Yep. But consumers don't like it when they're "forced" to do something. They want the game to push hardware, but they don't want it to be required. Consumers are the worst people in the world, and most of them are intentionally very difficult to please.

Those people are in the minority. Most are simply fine with the simple 1080p and 60fps upgrade.

True...

Its about dam time hardware got a workout. For too long were we just coasting.

Game looks like a shitty AssCreed clone anyways.

In 2 years, PC games will require Reaper level hardware to run :P

I'm good but those recommended requirments seem stupid considering this game is on PS360. Also 670 is on par with a 7950 not a 7970 so if you are recommending a 670 shouldn't you recommend a 7950 for AMD? Or if you need a 7970 should you need a 680 then? Either way you guys look to much into system requirements. If you have strong hardware and have been playing games fine you will be good. If you have and i5 but a 670 you will be good. If you have an i7 but a 7950 you will be good. You don't have to match these specs exactly just be within a reasonable ball park and you can adjust the game accordingly to fit the performance you are looking for.

Anyway not interested in this game.

When is this game even meant to come out? Once again I see this as the devs just trying to appeal to PC gamers. But hey maybe it does need that or maybe its unoptimized, only time will tell.

I have i7-4770k Haswell 3.5GHz and 8 gigs and a GTX 670. I plan to upgrade my GPU towards the end of the year, so I'm good to go.

Well my laptops' name is Sovereign :P

I thought herms didn't check reqs anymore?

The i5 750 came out in 2009. Yes, 2009. That's 5 years old now.

That's not high requirements at all.

DX11 native is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

This and Watch Dogs don't have high requirements at all for the times. It's 2014, not 2011. The GTX 500 series came out in 2011, so that's already 3 years old which is quite old for a PC.

It's pretty clear they aren't going to gimp the PC version and use the Xbox 360/PS3 assets and renderer. This is a GOOD thing. We don't need 7 year old renderer and assets for the PC. We just don't.

These complaints are unwarranted and pathetic. It's 2014. We're pushing passed DX9 and actually pushing some rendering and using modern techniques like tessellations. These are good things. I have no idea why people are complaining.

Last 7 years PC gamers complained how the consoles held their games back and the second devs start developing games for modern PCs everybody complains.

Meh, my PC can handle it no worries. Too bad I don't give a shit about this game,

the GTX670 is a pretty main stream gaming card and it came out what 2.5 years ago? and its only now that games are using it as a reference for recommended settings?

these seem reasonable to me.

Let me just add to this by saying that if DX11 is going to become the norm, expect to see Intel and AMD's first real dedicated quad core series to become the standard for CPU requirements.

Intel's Core 2 Quad series was just Core 2 Duo chips slapped together into one. They didn't have a real native quad core architecture. It wasn't until 2009 and the Lynnfield processors did Intel have a real good quad core processor. AMD's Phenom II x4 series outperforms the i5-700 series from Intel. Both were released in 2009.

DX11 allows the GPU to properly utilize quad core processors Since these processors listed were the first real quad core powerhouses from Intel and AMD, it makes a lot of logical sense that these are going to be the minimum CPU requirements for awhile.

Both series are from 2009 making them both 5 years old now. It's about damn time games starting requiring quad core processors. This is a damn good thing people, not a bad thin.

Furthemore the Xbox One and PS4 have quad core processors in them with weaker cores. When all cores are properly utilizied it's not a problem, however devs cannot get away with sloppy code that doesn't take advantage of all 6 cores that are dedicated to games. Devs are being forced to utilize all physical cores they can to get the kind of graphics and gameplay they want to achieve.

It's logical to assume that the devs would use the most engineered and optimized version of their engine on the PC and it's a safe assumption that these engines require at least 4 physical cores to run well (as that's what a lot of PC gamers have). This is great news as now game engines aren't bottlenecked by last gen consoles but it does mean CPU requirements are going to increase to the first series of real quad core processors.

So many rational thoughts populating this thread, times have changed in the past few days...

@Wasdie: I agree that it's nice that some PC games are pushing hardware. I just wish the games doing so were better looking and not last gen ports. Who is going to upgrade their rig to play Watch Dogs and LOTR? I'm a lot more interested in seeing the specs Arkham Knight requires, personally.

Those graphics cards and processors came out in what, 2011/2012?

Not exactly pushing hardware.

glad to see it ramping up. looking forward to full throttle gaming.

@IMAHAPYHIPPO: They want to have it both ways, but one of the easiest ways for companies like Intel, AMD and Nvidia to make money is to force higher system requirements.

So lets just stop optimization completely? Da fuk is this... a 670 as a req? lolol. It feels like devs are doing this crap to push ps4/xbone versions

Star Citizen Dogfighting module requirement on high (not ultra/max and possibly with little to no AA) setting 40 fps avg 1080p (which IMHO equivalent to most games 'recommended' requirement)

haswell 4770

16GB RAM

GTX680

SSD

also note that DFM is just a fraction of the real final game, so probably the final game will be even heavier.

How does this push hardware exactly when it doesn't look better than what we currently have on PC ?

Or is your definition of pushing hardware the same as an unoptimized game ?

But not everyone is a king like you that has expensive hardware :(

this 100x this

This is some artificial requirements boost to force people to buy more expensive hardware.

This is some artificial requirements boost to force people to buy more expensive hardware.

haha. actually i am 100% against kings. i mean, it's 2014. why are there still kings?

anyway, i know you're joking but i volunteer my personal opinion - i put off upgrading all the time but a really good game will cinch it for me.

looks fine to me.

5 years old PC to meet the minimum requirements.

2.5 years old PC to meet the recommended requirements.

I really don't know. These days Kings and Queens only serve a public role. They have nothing to say politically. Unless of course we are talking about African tribe kings. Those still have a lot to say.

I am 100% fine with upgrading my hardware. Because the last gen went on for so long it has been pretty cheap on me and everyone I think. Hardware wasn't pushed as much.

However, I do need a better excuse than 'lazy coding' for me to want to upgrade. I'd rather just not get this game and not support lazy devs.

yeah we do but we also do want it to scale well for lower end hardware. When your minimum GPU for that game is a 6950 which is somewhat faster than what X1 has then something does not give especially for a game that also comes for 360/ps3. Also we want that recommended specs to justify the game looks and that game must look better than Crysis 3 ( and Crysis 3 even on medium looks better than almost everything out there let alone ultra ) with those rec specs

100% Completely agree! Theres no need for the panic. i5-750 is old ass hell. You can get the new Haswell i5-4670 for under $200 these days. I can only imagine how much lower a i5-750 costs.

This is a GOOD thing people!

Yeah. Excellent points made, great posts - worth quoting.

Next gen starts when consoles say so. The specs are high because to run something on the XBONE/PS4 on a PC requires high spec PC's

The PC I built in 2011 buries those specs. Sounds like you guys just need to bite the bullet and upgrade if you think those specs are too high. If you want to game on PC, get used to upgrading regularly. Especially if you want to max every game out.

pretty much

You have to be using a workstation board with dual CPU's because even the 4960X will only see 64GB of RAM.