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

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Spartan070
#1 Edited by Spartan070 (16402 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#2 Posted by Ballroompirate (25865 posts) -

Yup wont be getting SoM for PC.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#3 Edited by Vatusus (7901 posts) -

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

Avatar image for lostrib
#4 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

sounds good

Avatar image for Spartan070
#5 Edited by Spartan070 (16402 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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

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.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#6 Edited by lundy86_4 (48575 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for lostrib
#7 Edited by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Spartan070 said:

@Vatusus said:

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

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.

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

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#8 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9279 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

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.

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

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#9 Edited by lundy86_4 (48575 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

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.

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

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#10 Posted by uninspiredcup (24958 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#11 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3144 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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

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.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
#12 Posted by JangoWuzHere (19032 posts) -
@Vatusus said:

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

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

Avatar image for Spartan070
#13 Posted by Spartan070 (16402 posts) -

@lostrib said:

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

True...

Avatar image for clyde46
#14 Edited by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@Spartan070 said:

@Vatusus said:

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

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.

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

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
#15 Posted by princeofshapeir (16593 posts) -

Game looks like a shitty AssCreed clone anyways.

Avatar image for AdobeArtist
#16 Posted by AdobeArtist (24654 posts) -

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

Avatar image for NFJSupreme
#17 Edited by NFJSupreme (6491 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for blangenakker
#18 Posted by blangenakker (3240 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for p3anut
#19 Posted by p3anut (6201 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Spartan070
#20 Posted by Spartan070 (16402 posts) -

@AdobeArtist said:

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

Well my laptops' name is Sovereign :P

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#21 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

I thought herms didn't check reqs anymore?

Avatar image for Wasdie
#22 Edited by Wasdie (53469 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for I_can_haz
#23 Posted by I_can_haz (6511 posts) -

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

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#24 Posted by with_teeth26 (8280 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#25 Edited by Wasdie (53469 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Spartan070
#26 Posted by Spartan070 (16402 posts) -

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

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#27 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9279 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for whiskeystrike
#28 Posted by whiskeystrike (12172 posts) -

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

Not exactly pushing hardware.

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#29 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

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

Avatar image for hiphops_savior
#30 Posted by hiphops_savior (8431 posts) -

@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.

Avatar image for silversix_
#31 Posted by silversix_ (26347 posts) -

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

Avatar image for napo_sp
#32 Edited by napo_sp (644 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#33 Edited by R4gn4r0k (26943 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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

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 ?

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#34 Posted by R4gn4r0k (26943 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

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

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

Avatar image for ShepardCommandr
#35 Posted by ShepardCommandr (4824 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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

this 100x this

Avatar image for Salt_The_Fries
#36 Edited by Salt_The_Fries (12477 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Salt_The_Fries
#37 Posted by Salt_The_Fries (12477 posts) -

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

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#38 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

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

But not everyone is a king like you that has 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.

Avatar image for MK-Professor
#39 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

looks fine to me.

5 years old PC to meet the minimum requirements.

2.5 years old PC to meet the recommended requirements.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#40 Edited by R4gn4r0k (26943 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

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.

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.

Avatar image for adamosmaki
#41 Posted by adamosmaki (10557 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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

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

Avatar image for remiks00
#42 Posted by remiks00 (3790 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

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.

@Wasdie said:

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.

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.

Avatar image for kipsta77
#43 Edited by kipsta77 (1119 posts) -

This is a GOOD thing people!

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#45 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@remiks00 said:

@Wasdie said:

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.

@Wasdie said:

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.

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.

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

Avatar image for razu2444
#46 Posted by razu2444 (808 posts) -

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

Avatar image for RossRichard
#47 Posted by RossRichard (3599 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#48 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:

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.

pretty much

Avatar image for clyde46
#50 Edited by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@Dragerdeifrit said:

ill overkill that, being on the 3D animation and illustration/desgn medium has it payoff on the gaming world, im basically obligated by my career to have at least a x2 SLI GTX 780ti (i hate quadros their a pain in the a$$), i7 extreme, and 100GB+ RAM.. YES i said 100GB+ RAM. and still i having more fun playing on my little 3DS lol.

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