GHG
Gold Member
Yep. Its like nobody has learnt from the Shadow of Mordor and Evil Within threads.
Assassin's creed Unity PC version System requirements
- Thread starter catmario
- Start date
Yep. Its like nobody has learnt from the Shadow of Mordor and Evil Within threads.
martino
Member
if it is not because of setting/resolution in mind (but not written) maybe it is support prevention for mass market.
customer : I have a problem with the game.
ubi support: did your pc meet minimun requirement ?
customer : what ?
ubi support : what are your spec ?
<ubi support explaining where and how to find pc specs ...>
customer : < mass market low-med specs>
ubi support : your pc doesn't meet minimun requirements for this game i can't do anything for you.
customer : I have a problem with the game.
ubi support: did your pc meet minimun requirement ?
customer : what ?
ubi support : what are your spec ?
<ubi support explaining where and how to find pc specs ...>
customer : < mass market low-med specs>
ubi support : your pc doesn't meet minimun requirements for this game i can't do anything for you.
Not saying this is well optimized or anything. Just saying they are targeting 8GB of shared RAM and then say fuck it let's brute force the PC.
5-6 available to games.
Toothless Spoon
Member
I just want the game to be optimised for PC, that's it.
What if experience playing on consoles is below the minimum required experience by a pc player.
I've seen a lot of players of The Evil Within on consoles enjoying the game under 30 fps while a lot of pc players are into rage mode because the game is designed to run at 30 fps.
Blue Ninja
Member
I wanted that for AC4, but Ubi doesn't care. :lol
After seeing the Xbone version, I'm not spending my money on this just yet. I'll hold off until next year, after I've upgraded.
Green Yoshi
Member
No wonder it doesn't run fluid on Xbox One. It will look like a different game on a highend gaming-PC.
alexandros
Banned
Not saying this is well optimized or anything. Just saying they are targeting 8GB of shared RAM and then say fuck it let's brute force the PC.
The funny thing with this newest specs craze is that VRAM requirements are actually pretty modest! Ubisoft is one weird company.
I know Punished Snake was making a joke, but Splinter Cell Blacklist (Ubisoft Toronto's first game since Jade Raymond helped put together the team) was pretty great on PC.
That's possible, but you really think some 270x/760 range card will not be able to run the game at all?
If this specs are not complete bs, it's probably just like alexandros said, they didn't bother to test other configuration.
Eh, more like nobody learned from the W_D PC performance thread. That's a very good example of a (cross-gen!) game running pretty rough on recommended or higher specs. Most people can forget about ultra textures on that game as well - unlike Shadows of Mordor where VRAM reqs were exaggerated.
Waiting for benchmarks is always the name of the game, but don't be surprised either if they trend a bit low.
martino
Member
not even ps4 if they speak about speak reach 1080p at minimun spec
Toothless Spoon
Member
Yeah, AC4 wasn't terrible, but a few of the bells and whistles broke the game. In saying that, I get every AC game and haven't played one for more then a few hours. I just love the whole concept, but I've always hated the future components. It's always seem to drag me out of the game. There are other problems I have with the game, but I'm hoping Unity is the one
Canis lupus
Member
Wouldn't be surprised if true. More and more games require i7/more cores. And people claimed they would be set for the entire generation with their 4 year old hardware.
Blue Ninja
Member
From what I saw earlier on in the thread, yes they do.
martino
Member
I never said that.
i think Ps4 equivalent power gpu will play uc unity at same resolution as ps4 with pretty much same framerate minus/plus some effect (we'll see)
Watch Dogs asked for 3GB of vRAM for ultra textures which wasn't unreasonable at all.
It also ran fine on the specified requirements although they were clearly geared at 1080p/30fps performance, not 60, which was hard to acheive without stuttering. When you consider console versions were doing 720p and 900p at 30fps, PC performance seemed entirely reasonable by comparison.
Gipsy Danger
Member
They never learn.
I have not seen anything that might lead me to believe they're official in any way, shape or form.
An I5/GTX760 will do just fine in this game. You won't need high-end hardware to match consoles, given that the PC version sports many effects absent on console skus it's only logical that cutting-edge GPUs will be required for maximum settings.
martino
Member
the part easily forgotten it seems.
Don't worry, it was just a rhetorical question. But yeah, i agree that performance will end being as you describe. Lots of overreaction as usual.
It's Ubisoft Kiev. Telling Ubisoft Kiev to optimise something is like telling a goat to summon Jesus.
Right, and it actually used that, albeit only with AA @ 1080.
Ultimately though, none of this matters. How the game looks comparable to its performance matters, and W_D was not a looker in most cases. Neither was Shadows. Neither was Evil Within.
GhostTrick
Banned
Denton
Member
I am 100% sure my 4 years old 2500k will be perfectly fine for Unity and pretty much every other upcoming game. It was enough for Watchdogs, Wolf, everything.
