AC: Unity minimum/recommended requirements (LOL)

[Fire&Blood]

This was found on this Korean site earlier, page seems gone now:
First link translation, the other original:

https://translate.google.com/transl...itemId=7&articleId=1545598&edit-text=&act=url

http://bbs2.ruliweb.daum.net/gaia/d...27/read?bbsId=G003&itemId=7&articleId=1545598
Someone grabbed translation while the page was live:

Assassin's creed Unity PC version's System requirements were revealed by intra games, Korean distributor of Ubisoft Korea.

- OS: Windows® 7 SP1, Windows® 8/8.1 (Only 64-bit supports)

- CPU:
Minimum - Intel Core® i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or above
Recommended - Intel Core® i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or above

- RAM:
Minimum - 6GB or above
Recommended - 8GB or above

- GPU:
Minimum - NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 or above
Graphic Memory minimum - 2GB

Recommended - NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X or above
Graphic Memory Recommended - 3 GB
- HDD: above 50 GB

- Multiplayer: 256 kbps Upload bandwidth or Higher
- Sound Card: DX9.0c-compatible

A industry insider in Japan confirms these specs, claims he can't provide a link because of a unique ID that can be traced back to him however he uploaded an image:

Every time this happens, people go to panic mode and PC haters salivate because it's an opportunity to express hate for the PC. I would wait a little longer before drawing conclusions. Thoughts?

 

[SPBHM]

how can minimum and recommended CPU be the same?

 

[Fire&Blood]

Goof question lol. I'm only guessing but I think they would justify it by saying that no AMD's CPU is good enough so they "settled" for the next best thing. I don't think they dare to recommend overclocking the CPU higher.

The gaming performance difference between the 2500K & 3770 isn't big enough to make sense either. Same goes for GPU's, yeah the 780 is faster than 680 but is that really the difference between minimum and recommended?

Unity performance is to be dissected more than once, expecting conclusions not to bode well for Ubisoft.

 

[Bateluer]

Uh, given Ubi's comments lately, it sounds like typical sloppy coding.

 

[Bman123]

It's probably a bad console port.

 

[DeathReborn]

So can we call Ubisoft trolls now, cos they are seriously trolling PC gamers lately. Min requirements of Bonaire (260X) Pitcairn (7850) I could understand but Tahiti (7970)... that's more than just sloppy coding, that is terrible coding.

 

[Midwayman]

There is no excuse for those minimum requirements given the low power of the current consoles. Either they have the most incompetent port team ever, or there is something wrong with the leak.

 

[darkewaffle]

There is no excuse for those minimum requirements given the low power of the current consoles. Either they have the most incompetent port team ever, or there is something wrong with the leak.

Isn't PC versions being beefed up relative to console versions what people complain about always wanting? That extra horsepower being put to good use?

I think the minimums are too high, but at the same time, if they were console baseline people would still complain about catering to the console and dumbing down and this that and the other thing. There's no win here and it's more about crapping on Ubisoft than anything else. Which is fine and all, but there's no need to hide it behind trying to puff up a real reason.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm part of the crowd that think it's good for this kind of requirement hike.

Requirements for games and hardware ability is and has always been a catch 22 situation where no one wants to invest in hardware they can't use, and no one wants to develop games with features gamers can't use because they don't have the hardware.

It's these rare kicks that encourage people to upgrade and stop the stagnation, that's a good thing. I have a pair of 580's so this would be the first thing to my knowledge that my GPU's aren't up to task for.

However AC games are w**k and Ubi are d***s so I wont bother upgrading ^_^

 

[Midwayman]

Isn't PC versions being beefed up relative to console versions what people complain about always wanting? That extra horsepower being put to good use?

I think the minimums are too high, but at the same time, if they were console baseline people would still complain about catering to the console and dumbing down and this that and the other thing. There's no win here and it's more about crapping on Ubisoft than anything else. Which is fine and all, but there's no need to hide it behind trying to puff up a real reason.

