Ubisoft screws up with ridiculous Watch Dogs PC reqs

  • 175 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#1 Edited by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -

Well, Ubisoft does it again. Look at the bold stuff:

Minimum:

OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz

Memory: 6 GB RAM

Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 460 or AMD Radeon HD 5770

DirectX: Version 11

Hard Drive: 25 GB available space

Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers

Recommended:

OS: Windows Vista (SP2), Windows 7 (SP1) or Windows 8 (Please note that we only support 64 bit OSs.)

Processor: Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770 @3.5 GHz or AMD FX-8350 X8 @ 4 GHz

Memory: 8 GB RAM

Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM - Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 ti or AMD Radeon HD 7850

DirectX: Version 11

Hard Drive: 25 GB available space

Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible Sound Card with Latest Drivers

I'm okay with RAM requirements, but god damn, what the **** is up with this CPU requirement?!

What do you think?

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

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#3 Posted by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#4 Posted by with_teeth26 (8221 posts) -

GPU requirement are modest enough but yea those are some steep CPU requirements. I'm not too worried though, I'm sure my OC'd 2500k can handle it.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#5 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22063 posts) -

That's fine with me. He He. I'll also have a newer video card by the time I buy that game.

Avatar image for clyde46
#6 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

Also, these are "recommended" specs. How often are the recommended specs true to form?

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#7 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

I wasn't aware you were programming Watch Dogs.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#8 Posted by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

I wasn't aware you were programming Watch Dogs.

It's simple. i7 is an overkill.

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

"I'm okay with RAM requirements, but god damn, what the **** is up with this CPU requirement?!" exactly what i thought. You want to know the answer? The first word in your title is the answer. Ubimotherf*ckingsoft, the worst of the worst.

Avatar image for clyde46
#10 Posted by clyde46 (49048 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

I wasn't aware you were programming Watch Dogs.

It's simple. i7 is an overkill.

What makes you say that? More threads = better.

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#11 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it. People's constant bitching about how much worse the ps4 version looks than the PC demonstration at e3 seems to suggest it will.

Avatar image for BattleSpectre
#12 Edited by BattleSpectre (7989 posts) -

Lol, that's why I went with 16GB ram and people thought it was overkill, yeah look at me now. Anyways for those system requirements I'd hope it looks like the E3 2012 footage when played on PC.

Regardless of that though, I'm still buying this on the PS4 as I don't have another choice. A decent GPU upgrade would cost me $300-$400 Australian, and even than my CPU doesn't fall under the recommended requirements.

I could get it on my Xbox One, but I'm pretty sure Ubisoft confirmed the systems of choice for the game are PC and PS4.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#13 Edited by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:
@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

I disagree. It's a complete overkill. i5 could most definitely be up for the job.

I wasn't aware you were programming Watch Dogs.

It's simple. i7 is an overkill.

What makes you say that? More threads = better.

When a game asks for an i7 it tells a story about a terrible porting job. i5 Haswell quad core lineup is most definitely capable of running any "next-gen" title.

Avatar image for FoxbatAlpha
#14 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (10669 posts) -

Every new big game pushes the requirements a little further. If the game is good I can justify an upgrade. I just meet recommended.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#15 Posted by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it.

I agree, but so far Ubisoft failed to demonstrate it.

I mean, let's just be realistic. If AMD's Jaguar APU can run Watch Dogs, why the hell would you have to own i7? Running at 3.5/4 GHz? Bullshit.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#16 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

It's gotta be that Wind simulation that's requiring an i7, lol. Aka ubisoft blowing hot air out their ass.

Avatar image for tonitorsi
#17 Edited by tonitorsi (8685 posts) -

i7?

Avatar image for Vatusus
#18 Posted by Vatusus (7762 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it. People's constant bitching about how much worse the ps4 version looks than the PC demonstration at e3 seems to suggest it will.

Again, theres no way to know that was actually a PC demo and not a pre-rendered video. Alien: CM anyone?

Avatar image for Krelian-co
#19 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

i can bet they will then blame it on piracy

Avatar image for jman1553
#20 Posted by jman1553 (1332 posts) -

@IgGy621985: An i7? What sort of game would require an i7?

Ubisoft has been bad with this sort of thing for quite a while. Look at AC IV

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#21 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -
@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it.

I agree, but so far Ubisoft failed to demonstrate it.

I mean, let's just be realistic. If AMD's Jaguar APU can run Watch Dogs, why the hell would you have to own i7? Running at 3.5/4 GHz? Bullshit.

