Support NeoGAF

[Camp Freddie]

This is obviously wrong. The number of people with a 2GB GPU and a 2500K or better is so small that it would be sales suicide.

I assume it's like the Watchdogs hyperbole where they said you needed an overclocked i7 to cope with the revolutionary AI and render all the polygons on Aiden's Iconic baseball cap or some such bollocks.

I'm pretty sure the staff at Ubisoft are engaged in an epic trolling campaign against their PR department, given all the utterly stupid and wrong statements they've been making this year.

 

[prag16]

Last generation, there were not many games requiring a multithreaded process. Since this generation of consoles have been announced, it's been recommended to grab an i7 to take advantage of the hyper-threading. Not too many games have taken advantage of that yet, but we are still in the cross-generation age.

Even though there are more threads, the consoles' netbook cores are weak as fuck compared to a 2500k. What type of workload would actually allow eight 1.8ghz Jaguar cores to beat a stock 2500k let alone one with a moderate overclock? Has anybody done testing? I wouldn't expect this to be accomplished easily.

 

[dampflokfreund]

Definately not true. Minimum requirements waay too high.

 

[derExperte]

How the hell would anyone think a GTX 680 be required for min spec of a game. That is one of the most ridiculous things to see. That card still cost over $300. If this is true, and I highly doubt it is, then Ubisoft done goof on PC optimization.

You can find cards that are as fast or faster for less money so it's a bit misleading.

 

[Kezen]

How the hell would anyone think a GTX 680 be required for min spec of a game. That is one of the most ridiculous things to see. That card still cost over $300. If this is true, and I highly doubt it is, then Ubisoft done goof on PC optimization.

A 290 is less than 300 where I live. The 970 can be found around 330€.

A 680 does not cost over 300.

 

[riflen]

Even though there are more threads, the consoles' netbook cores are weak as fuck compared to a 2500k. What type of workload would actually allow eight 1.8ghz Jaguar cores to beat a stock 2500k let alone one with a moderate overclock? Has anybody done testing? I wouldn't expect this to be accomplished easily.

Developers don't even have the use of 8 cores for games, 2 are reserved for OS function. So it's even worse than you describe.

These threads are quite entertaining. Next up, the Arkham Knight PC requirements thread.

 

[KingSnake]

So, my 780 is right on. I'm really curious how this game will run on PC, given the size and the number of NPCs. I hope it turns out well, I'm a sucker for the historical cities in AssCreed series and Paris is one of my favourite cities.

 

[squall211]

To avoid debate issues, they simply made the game impossible to run for 99% of PC owners.

 

[bigmac996]

damn, I wonder if it's worth upgrading. I have 2 680s in my rig and a 3930k cpu. Is it worth grabbing 2 780 tis at their discounted price? Or keep the 680s? These system requirements seem a little exaggerated.

 

[Serandur]

Even though there are more threads, the consoles' netbook cores are weak as fuck compared to a 2500k. What type of workload would actually allow eight 1.8ghz Jaguar cores to beat a stock 2500k let alone one with a moderate overclock? Has anybody done testing? I wouldn't expect this to be accomplished easily.

Not even the best-multithreaded programs/uses (games are impossible to be as well multithreaded as video editing, for example) out there would let such a thing be possible. A 2500K has roughly 2x the IPC of any Jaguar CPU coupled with roughly 2x the clock speed even at stock (taking turbo boost into account). A stock 2500K core is about 4x as powerful as said Jaguar core. Even in the best of the best multi-threaded scenarios games simply will never attain (given the nature of CPUs as inherently serial processors and most consumer software being inherently limited in how it can scale and effectively divide threads across CPU cores ), the 8-core Jaguar in this case could only ever match 2 stock 2500K cores. Overclock the 2500K, and not even that. And this is only a what-if scenario that couldn't even occur in games, especially so given the 2 reserved cores. Less, but more powerful cores are inherently easier to work with and a more efficient way of doing things. With DirectX12 on the horizon, PC CPUs have nothing to fear.

Weak as fuck is an understatement.

 

[Braag]

Damn...
I was expecting at least 4GB VRAM requirement though.

 

[Soi-Fong]

My i7 2600k @ 4.4 ghz and GTX 780 Ti Classified is deathly afraid...

