Support NeoGAF

[Maedre]

The 7970 can hit 4.6TF stable at stock voltage so it's not the biggest exaggeration.

and if you clock the Card to 1300 Mhz it will be faster than 4,6TF. The Specs are talking about a normal 7970 (3,8TF) and not the 7970 GHZ edition or any OCed Card.
I dont want to defend the power of the PS4. But at the end there is are major differences between a Desktop PS with many many many configurations and two Consoles with just one Configuration to optimise for.

 

[RulkezX]

Given how poor games generally perform at minimum specs , I don't know why they are even bothering releasing a PC version this time. A quick look at the most recent Steam Hardware survey shows the % of people able to run this well will be relatively small.

 

[Alebelly]

Which is why I don't understand why closed or open beta testing periods aren't standard fare for every PC dev out there. If you can't be bothered with doing playtesting yourself, why not crowdsource it?

Fear of negative impact on sales

 

[xXBaconXx]

These are obviously very inflated. Implying that the game wont' even start unless you have 680/7970 is pretty stupid. It would also be a incredibly stupid move by Ubisoft; I'd wager that not even 10% of all PCs fulfill those requirements.

 

[Newline]

I'm hoping to run this at 1080p / 30fps at max settings and FXAA using my gtx 770 and i5 2500k at 4.5ghz. Probably being optimistic, but only time will tell.

Guys guys.

So much bickering over another cookie cutter mass produced AC game. Surely there are more worthwhile games to call each other names over?

But this is the first next-gen / new engine Assassins Creed. It's got the potential to bring AC1 levels of disappointment to the table!

 

[bj00rn_]

Why announce these 'requirements' in the first place?

To cover their asses, it's the only reason, because there are no other.

 

[Nethaniah]

Given how poor games generally perform at minimum specs , I don't know why they are even bothering releasing a PC version this time. A quick look at the most recent Steam Hardware survey shows the % of people able to run this well will be relatively small.

Which will change in due time when people get better hardware, never mind the people that will want to upgrade because they are interested in this game.

 

[GhostTrick]

Given how poor games generally perform at minimum specs , I don't know why they are even bothering releasing a PC version this time. A quick look at the most recent Steam Hardware survey shows the % of people able to run this well will be relatively small.

Yeah this isnt true. Games can perform really well at minimum specs and often even better than console versions.

Before upgrading, I had a Dual core CPU and an HD4870. I wasnt even meeting minimum specs for Metal Gear Rising... yet the game ran a lot better than console versions. Higher res, higher framerate.

 

[Foffy]

Well, surely these requirements and poor porting efforts promise it will have parity with the console version? :3c

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Cue a 750 ti playing the game just fine.

I have a 750 ti so I hope you're right.

 

[Joey Ravn]

Do PC gamers want games that will properly take advantage of higher end GPUs (aside from simply higher resolutions and framerate), or do they want every game ever to be able to run well on a 750Ti for the next ten years?

Yes these specs seem high, and maybe this isn't going to be a game that pushes technical boundaries. But you can't have it both ways.

Uh. Well... I think you answered your own question. And, actually, both options are not mutually exclusive: we can have it both ways, and we have had it in many cases. AC Unity doesn't seem like the kind of game that will push the boundaries of PC gaming, like Crysis did a few years ago. This doesn't look like a case of "we need better hardware to push beyond the current limits": it looks more like Ubisoft decided to dump the game on PC without even trying to refine it for the platform, because, hey, we can always compensate by throwing more money at newer hardware, right?

The thing is, PC gaming offers something that consoles simply can't offer: scalability. You can (or, at least, should be able to) tweak a game to get to the compromise that you find satisfactory between performance and visual quality. Not every single PC gamer has a top-of-the-line, cutting-edge $3000 PC. Say that you have a 660 Ti, a still very capable mid-to-hig tier GPU. You should be able to scale down the game graphics to achieve better performance on your machine, just like you can crank up every graphical setting to the max if you have two 980 in SLI and performance doesn't break a sweat. Scalability is the key here. A good port should be able to be fluid enough to be used by both ends of the spectrum. Within reason, of course... it's not that I want every game to work on a Voodoo2.

As for these requirements in particular... I'll wait and see. On the one hand, it's not that even the first AC runs great on modern PCs with much more modest system requirements. Ubisoft games, and especially AC games, have always had shoddy performance. On the other hand, we've seen how "real" these requirements turn out to be in many recent games. Developers and publishers inflate their numbers to... I don't know why, honestly. Maybe to convince people to buy the console version of their games? Maybe to make their games look more advanced than they really are? I dunno. But more often than not, even the Recommended requirements are pure bullshit.