You don't need an i7, it's recommended you have an i7. Until the game comes out, we won't know what that means. It's stated you can run the game with something less than an i7, so who's to say a game of this scale isn't going to have a crazy amount of customization options that would really test your PC with everything cranked up?

Avatar image for killatwill15
#22 Posted by killatwill15 (855 posts) -

un-optimised game is un-optimised,

ubisoft have been known to shit onto computers and pass it off as pc ports.

I bet that not even the gta 5 pc port will be this bad.

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#23 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it. People's constant bitching about how much worse the ps4 version looks than the PC demonstration at e3 seems to suggest it will.

Again, theres no way to know that was actually a PC demo and not a pre-rendered video. Alien: CM anyone?

It very well could be, but we don't know for sure, which is why we shouldn't talk about anything like it's a definite and claim there's absolutely no reason a game should require a high end CPU other than a poor porting job. The only thing we know right now is Ubisoft recommends we have an i7, and graphics have been all over the place in demonstrations. We know nothing further.

Avatar image for glez13
#24 Edited by glez13 (9744 posts) -

I'm expecting a sloppy port job like Rockstar did with GTA4. Consoles have eight cores thus your PC needs eight cores.

Avatar image for IgGy621985
#25 Posted by IgGy621985 (5439 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it.

I agree, but so far Ubisoft failed to demonstrate it.

I mean, let's just be realistic. If AMD's Jaguar APU can run Watch Dogs, why the hell would you have to own i7? Running at 3.5/4 GHz? Bullshit.

You don't need an i7, it's recommended you have an i7. Until the game comes out, we won't know what that means. It's stated you can run the game with something less than an i7, so who's to say a game of this scale isn't going to have a crazy amount of customization options that would really test your PC with everything cranked up?

Regardless, it's still a big indication of how "well" Ubisoft did the optimization job for the PC version.

Also, what do you think how will people react when they see system requirements on the backside of the box? I'm talking about people that don't usually visit gaming forums like this one. They won't buy the game, or they'll simply purchase a console version.

And of course, Ubisoft will drop the classic "IT WAS TEH 95% PIRACY" argument when the PC version sells like shit.

Avatar image for p3anut
#26 Posted by p3anut (6192 posts) -

I meet all the recommended requirements but still not getting the game day one. Will wait until it gets cheap in a couple of months.

Avatar image for Cranler
#27 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it.

I agree, but so far Ubisoft failed to demonstrate it.

I mean, let's just be realistic. If AMD's Jaguar APU can run Watch Dogs, why the hell would you have to own i7? Running at 3.5/4 GHz? Bullshit.

You don't have to own an i7 because it's the recommended not the minimum. Recommended is obviously for settings beyond the console versions.

Avatar image for Mozelleple112
#28 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6952 posts) -

I feel sorry for the people who spent a couple grand or more on Alienware/Asus/MSI laptops that only come with quad core CPUs :p

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

Reminds of the "requirements" IW put out for COD Ghosts

Avatar image for IMAHAPYHIPPO
#30 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (3137 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985: Not if the game does something impressive with it.

I agree, but so far Ubisoft failed to demonstrate it.

I mean, let's just be realistic. If AMD's Jaguar APU can run Watch Dogs, why the hell would you have to own i7? Running at 3.5/4 GHz? Bullshit.

You don't need an i7, it's recommended you have an i7. Until the game comes out, we won't know what that means. It's stated you can run the game with something less than an i7, so who's to say a game of this scale isn't going to have a crazy amount of customization options that would really test your PC with everything cranked up?

Regardless, it's still a big indication of how "well" Ubisoft did the optimization job for the PC version.

Also, what do you think how will people react when they see system requirements on the backside of the box? I'm talking about people that don't usually visit gaming forums like this one. They won't buy the game, or they'll simply purchase a console version.

And of course, Ubisoft will drop the classic "IT WAS TEH 95% PIRACY" argument when the PC version sells like shit.

It could be an indication, but we won't know until May. There's still a chance those recommended settings are in place because the game offers a ridiculous amount of customization. Only the people directly working on the game know for sure, and I for one have never had any problems with Ubisoft games on PC before. I remember how much better Far Cry 3 looked on PC at max settings.

It's such a bummer how much negative press this game has gotten since it got delayed. This was probably the most hyped title last fall.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
#31 Edited by jhonMalcovich (7090 posts) -

Since when a CPU ever played a major role in game´s requirements ? Never. Plain and simple.

An quad-core and an i5 will be enough. You´d better focus on having a good GPU.