Spoiler

Of how unoptimized this will be.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

First generation i7 here (860) and R9 280. Certainly not impressive at all but at the same time it is a unique feeling to not even be at the minimum. But hey whatever I haven't even played AC3 yet... come to think of it I don't think I've even made it half way through Revelations. I'm still in 2011 and it's about to be 2015. Current PC has served me well, hoping to go big at the earliest around this time next year with Windows 10 and Skylake and a 20 nm gpu or two. We can have our rematch then if I still even consider Unity worthy of it at that point.

 

[CyberPunked]

damn, I wonder if it's worth upgrading. I have 2 680s in my rig and a 3930k cpu. Is it worth grabbing 2 780 tis at their discounted price? Or keep the 680s? These system requirements seem a little exaggerated.

I'd go for 2 970s if you were going to upgrade. I have SLI 980 and a i7 @4.8ghz, but I play at 4k. So well see how this goes.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Similar reqs to watch dogs. The 780 is where it's at.

 

[3bdelilah]

More like three times of that.

Probably a stupid question, but where do developers fit in?

 

[RVinP]

Does this game use Nvidia GameWorks?

If yes, I am pretty sure Nvidia wouldn't mind suggesting optimizations.

 

[Grief.exe]

Probably a stupid question, but where do developers fit in?

Generally they are contracted at a flat rate, sometimes with bonuses for sales or review milestones.

Rarely, developers will get a percentage of sales, so a piece of the publisher portion will go to the Developers.

 

[UnrealEck]

Yeah, well I didn't meant to suggest the GPU is 2x slower, but overall a closed platform can achieve 2x perf overall. I know that doesn't necessarily translate to 2x the FPS though.

I genuinely thought you were being sarcastic about that whole 2x performance thing.

If the performance pinnacle of a console is 2x that of a Radeon HD 7850, why would it not be 2x the framerate if it's fully utilised? Why would it not be 2x faster?
I guess we have to just wait for developers to get good with the hardware and to unlock the potential of that 2x then.

 

[omonimo]

Yeah a rig priced 399 bucks can easily handle console games. Tell that to Ubi.

 

[riflen]

damn, I wonder if it's worth upgrading. I have 2 680s in my rig and a 3930k cpu. Is it worth grabbing 2 780 tis at their discounted price? Or keep the 680s? These system requirements seem a little exaggerated.

Never, ever make purchasing decisions based on published requirements alone. If the game is made by Ubisoft, consider this advice 100 times more pertinent.

 

[Jindrax]

These aren't official system reqs though, they were posted by a third party.
Wait for official ones first before you guys start considering upgrades.
Also, wait 'till the game comes out too.
Even though they're not official, they might be correct but fucking exaggerated.

EDIT: anyone notice the link doesn't work anymore?

 

[Dehnus]

Looked at the specs and had to laugh, I can't believe it

I have the same, look at the AMD processor spec. No wat in heck that is correct, with both being the same for recommended and minimum.

 

[Kinthalis]

Probably a stupid question, but where do developers fit in?

They've already been paid. The publisher usually foots the bill for development and marketing of a game. So if a publisher spends $40 million developing a game and another $25 million marketing it, they would need to sell about 2.6 million retail console copies @ $60 in order to break even. The rest would be profit (not counting other legal and business expense fees).

On PC where close to 90% of sales are digital, the same publisher would have to sell about 1.6 million copies to break even even at a lower $50 price point. Assuming they are going through somethign like Steam. If you are selling the game via your own store like EA or Blizzard, then they could sell 1.5 million to break even @ the lower price of $50.

 

[XShadows69]

Lets wait and see. But fml if these are the requirements.

 

[FairXchange]

Definately not true. Minimum requirements waay too high.

When I saw the minimum specs I instantly figured they beefed them up so that console players think they lucked out at 900p.

 

[Windom Earle]

Good thing I dumped my old 680 then.

Spoiler

Fuck you Ubisoft

 

[Lonely1]

When I saw the minimum specs I instantly figured they beefed them up so that console players think they lucked out at 900p.

Evil Within's tactic!?

 

[Gunslinger]

This is one of the reason I stopped playing on PC. The requirements are getting ridiculous every time. And the amount of money needed to be spent is too much. I bought a 760 2 years ago and its already becoming obsolete. Now I just stick to PCs for MMOs and everything else I just play on ps4.

 

[Seanspeed]

This is one of the reason I stopped playing on PC.

Every thread.

If you prefer 900p to 1080p, by all means, though.

 

[Gunslinger]

Every thread.

If you prefer 900p to 1080p, by all means, though.