I think you miss the point. The art assets for console level of power exist. There is no way they should require that much power to run. If they beefed up the PC version, great. However it looks like if they did, they didn't add any settings to turn down the detail to console level. Something weird is going on here.

 

[BSim500]

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it turns out to be another "OMG this thing's gonna need an i7 so it must be epic" inflated-requirements-as-pseudo-viral-marketing-hype-to-suck-in-pre-orders-on-the-back-of-raised-expectations kind of thing...

 

[Fire&Blood]

It's official: http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-unity-pc-specs/

 

[gorcorps]

It's probably a bad console port.

Based on what I've seen/heard, even the console versions aren't well made or optimized. So a bad port of an already poorly made game is going to be pretty awful

 

[escrow4]

Good. We had 8800GT with 2GB RAM requirements for too long. Break it wide open Ubisoft. Let's see what those sort of specs will get you; no problems here with a 4770 and a 780 Ti GHz.

 

[darkewaffle]

I think you miss the point. The art assets for console level of power exist. There is no way they should require that much power to run. If they beefed up the PC version, great. However it looks like if they did, they didn't add any settings to turn down the detail to console level. Something weird is going on here.

I'm sure they do, but point being even if they said "minimum requirements -xyz console equivalent hardware-" then they'd still get trashed for that too. It's not a reason to complain, it's an excuse to.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

If those are the minimum requirements to run it at 60fps @ 1080P on "high" then that's awesome.

 

[escrow4]

If those are the minimum requirements to run it at 60fps @ 1080P on "high" then that's awesome.

I agree IF my 4770 is hammered evenly and well utilised and IF the 780 Ti GHz I have is at 99% usage and well utilised and IF 4 or 5GB RAM is swallowed and put to good use and IF . . . . . . .

 

[Fire&Blood]

I'm all for increasing requirements, as long as there is tangible improvement as a payoff. With Ubi though, especially considering their PC history, not only am I not sure that's the case, I'm expecting "halp, SLI Titans, dipping to 20fps in Unity" posts...

 

[GrantMeThePower]

I agree IF my 4770 is hammered evenly and well utilised and IF the 780 Ti GHz I have is at 99% usage and well utilised and IF 4 or 5GB RAM is swallowed and put to good use and IF . . . . . . .

lol, exactly

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well, on the plus side, I do meet the minimum requirements. On the downside, it's almost certainly indicative of a poor PC port rather than a groundbreaking expansion of what's possible in video games. But I'll keep my fingers crossed, since I am a fan of the series.

 

[DeathReborn]

Isn't PC versions being beefed up relative to console versions what people complain about always wanting? That extra horsepower being put to good use?

I think the minimums are too high, but at the same time, if they were console baseline people would still complain about catering to the console and dumbing down and this that and the other thing. There's no win here and it's more about crapping on Ubisoft than anything else. Which is fine and all, but there's no need to hide it behind trying to puff up a real reason.

Ubisoft want equality between the PC & consoles so don't expect any graphical improvements, just more limitations to hold back the PC to the consoles level.

 

[gevorg]

Did not expect my 2500K to be a minimum CPU so soon. Should be fine with GTX 970 for now.

50GB? Damn, gotta free up my SSD.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

That's how PC gaming is these days. Need beefy hardware to play the games that a little console can play. Some ho-hum looking console game intentionally made more hardware-taxing while having essentially the same graphics is used to make people feel good about their high end CPU and video card purchases and the hardware fanboys can go argue about in the forums. LOL.

Then you get PC-only games like the latest CoH, which has higher system requirements, yet looks barely any better than the original CoH from ~8 years ago.

 

[master_shake_]

probably ported to pc out of studio...

lazy/bad coding at it's finest.

they blew their collective loads on making consoles look palatable.

 

[Midwayman]

On the downside, it's almost certainly indicative of a poor PC port rather than a groundbreaking expansion of what's possible in video games.

Anything that can run on a console is unlikely to be a groundbreaking expansion of what's possible. Well unless there is a hardware gimick like guitar hero or something.