An i5 with 4-core plus 2-processes per core acts as AMD´s 8-core processors and even better.

AMD 8-core processor is not actually a true 8-core as those 8 cores can not work simultaneously, but they need to synchronize themselves, as they share some common resources. Those cores are mostly used to schedule tasks, not to execute them at the same time.

In real life, Intel´s 4-core, 8 processes >= AMD´s 8-cores

/thread

Avatar image for DealRogers
#32 Posted by DealRogers (4589 posts) -

Recommended is always halfway to Ultra requirements, so it means you need an i7 4960x for top quality? BS.

Avatar image for commander
#33 Posted by commander (13990 posts) -

Could this be because the consoles have 8 threads.

If that's the case, i better hurry up and sell my i5

Avatar image for Sharp-Shooter89
#34 Posted by Sharp-Shooter89 (128 posts) -

guys do not take system requirements seriously, ever, just make sure you have a decent machine and you should have a decent experience, i seen pc's below recommended max games, and i also seen pc's past recommended struggle with games "GTA4"

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#35 Posted by uninspiredcup (24731 posts) -

4gb of that is for Uplay.

Avatar image for FinalFighters
#36 Posted by FinalFighters (2781 posts) -

Oh crap..well, looks like i gotta get the console version now -__-

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

My PC can handle it. Too bad I just don't care for this game at all.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#39 Posted by uninspiredcup (24731 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

My PC can handle it. Too bad I just don't care for this game at all.

Agreed. Casual press X to win game. Most likely boring as 20 minutes.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#40 Posted by foxhound_fox (96563 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

An i7? Not surprising given that this is an open world game with (I hope) lots of AI calculations.

i7 is essentially unnecessary even for the most demanding of games. You could run a copy of Crysis at max while rendering video in the background on an i7.

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#41 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18546 posts) -

Wait, so now a PC gamer is complaining that a PC game is too powerful?

Avatar image for nyzma23
#42 Edited by nyzma23 (1000 posts) -

6 gb memmory and 64 bit only well good luck selling it ubisoft you just followed activision path with bloated cod ghost .after good ac4 port for pc now you make a fucking mess with watchdog and i'm not counting your buggy uplay mandatory

Avatar image for kalipekona
#43 Posted by kalipekona (2488 posts) -

@with_teeth26 said:

GPU requirement are modest enough but yea those are some steep CPU requirements. I'm not too worried though, I'm sure my OC'd 2500k can handle it.

I hope my i5 2500k can handle it. The graphics card requirements are surprisingly low. We'll see, though. Recommended specs are one thing, the way the game actually performs is another.

Avatar image for glez13
#44 Posted by glez13 (9744 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

Wait, so now a PC gamer is complaining that a PC game is too powerful?

Nope. They don't trust Ubi and are arguing that probably they will deliver an unoptimized POS.

Avatar image for Primordialous
#45 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

If you think that's ridiculous, just take a look at Star Citizen's current Dogfighting Module reqs (for 1080p, High settings, 40+ FPS):

New Haswell i7 arround the 4770k

16GB RAM @1600MHZ

GTX 680 or better

SSD hard drive

Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2145055/#Comment_2145055

Avatar image for topgunmv
#46 Posted by topgunmv (10743 posts) -

@Primordialous said:

If you think that's ridiculous, just take a look at Star Citizen's current Dogfighting Module reqs (for 1080p, High settings, 40+ FPS):

New Haswell i7 arround the 4770k

16GB RAM @1600MHZ

GTX 680 or better

SSD hard drive

Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2145055/#Comment_2145055

I wonder what you need for ultra.

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

i think those requirements are fine. a core i5 is just below recommended, but well above minimum.

core i5 vs intel core 2 q8400

although i think these requirements are fine, the recommended gpu seems low, the recommended cpu seems steep.

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

PC Gamers are always harping about games not pushing the power of the PC, one truly does, gamers complain that reqs are too high?

Does not compute...

Avatar image for Mr-Kutaragi
#49 Posted by Mr-Kutaragi (2466 posts) -

Wow. Maybe ubi DRM and bad optimization accounts for this lol.

Avatar image for napo_sp
#50 Posted by napo_sp (640 posts) -

@Primordialous said:

If you think that's ridiculous, just take a look at Star Citizen's current Dogfighting Module reqs (for 1080p, High settings, 40+ FPS):

New Haswell i7 arround the 4770k

16GB RAM @1600MHZ

GTX 680 or better

SSD hard drive

Source: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2145055/#Comment_2145055

this!