• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Titanfall PC minimum specs revealed

Broburger

Broburger

Senior member
Respawn has revealed the PC minimum system requirements for Titanfall, The game needs at least 50 GB of free space and 4 GB of ram, Windows Vista, 7 and 8 supported.

Here is the full Specs:

  • OS: Windows Vista SP2 64-bit / Windows 7 SP1 64-bit / Windows 8 64-bit
  • CPU: AMD Athlon X2 2.8GHz / Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
  • RAM: At least 4 GB
  • HARD DRIVE: At least 50 GB of free space
  • VIDEO: AMD Radeon HD 4770 with 512MB RAM or better / Nvidia GeForce 8800GT with 512MB RAM or better
  • DirectX: DirectX 11
  • INPUT: Keyboard and mouse, Microsoft Gamepad
  • ONLINE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS: 512kbps down and 384kbps up or faster Internet connection
Titanfall coming this month March 11 to Xbox One and PC following later by the Xbox 360 version in March 25.


http://www.behindgames.com/titanfal...ast-50-gb-free-space-windows-vista-supported/
 
What?, damnit.

must be the highest ever insane HD requirement relative to GPU processing power ever.
 
The size seems strange since the XBOX One version only requires ~20GB according to Respawn. Given we're not talking about the 360 anymore, I don't think we're going to see huge differences between the XBOX One and the PC that would necessitate over twice as much storage. Even if we get larger textures, that wouldn't mean more than a few gigs at the most.
 
Must be those insane textures, which are completely uncompressed even on install. The installer is supposedly 21GB and that expands to 50GB so there is a lot of compression capability available that is removed on the installation of the game.
 
It is now becoming a trend that some of the specification is made to look extraordinary in other to grab attention of everybody and arouse curiosity. So, people buy into those gimmicks.

Either a game would take more than 4GB of video Ram with shitty graphics or the game would take never before heard hdd space like this one.

Now people would atleast give it a try to see what exactly is there in this game that would take so much space.

I tell you what. Don't buy into such gimmicks that are done for cheap publicity to make people fool into buying there shitty game.
 
I don't think the developer has done this for gimmicks, I think they did it to save themselves some development time. Not that the game is worth the download of course.
 
futurefields said:
Just because it says it requires 50gb storage doesn't mean the game itself will take 50gb.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand that, but 50GB to run a game is still a lot. For someone with a 500GB HD, the game requires 10% of your capacity to be used for the game at any time.
 
I don't see anything special about the reqs. I can't remember the last time that I felt the need to look up the minimum requirements for a game though... Even with my 4 year old PC I ran everything fine.
 
Considering the size and detail of the maps that we saw in the beta 12GB is feeling kind of large for what we got. 38GB for 3-4 times as many maps seems plausible for a release.
 
TidusZ said:
EA game = no purchase
Click to expand...

They are distributing it; have no power over content whatsoever.

Midwayman said:
Its a pretty easy game to cap out at 60. (seriously, a 60fps cap though?)
Click to expand...

It's capped to your monitor's refresh rate. You get 120 fps on a 120 fps monitor, ect.

There is a ton of misinformation going around forums about this game. Not calling anyone here out, but some people are just starting rumors for whatever reason.
 
Not sure who will get it for pc. I might if I can get it for a deal. It seems it will be strongest on a console community wise, and not one of my friends have a gaming pc. I'll wait and see what others think of the pc version upon release.
 
I dunno why, but I just wasnt that impressed with this game during the beta. Maybe I didnt give it enough of a chance? I only played for a few hours and was left wanting more.

*EDIT* More as in, i wasn't satisfied with the game, not more as in I couldn't stop playing.
 
Spidre said:
It's capped to your monitor's refresh rate. You get 120 fps on a 120 fps monitor, ect.

There is a ton of misinformation going around forums about this game. Not calling anyone here out, but some people are just starting rumors for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Your right, there is a lot of misinformation being spread around on this topic.

If you play with vsync off its capped at 60. If you play with double or triple buffering enabled its the refresh of the monitor. I played the beta, I confirmed that was how it worked myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top