 

[OminoMichelin]

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.

I'm talking PC, or otherwise downloadble games. People don't buy discs nearly as much as they do now, and most new PC builders don't even bother installing a DVD or blu-ray player, because they now download everything. You can use all the resources you want, but this is far too drastic of a change, and something devs can definitely address with just a little effort. Less people are going to buy their games if gamers have to consider whether or not to spend 50GBs of their precious data cap for it.

 

[Qassim]

I bet The Witcher 3 will have AC Unity's recommended specs as minimum requirements.

I dunno, PC games are often scalable, if there are any developers out there I trust to deliver on that, it's CDPR.

 

[Paasei]

Something tells me this is not really accurate...

 

[Darklord]

I bet The Witcher 3 will have AC Unity's recommended specs as minimum requirements.

I bet The Witcher 3 will be far more optimized and have lower minimum specs and lower recommended.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

Yeah, I'll be waiting for benches.
What worries me the most though is the tendency of 50GB games. It's as if devs are just cramming multi audio/video for every region without a worry, and don't even bother to compress textures.
It's extremely worrying, at the 600kb/s I usually download at, it would take ages just to download a game, and watching YT videos is usually not pleasant in the meanwhile. Not to mention people with limited bandwidth caps.
Sort this shit out AAA devs.

I suspect they're deliberately inflating their games as a piracy detterent. They probably figure that some people with bandwidth caps will see the size of the pirate copy, then give up and go buy it in a store.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

At least, that's the only logical tought process I can see to justify multiple uncompressed audio. Apart for sheer lazyness, but surely it's not that much work to keep only one or two languages, right?

 

[Alebelly]

Something tells me this is not really accurate...

I highly doubt it is, more of just space to patch it while saying 'you new the requirements going in'

With all the superfluous NPC stuff they seem so enamored with, I imagine it will be troubled regardless of platform

 

[Burgess_101]

Is an i7 2700k really that out of date now? Balls...

 

[Kydd BlaZe]

According to the recommended specs, my PC should be able to run this game very well. However, I fucking hate Ubisoft games on PC, so I'll be playing this and Far Cry 4 on Xbox One.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Don't really believe this. If true this will be the first game that my i7 930 is underpowered for. Also my 670oc is below minimum for the first time.

 

[Sentenza]

According to the recommended specs, my PC should be able to run this game very well. However, I fucking hate Ubisoft games on PC, so I'll be playing this and Far Cry 4 on Xbox One.

Uh, that will surely show them!

 

[OminoMichelin]

I suspect they're deliberately inflating their games as a piracy detterent. They probably figure that some people with bandwidth caps will see the size of the pirate copy, then give up and go buy it in a store.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

At least, that's the only logical tought process I can see to justify multiple uncompressed audio. Apart for sheer lazyness, but surely it's not that much work to keep only one or two languages, right?

If anything, it's the opposite. Pirates actually go out of their way to scrub unnecessary movies and audio from games, just so they weigh less. I think it's just easier for them to cram everything into the release instead of making different languages available on-demand.

 

[Serandur]

Is an i7 2700k really that out of date now? Balls...

No. At the same clock speed as a 3770K, the 2700K is within 5% of the same performance. That specification Ubisoft listed is also the plain, non-overclockable 3770 at 3.4 GHz only. the 2700K is still perfectly fine and when overclocked, will generally perform very close to even the latest high-end quad-core i7s. Nothing out of date, don't pay much attention to the listed requirements.

 

[Kydd BlaZe]

Uh, that will surely show them!

Gamefly

 

[Blue Ninja]

Looks like I'm cancelling my preorder. ACIV already had trouble on my GTX 660, if it dips below the minimum this time I might as well not bother (or, god forbid, get it on Xbox One).

 

[Burgess_101]

No. At the same clock speed as a 3770K, the 2700K is within 5% of the same performance. That specification Ubisoft listed is also the plain, non-overclockable 3770 at 3.4 GHz only. the 2700K is still perfectly fine and when overclocked, will generally perform very close to even the latest high-end quad-core i7s. Nothing out of date, don't pay much attention to the listed requirements.

That makes me feel a lot better, cheers.

 

[Fractal]

Is this even official info?
In any case, requirements these days are badly inflated. However, at 1440p, I expect I'll have to settle for locked 30 FPS on my 780 Ti, knowing Ubisoft, there's no way I'll be coming close to stable 60 FPS, and I prefer a consistent frame rate.