My friend who wouldnt prefer higher resolution but the price you have to pay for a slight boost is just not worth it IMO.

 

[Woffls]

Welp, guess I'm waiting until I have a better GPU to play this game... which means I'll be paying a fiver for it in a Steam sale. I'm still playing Black Flag anyway, so whatever.

[edit] The data source for that pie chart is OnLive, so I think it needs a bit more salt.

 

[UrbanRats]

My friend who wouldnt prefer higher resolution but the price you have to pay for a slight boost is just not worth it IMO.

With all the cash i save on games, i'd say it is.
You could get Splinter Cell Blacklist (a 2013 AAA game) for 2€ (TWO EUROS) a bunch of weeks back.
Same with many other titles.

With consoles it's very hard to have that, even looking into the used market.

 

[prag16]

Not even the best-multithreaded programs/uses (games are impossible to be as well multithreaded as video editing, for example) out there would let such a thing be possible. A 2500K has roughly 2x the IPC of any Jaguar CPU coupled with roughly 2x the clock speed even at stock (taking turbo boost into account). A stock 2500K core is about 4x as powerful as said Jaguar core. Even in the best of the best multi-threaded scenarios games simply will never attain (given the nature of CPUs as inherently serial processors and most consumer software being inherently limited in how it can scale and effectively divide threads across CPU cores ), the 8-core Jaguar in this case could only ever match 2 stock 2500K cores. Overclock the 2500K, and not even that. And this is only a what-if scenario that couldn't even occur in games, especially so given the 2 reserved cores. Less, but more powerful cores are inherently easier to work with and a more efficient way of doing things. With DirectX12 on the horizon, PC CPUs have nothing to fear.

Weak as fuck is an understatement.

I think a lot of the people flipping their shit need to read this post. Including mainly the entire "lulz should have gone i7" crowd and the "lulz PC gaming is dead" crowd.

Our early evidence points to the likelihood that reqs like these are bs. So not sure why we need all the hand wringing in every topic.

 

[Gunslinger]

With all the cash i save on games, i'd say it is.
You could get Splinter Cell Blacklist (a 2013 AAA game) for 2€ (TWO EUROS) a bunch of weeks back.
Same with many other titles.

With consoles it's very hard to have that, even looking into the used market.

I agree with you with the idea of cheaper prices on PC via steam sales and such. But remember when you upgrade your card especially say after 5 years it usually requires a upgrade of the whole machine to avoid bottleneck. Which rounds to around 1k dollars. And IMO thats a hefty price to pay.you wouldn't want to buy a 500 dollar card to have it bottlenecked. Granted that is only if you want play games at maximum settings.

 

[RedSwirl]

It always happens, your average game on the PSX tended to fill a CD. games on PS2/Xbox tended to fill a single layer DVD (DL discs were expensive at the time tho there were quite a few games that filled those, mostly FMV heavy games like Final Fantasy). Most multiplatform games on PS3/X360 filled a dual layer DVD. Most games on PS4/XBOne will fill a Blu-Ray. Devs will use the resources you give them.

Yeah, but it seems developers haven't really taken digital into account here. It seems like they're just taking the exact same content on the disc and throwing it up on to Steam, PSN, and XBL without thinking about the people who actually have to download those 50 gigs.

 

[The Janitor]

When has getting upset over system requirements ever been a good idea? You can't tell how a game will run based on system requirements. More often than not they either turn out to be fake, or are greatly exaggerated.

 

[SpecialAgentZ]

Looks like Ubisoft isn't holding back any longer after gamers whined about Watch Dogs graphical downgrades to make their game run decent on an average spec-d PC for its time.

Gotta get used to it. Sooner or later, i5 will be way outdated as they move on to octa-cores to match Console's CPU architecture for ports. But then again, I'm quite happy with my Xbox One so I won't be bothered to upgrade my PC until few years down the road.

The downgrades were made because consoles could not run their original vision of the game, not because "pcs". Even the console-owners loved Digital Foundry hinted at this, and this fall in line with the general delays and dowgrades in games meant to be launched close to the platforms debut. If anything, consoles held PC version back.

PCs are fine running Watch Dogs on max settings and with the mods to make the game look more like the original E3 presentations.