GhostTrick
Banned
And I'm 100% sure that they'll outperform both PS4 and Xbox One. People are just overreacting over and over.
If Xbox One can run it at 900p and 30FPS... you can bet that the minimum requirement is aiming for a LOT better than this.
Perfect lol!Don't underestimate how close to God goats can be.
Adry9
Member
The way I see it there are 4 ways this could go down.
1. These specs are not the real specs, and they will announce different ones closer to launch.
2. The game is an unoptimized mess on the level of GTA IV at launch (or maybe even Saints Row 2). Even PCs above recommended specs will struggle to maintain playable framerates.
3. They game will run on below min spec hardware as you would expect relative to the console performance. A PC matching the min spec would run the game with at least console level settings at 1080p with better framerate than the consoles (eg at least 30 FPS).
4. The lowest settings on the PC version are actually significantly higher than the console settings. It is in fact the Crysis of our age and will blow away everything in terms of visuals.
1. These specs are not the real specs, and they will announce different ones closer to launch.
2. The game is an unoptimized mess on the level of GTA IV at launch (or maybe even Saints Row 2). Even PCs above recommended specs will struggle to maintain playable framerates.
3. They game will run on below min spec hardware as you would expect relative to the console performance. A PC matching the min spec would run the game with at least console level settings at 1080p with better framerate than the consoles (eg at least 30 FPS).
4. The lowest settings on the PC version are actually significantly higher than the console settings. It is in fact the Crysis of our age and will blow away everything in terms of visuals.
GhostTrick
Banned
Wishful thinking based on nothing. Lol.
Because minimum specs means it wont run, right ? Sheesh, people should really learn about minimum and recommended specs.
To his/her defense some people strangely loose their composure when demanding games start to show up. It has been common even when games targetted the 360/PS3, it never stopped games to ask for more.
My stance on those requirements has not changed though, I don't believe they're official. The page has been taken down, and Ubisoft have not posted official specs yet.
Should be soon.
derExperte
Member
I have yet to see one that really does, please name some.
Adry9
Member
Yeah it will probably run but that doesn't mean it's payable, and even if it is, playing at 720p/30fps on minimum settings doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Canis lupus
Member
Yes the 2500k is listed as a minimum requirement so you should be okay on the lower settings.
Shadow of Mordor, Watch Dogs, The Evil Within all come with i7 recommendations. System reqs will only get higher and old hardware like 2500k will only be enough for low end.
GhostTrick
Banned
Then again, it just shows how you think about minimum settings is wrong.
And yet, an i3 CPU was more than enough for these games. In fact, in the case of Shadow of Mordor and The Evil Within, it has been shown to perform nearly the same as an i7 CPU. As long as PS4/One can do it, an i 2500k will do it.
derExperte
Member
None of those 'require' an i7.
So could we stop this 'people who thought their old hardware was enough were wrong' talk until at least one game really needs more cpu power to run smoothly? Maybe Unity will be it but so far the official requirements of the latest AAA productions haven't been very reliable, Evil Within's VRAM recommendations for example ended up being so wrong it was almost funny.
Your 2500K will still be good to match consoles for the whole gen, perhaps even more with DX12.
PS4/XBO have not inflated PC requirements much at all when I think about it, so much for PC having a hard time "adapting" to new consoles.
I7 was listed as recommended as early as 2011 (Dirt 3).
http://www.codemasters.com/uk/dirt_3/pc/faq/95/
PS4/XBO have not inflated PC requirements much at all when I think about it, so much for PC having a hard time "adapting" to new consoles.
I7 was listed as recommended as early as 2011 (Dirt 3).
http://www.codemasters.com/uk/dirt_3/pc/faq/95/
Sentenza
Member
It's almost like you are never tired to make a fool of yourself in these threads.
KojiKnight
Member
*looks at minimum GPU requirements* Well 7870... I guess this is as good of an excuse as any.... To pass up on playing the latest crappy AssCreed game. *goes back to Shadows of Mordor*
Denton
Member
Hahaha I assume you're trolling, nobody can be that stupid.
Kazdane
Member
That's weird. I played it just fine on my laptop (at 1440x900, mind you) at mid settings with an i7, 4gb ram and a 460M. My desktop computer had at the time a GTX 660 and a Athlon II X4 630 and it was running great with everything at maximum except one particular setting which I just can't remember right now.
I've always been in the group of people "AC games run fine in my computer" though.
In any case, these system requirements are super weird. There's no way the recommended and minimum processor for AMD are the same, and the gap between graphic cards doesn't make sense either, because, no matter how bad Ubi ports are, you can always disable whichever effects you don't need.
The way I see it, either the minimum requirements or the recommended are absolutely made up. Keep in mind this comes from a distributor for Ubisoft. Not ubisoft themselves. I'd take it with a grain of salt, and definitely wait until we can see it in a reliable official source (such as the Ubi shop).