System Requirements Redux

[Bateluer]

A few months back, I made a thread discussing the jump in system requirements that was coming to PC games with the arrival of the 8th consoles. There was much complaining by people that their Core 2 Duos were no longer going to be adequate, that WinXP x32 wasn't going to be supported, and so on. My position then was that these individuals needed to STFU. And that mostly still stands. But now that we've got multiple games being released now, with confirmed system requirements, that have spent considerable time in development under the '8th Generation', I'm starting to see a trend in the requirements. And I don't like it.

Some examples

Raven's Cry
Recommended:
OS: Windows Vista / 7 / 8 / 8.1
Processor: Intel / AMD Quad Core CPU with 2.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: nVidia GTX 560 or better, AMD Radeon HD 7750 or better
DirectX: Version 11
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Hard Drive: 7 GB available space
Sound Card: with 5.1 support
Additional Notes: Mouse, Keyboard or Controller


Ryse: Son of Rome PC
Recommended:
OS: Windows Vista SP1, Windows 7 or Windows 8 (64bit)
Processor: Quad Core or Six Core CPU
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB video RAM
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 26 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX compatible Sound Card with latest drivers


I expect CoD:AW to be similar when its system requirements are more finalized. ACU and FC4 will likely follow Ubi Soft's usual pattern; by having absurdly high system requirements and manage to run like utter crap.

I do not like this trend for relatively high CPU and mediocre GPU requirements. But some of these games are listing quad core i5s and Radeon 7750s for their minimums requirements. If you go any lower on that GPU, you're in APU territory. :/ Its quite likely we'll see APU/IGP performance exceed that with DDR4 and 16/20nm skus in 2015. And as much I will poke fun on Xbox One fans for having a GPU with less capability than an a PC's integrated GPU or a high end tablet, this is going to be something that will really hamper devs in the very near future.

Recall how AAA titles in 2010-2013 were all developed with the ancient X360 and PS3 hardware in mind? If devs are working with the constraints of an integrated GPU, it'll be much worse. And we'll hit that point much sooner than we did with the older 7 gen.

Now, I'm not saying every game needs to require a 780Ti or 290X to run. But even with the impressive jump in IGP performance over the past 2 years, I think we can still demand something a little higher than that for upcoming games. On the positive side though, those individuals I mentioned in my first paragraph; once they've upgraded to ~2013 era hardware, they may well not have to upgrade again until the 9th generation of console hardware arrives.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Personally, I am more disappointed in the quality of the game play than the graphics. None of the new games coming out recently has really used the increased hardware requirements to dramatically increase the scope or depth of the games. However, I also think that graphics has not improved as it should have relative to the hardware requirements. I am much less demanding than you in regards to graphics though. For me, graphics have reached a "good enough" point, but I would really like to see some games come out with really good single player story lines, something like the quality of Mass Effect before they destroyed it with the third game.

 

[Raduque]

. And as much I will poke fun on Xbox One fans for having a GPU with less capability than an a PC's integrated GPU or a high end tablet

Incorrect. My "gaming" laptop's GT730m GK208 is less capable than an X1 or PS4 GPU.

It can't even maintain 30fps at Medium settings in Black Flag at 720p.

The integrated Intel 4400 is even worse.

 

[futurefields]

Rare to see somebody demanding higher system requirements for games. The reason for the higher CPU requirements is because you can't scale back CPU requirements by lowering settings like you can with graphics. If you make a game that requires a scene to have 100's of NPC's, you would have to fundamentally change the game to lower the cpu requirements. Like say lower it to 50 NPC's. You have to change the actual game. Whereas with graphics you simply ramp up and down your textures and effects/resolution, but gameplay remains intact.

 

[Bateluer]

Incorrect. My "gaming" laptop's GT730m GK208 is less capable than an X1 or PS4 GPU.

We're talking about desktop GPUs here, not mobile.

It can't even maintain 30fps at Medium settings in Black Flag at 720p.

A notoriously badly optimized game probably isn't the best example.

The integrated Intel 4400 is even worse.

The HD4400 isn't a top performer among IGPs, and we're discussing the IGPs that come out in 2015 for this. With 16/20nm and DDR4 system RAM, a pair of major bottlenecks are removed. For today's hardware, lets look at the R7 APU in AMD's A10 7850K when paired with DDR3 2400. In their gaming tests, there's a massive jump in performance with the faster RAM.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_ddr3_2400mhz&num=2

With today's pricing, you're still better off spending that price premium on a low end discrete card, but think of the difference when even faster DDR4 is available and the silicon isn't being hamstrung by 28nm technology.

Rare to see somebody demanding higher system requirements for games.