 

[spekkeh]

That shared memory pool coming into effect. Minimum system requirements will only get higher from here on out.

 

[axb2013]

Skimming this info, the situation appears similar to back in 07 when Crysis launched.
Game was crushing PC's much like this one is expected to but there were some key differences. Crysis scaled pretty good, entry barrier wasn't quite low as compared to contemporary titles but it did run with compromises to and while it's hard to objectify IQ, people generally felt they were getting something in return. It spawned the can it run Crysis joke, yeah but no one argued it provided the same image quality as other games of it's time while demanding higher specs.

People aren't complaining about Unity requirements because they just like to whine, they are complaining because they want scalability within reason and performance comparable to console hardware counterparts. Ryse requirements didn't cause an outrage, some may say because no one wants to play it but seriously, because the requirements scaled low enough and the screen output matched the specs demand and fared well in comparison.
Difficult to compare but max out Ryse settings, account for it's specs then compare to Unity. Then think of the parity issue and take a look at Ubisoft's porting history, it becomes clear why people taking shots at Ubi here.

 

[Alebelly]

Skimming this info, the situation appears similar to back in 07 when Crysis launched.
Game was crushing PC's much like this one is expected to but there were some key differences. Crysis scaled pretty good, entry barrier wasn't quite low as compared to contemporary titles but it did run with compromises to and while it's hard to objectify IQ, people generally felt they were getting something in return. It spawned the can it run Crysis joke, yeah but no one argued it provided the same image quality as other games of it's time while demanding higher specs.

People aren't complaining about Unity requirements because they just like to whine, they are complaining because they want scalability within reason and performance comparable to console hardware counterparts. Ryse requirements didn't cause an outrage, some may say because no one wants to play it but seriously, because the requirements scaled low enough and the screen output matched the specs demand and fared well in comparison.
Difficult to compare but max out Ryse settings, account for it's specs then compare to Unity. Then think of the parity issue and take a look at Ubisoft's porting history, it becomes clear why people taking shots at Ubi here.

yup

 

[Blue Ninja]

Maybe Jade Raymond left for this?
Dunno, I'm only guessing, but is this a possible reason?

Doubt it. :lol

Skimming this info, the situation appears similar to back in 07 when Crysis launched.
Game was crushing PC's much like this one is expected to but there were some key differences. Crysis scaled pretty good, entry barrier wasn't quite low as compared to contemporary titles but it did run with compromises to and while it's hard to objectify IQ, people generally felt they were getting something in return. It spawned the can it run Crysis joke, yeah but no one argued it provided the same image quality as other games of it's time while demanding higher specs.

People aren't complaining about Unity requirements because they just like to whine, they are complaining because they want scalability within reason and performance comparable to console hardware counterparts. Ryse requirements didn't cause an outrage, some may say because no one wants to play it but seriously, because the requirements scaled low enough and the screen output matched the specs demand and fared well in comparison.
Difficult to compare but max out Ryse settings, account for it's specs then compare to Unity. Then think of the parity issue and take a look at Ubisoft's porting history, it becomes clear why people taking shots at Ubi here.

Bingo. I've seen the game in action on Xbone, it doesn't even look that good to begin with. It boggles the mind that these are the specs it requires on PC. It's coming out so close to the MCC that this is just the final nail in its coffin. Time to wait for a sale.

 

[daninthemix]

Maybe Jade Raymond left for this?
Dunno, I'm only guessing, but is this a possible reason?

Because of the high PC requirements of a game that will be forgotten in a year? No, I'd imagine it's more to do with her following other opportunities.

 

[alexandros]

That shared memory pool coming into effect. Minimum system requirements will only get higher from here on out.

Avatar quote

 

[Sentenza]

That shared memory pool coming into effect. Minimum system requirements will only get higher from here on out.

Nnngh. MUST. NOT. AVATAR. QUOTE.
EDIT: Goddamit, Alexandros.

Maybe Jade Raymond left for this?
Dunno, I'm only guessing, but is this a possible reason?

...How? Why?
Please, for the sake of curiosity, can you tell us how is this playing in your head?

 

[R_Deckard]

So they can make it work on consoles with GPUs that are worse than 7870 but 7970 is minimum on PC? This is bullshit.

That unified ram and special sauce...PS4 the only way to play

 

[Nethaniah]

That shared memory pool coming into effect. Minimum system requirements will only get higher from here on out.