 

[TGO]

Damn this thread, but it happens everytime and usually like

This is BS

it must be another shitty unoptimized port like [insert recent game here]

Ubisoft hates PC

Wasn't gonna buy it anyway

[insert some bullocks about Crysis 3 being the best looking game ever]

Ubisoft sucks, but it a console port so it would be a shit port

how can this run on shitty consoles yet require those specs

Consoles versions must be low settings @15fps

^which is funny as current gen are usually comparable to high/Very high when DF analysed them

This game is terrible

^ this plagues OT's everytime.

Just a observation, I reckon they're are over exaggerated myself and the game will run fantastic on any decent rig, but damn some of you must get high blood pressure from this going by your comments.

 

[Lockjaw333]

Every thread.

If you prefer 900p to 1080p, by all means, though.

He's just saying that for him, he can't really justify the cost of keeping is PC updated to meet the increasing requirements. Nothing wrong with that.

Being a PC gamer myself I admit that its very expensive and not for everyone. I spent about $1,000 US on my build in Oct 2011, and then I spent another $350 in 203 upgrading my GPU to a gtx670.

I could definitely see how a lot of people would be turned off by that, and the difference between 900p and 1080p is not enough to persuade them.

Being PC gamers we accept the added cost to stay relevant though. But it doesn't mean I don't get annoyed at ridiculous specs like this when I've spent so much to stay current.

Still waiting for these specs to be debunked though.

 

[Deepo]

This is how Watch Dogs runs on my new rig:

http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_watch_dogs_stutter-jJP6AJQYS58sRYrL_en.html

5820K@4.4Ghz
16GB DDR4@2400Mhz
GTX 980@1550 boost clock 4GB VRAM
Samsung EVO 1TB (performance patched)
Windows 8.1 Update 1

I'm staying far away from Unity until I see some performance reports.

 

[CyberPunked]

Nvidia should be releasing a video showing the PC exclusive features soon. So that will show us what the PC version looks like.

 

[Nethaniah]

Nvidia should be releasing a video showing the PC exclusive features soon. So that will show us what the PC version looks like.

Isn't that usually a youtube video? I wouldn't get too excited.

 

[Mohasus]

We need a bingo chat for ports threads.

 

[Lulubop]

This is one of the reason I stopped playing on PC. The requirements are getting ridiculous every time. And the amount of money needed to be spent is too much. I bought a 760 2 years ago and its already becoming obsolete. Now I just stick to PCs for MMOs and everything else I just play on ps4.

Wow you know the performance already? You know how it performs with similar console hardware at console settings? Amazing.

Yea man those recent recommendations of big fall games that were overblown or how about alien isolation which performs much better than it's console counterparts with similar hardware. Ridiculous.

 

[TGO]

This is how Watch Dogs runs on my new rig:

http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_watch_dogs_stutter-jJP6AJQYS58sRYrL_en.html

5820K@4.4Ghz
16GB DDR4@2400Mhz
GTX 980@1550 boost clock 4GB VRAM
Samsung EVO 1TB (performance patched)
Windows 8.1 Update 1

I'm staying far away from Unity until I see some performance reports.

That looks terrible WTF?

 

[Blue Ninja]

These aren't official system reqs though, they were posted by a third party.
Wait for official ones first before you guys start considering upgrades.
Also, wait 'till the game comes out too.
Even though they're not official, they might be correct but fucking exaggerated.

EDIT: anyone notice the link doesn't work anymore?

They're official.

 

[Kezen]

Damn this thread, but it happens everytime and usually like








^which is funny as current gen are usually comparable to high/Very high when DF analysed them

^ this plagues OT's everytime.

Just a observation, I reckon they're are over exaggerated myself and the game will run fantastic on any decent rig, but damn some of you must get high blood pressure from this going by your comments.

I know it's easy to judge but it's true that some people are completely overreacting, not to mention that those requirements (even taking into account how vague and uninformative they usually are) are most likely fake.

Unity will not be an easy game to run at max settings/60fps for good or bad reasons. I welcome demanding games regardless of their optimization because it will drive hardware adoption.

EDIT : So they are...legit ?
Unexpected.

 

[Kinthalis]

They're official.

Wow.

Ridiculous. So I guess PC version on minimum >>> that console version?

Spoiler

Or another craptastic Ubiport....

 

[Deepo]

That looks terrible WTF?

It does indeed. And I've tested around 100 other games on the rig, most of them pretty demanding, and none of them are showing any problems. I've also run through all of UbiSofts recommended troubleshooting steps, like a clean boot, altering the page file and superfetch, but nothing makes any difference.