Not so rare. A few months back, we saw a rash of people complaining that their Core 2 Duos and Windows XP 32bit machines were being outright stricken from being able to play games. More than one high profile upcoming have 32 bit support altogether, for example. It was both amusing and aggravating to see these individuals complain that their relative antiques were not able to play the latest and greatest games. Technology moves forward, always has. And unfortunately, developers need to target baseline hardware for their games, that baseline is a happy medium between 'powerful enough to do what they want' and 'low enough that they can sell to the widest possible audience.' When the baselines is an ancient piece of crap, we all suffer.

I didn't buy a 290X to play cartoony, casualized Sims 4 and Angry Birds clones.

The reason for the higher CPU requirements is because you can't scale back CPU requirements by lowering settings like you can with graphics. If you make a game that requires a scene to have 100's of NPC's, you would have to fundamentally change the game to lower the cpu requirements. Like say lower it to 50 NPC's. You have to change the actual game. Whereas with graphics you simply ramp up and down your textures and effects/resolution, but gameplay remains intact.

A fair point. Though the trend over the past few years has been that the GPU is more important for gaming.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Does a 3570 still have a few years life left? I was choking on Planetside 2 with it until someone suggested I turn off shadows. But what about the next MMO that comes out? Might not help to do something like that.

 

[futurefields]

I didn't buy a 290X to play cartoony, casualized Sims 4 and Angry Birds clones.

Who says you have too? There are tons of games on PC with great graphics you can play.

Battlefield 3/4
Bioshock Infinite
Crysis 1-3
Diablo 3
Elite: Dangerous
Far Cry 1-4
GTA 4/5
Metro 2033/LL
Star Citizen
Tomb Raider
Witcher 1-3

^ all these games look significantly better on PC than console

 

[BoberFett]

My position then was that these individuals needed to STFU.

I hope PC gaming becomes horrible, just to spite you.

 

[Bateluer]

Does a 3570 still have a few years life left? I was choking on Planetside 2 with it until someone suggested I turn off shadows. But what about the next MMO that comes out? Might not help to do something like that.

I'd say yes, most likely, the i5 3570 has a lot of life left in it. If its paired with a decent video card, anyway. As to the MMO question . . . the trend is to more casual-like graphics that run on much lower end video hardware. With an MMO, regardless of whether it carries a monthly sub or is supported through MTs, its success depends on more players playing the game. To that end, they'll err more on the modest hardware than, say a AAA first person shooter title.

Who says you have too? There are tons of games on PC with great graphics you can play.

Battlefield 3/4
Bioshock Infinite
Crysis 1-3
Diablo 3
Elite: Dangerous
Far Cry 1-4
GTA 4/5
Metro 2033/LL
Star Citizen
Tomb Raider
Witcher 1-3

^ all these games look significantly better on PC than console

Wait, why is Diablo 3 on your list?

But yes, I've either played or looking forward to the rest of those games. And some of these games are titles that instigated some of the blowback recently about their requirements being through the roof. Star Citizen, for example, and Metro Last Light.

I hope PC gaming becomes horrible, just to spite you.

It would save me a ton of money in the long term if I could just use my Chromebox as my primary PC. Not very entertaining though.

 

[davie jambo]

I like how system requirements have jumped up since the new consoles , should benefit us all

I think (if you want to play at decent settings) your going to need an i5 (not 1st gen) and a R9 280x or thereabouts

Not really that demanding hardware but a lot more than the core2 the OP is going on about it

 

[escrow4]

BUT, if you the game actually uses that CPU requirement to give you bigger richer worlds - look at Dead Rising 3 - you really think a Core 2 and 7750 will cut it? Now we can FINALLY move on from 256MB/512MB RAM requirements and tiny boxy levels with checkpoints. Speaking of Dead Rising 3 it can crack 4GB system RAM to boot. FINALLY. Although it is a sloppy port that doesn't even support 16:10 . . . . still, we can finally have games with MORE, not just graphics. If you want to game in 2014 you need an i5 minimum, with at least a 780 equivalent if you want to crank up settings at 1080p and above in AAA games.

 

[davie jambo]

BUT, if you the game actually uses that CPU requirement to give you bigger richer worlds - look at Dead Rising 3 - you really think a Core 2 and 7750 will cut it? Now we can FINALLY move on from 256MB/512MB RAM requirements and tiny boxy levels with checkpoints. Speaking of Dead Rising 3 it can crack 4GB system RAM to boot. FINALLY. Although it is a sloppy port that doesn't even support 16:10 . . . . still, we can finally have games with MORE, not just graphics. If you want to game in 2014 you need an i5 minimum, with at least a 780 equivalent if you want to crank up settings at 1080p and above in AAA games.

It's ran great for me DR3 tbf, who would have thought having thousands of zombies on screen at the same time would make a computer slow down !!