Secret sauce status = activated.

 

[Newline]

Is an i7 2700k really that out of date now? Balls...

If you overclock that chip even slightly, it'll effortlessly churn through any current game that you could possibly throw at it. I love the k series of intel chips, so much bang for your buck.
Edit: If you haven't already grab an aftermarket cpu fan that only costs £25 here in the UK, overclocking will become a breeze.

 

[Kezen]

Those requirements are most likely bogus.

 

[MaLDo]

According to the recommended specs, my PC should be able to run this game very well. However, I fucking hate Ubisoft games on PC, so I'll be playing this and Far Cry 4 on Xbox One.

 

[Nethaniah]

Maybe she knew the Ubisoft policies about PC version of this and other games and she left so she won't be associated with this? I'm only guessing, but dunno if this is a possible case.

Now? Why not back when the first games ran like shit? Had their fps capped and the insane drm thrown on it?

 

[Sentenza]

Maybe she knew the Ubisoft policies about PC version of this and other games and she left so she won't be associated with this? I'm only guessing, but dunno if this is a possible case.

To be completely honest, I highly doubt she could even ever have considered to give a flying fuck about that, let alone resign to take a stance.

 

[Renekton]

I bet The Witcher 3 will be far more optimized and have lower minimum specs and lower recommended.

Didn't they have a marketing/CE deal with Microsoft X1? I wonder...

 

[TheNamelessOne]

Awesome. I really hope these are accurate and the game looks accordingly on PC. It's time to step up on the PC side and really take advantage of the power that's possible on the platform.

 

[Serandur]

That makes me feel a lot better, cheers.

Honestly, 2nd generation K series i5s and i7s are exceptionally awesome products. They're aging amazingly well and they're still the best overclockers on the market. I expect you should be doing very well with the 2700K for several years still.

 

[Fractal]

Skimming this info, the situation appears similar to back in 07 when Crysis launched.
Game was crushing PC's much like this one is expected to but there were some key differences. Crysis scaled pretty good, entry barrier wasn't quite low as compared to contemporary titles but it did run with compromises to and while it's hard to objectify IQ, people generally felt they were getting something in return. It spawned the can it run Crysis joke, yeah but no one argued it provided the same image quality as other games of it's time while demanding higher specs.

People aren't complaining about Unity requirements because they just like to whine, they are complaining because they want scalability within reason and performance comparable to console hardware counterparts. Ryse requirements didn't cause an outrage, some may say because no one wants to play it but seriously, because the requirements scaled low enough and the screen output matched the specs demand and fared well in comparison.
Difficult to compare but max out Ryse settings, account for it's specs then compare to Unity. Then think of the parity issue and take a look at Ubisoft's porting history, it becomes clear why people taking shots at Ubi here.

Well said... I'm not against high hardware requirements and games pushing our hardware to its limits, but if they're serious about 680 being a minimum (highly unlikely), they better push out something extraordinary on the screen, which marks a very noticeable improvement over the much weaker console hardware. By making insane hardware requirements for PC games which ultimately don't look too much better than console versions, PC gaming most definitely isn't being pushed forward.

Some of these latest ports brought a very destructive trend... but then again, benchmarks typically end up telling a whole different story. But still, not everyone follows benchmarks, and companies officially listing crazy system requirements can easily make PC gaming look expensive and complicated to newcomers.

 

[Rwinterhalter]

I suspect they're deliberately inflating their games as a piracy detterent. They probably figure that some people with bandwidth caps will see the size of the pirate copy, then give up and go buy it in a store.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

At least, that's the only logical tought process I can see to justify multiple uncompressed audio. Apart for sheer lazyness, but surely it's not that much work to keep only one or two languages, right?

25 GB of that is just pre-baked lighting data according to the Bombcast. Nothing to do with audio.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Lots of people losing their fucking heads in this thread.

One of the Golden Rules of PC gaming: "System reqs are usually meaningless, wait for benchmarks"

 

[Fractal]

Honestly, 2nd generation K series i5s and i7s are exceptionally awesome products. They're aging amazingly well and they're still the best overclockers on the market. I expect you should be doing very well with the 2700K for several years still.

Yeah, my I7 2600K @ 4.4 Ghz has been a great investment, still going strong. Will probably replace it when Skylake comes around, though.

 

[spekkeh]

Avatar quote

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.

 

[Visualante2]

Ubisoft are so detached from the reality of most PC gamers it isn't funny.