System Requirements. You thought Unity was bad. lol

MINIMUM:

• • OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit
  • Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500 @3.3 GHz / AMD FX-8320 @3.5 GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM DDR3
  • Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
  • Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 670 / AMD Radeon™ HD 7870
  • Sound: DirectX® 10

RECOMMENDED:

• • OS: Windows® 7 64-bit / Windows® 8 64-bit / Windows® 8.1 64-bit
  • Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4670K @3.4 GHz / AMD FX-8350 @4.0 GHz
  • Memory: 16 GB RAM DDR3
  • Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
  • Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 780 / AMD Radeon™ R9 290
  • Sound: DirectX® 10
    
    
    
    

    16gb of RAM.

Lol no thanks. 16 GB of RAM is ridiculous.

This game will definitely be poorly optimized.

Since this is being put out by WB I'm now concerned they're mental and when they release the Batman Arkham Knight specs they'll also recommend 16GB of RAM.

16 GB OF RAM! Holy shit, they are out of their fucking minds!

Weren't people freaking out about the system requirements for Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor ? That thing ran fine for me. Is this the new trend in internet whining that i'm not aware of?

so what you're saying is i should throw my computer in the garbage right now.

The 16gb is believable, though. Games like Planetside 2 and Watch Dogs use 6gb or more - coupled with Windows and background processes, it's easy to see how some games are going to start recommending 12gb or 16gb for the best experience.

The CPU and GPU recommendations, well I'll believe that when I see it. There isn't much of a difference in games between an i5-2500 and a 4670k, both offer four cores at around the same clock speeds and benchmarks usually show a difference of only a couple of percentage points between early i5s and Haswell chips when it comes to gaming. I have to say that I think someone who doesn't know much about PC hardware wrote these recommendations, because this spread between the minimum and recommended CPU spectrum isn't logical.

You do enjoy being the bearer of bad news don't you.

A little bit.

Pardon me for a moment.

*goes and fills glass of water, comes back, straightens shirt, clears throat, takes a sip, does a spittake*

Are you 'avin' a giggle?

So are they just saying fuck it to optimization from now on?
i mean seriously i havent seen anything in the game that would require these kind of specs.

Seriously.

I guess if your PC game is running like garbage, just recommend a 5960x, 32gb of DDR4, and dual GTX 980's as the minimum. That way when people can't run the game well, it can just be blamed on the user's hardware.

Fuck video games.

I am so glad I'm a console player.

Everyone knows the GDDR5 present in the technically most advanced console of all time has more than twice the bandwidth of the archaic, slow-ass DDR3 still used in PC's. It makes sense to just double it yo!

Wow that's crazy. I would have thought that 16 gigs of ram wouldn't be necessary in gaming rigs for years to come. The optimization must to be terrible if you need a workstation just to play a video game.

Dunno. I meet these. Might not play it. Don't know why I'm typing this.

2x4gb of ram is ~$60

2x8gb of ram is ~$150

This is not end times here

Yes this is sadly the new trend, these little freakouts have happened with pretty much every next gen game so far. Every time consoles have managed to run the game worse.The last gen went on for way too long so I guess some people or just not used to seeing anything higher than that their several year old gaming laptop could easily beat recommended requirement.

This game definitely won't require 16GB to run, probably not even 8. But it won't change the fact that if you only have 4GB RAM in your computer it is high time to upgrade now that games are (finally) stating to become 64-bit applications, they will start making use of more than the 4GB we have been stuck with for almost a decade.

@trafalgarlaw: and everyone also knows that the GPU on the most technically advance console of all time is comparable to a gtx 580 at best... it could have 16GB HBM for all I care, it would still not even compare to a high end pc because of that weak ass GPU.

Also comparing GDDR5 to DDR3 RAM is not even fair, they are not even supposed to be used for the same purpose, besides less bandwidth is fixed by more capacity? yep your logic makes a lot of sense...

@mb: Those games do use a lot of RAM, one is an MMO and the other is an open world game, so it is justified. Do you really see Dying Light needing to hold more complex systemic data than something like watchdogs? Nothing about that game that they have shown so far leads me to believe that it is justified.

Windows doesn't use so much resident data while a game is running, it would just swap out stuff to make more room for game data.

RAM is the cheapest component of a PC what is there to fuzz about?

I guess some people might have to run the game on "kick-ass awesome" settings rather than "oh my gawd holy shit".

I have trouble figuring out why people get so bent out of shape over PC requirements. The fact that videogame recommended system specs are basically a never-ending arms-race is a known quantity.

They should delay it to optimize it better. I can't play it on my 660 at all? That seems nuts? I feel like I went from being able to play anything I wanted on high or ultra to not even being able to meet many minimum specs. I'm new to pc gaming but that seems a little crazy.

@rethla: @whitegreyblack:

There is no game out that recommends 16GB of RAM. This game does not appear to be doing anything to justify all that ram, so you weigh it against its contemporaries.

If it truly does need all that ram then imagine the shitshow the ps4 and xb1 versions will be as they only have 5GB for graphics+game data.

@tuxfool: I'm certainly not excusing poor optimization or what people consider specs that are "unwarranted", but I mean, the leap to 16GB has to happen sometime.

And yes, you are right - in all likelihood, the PS4/XBone versions will be a technical gong show, like many other recent releases.

@spraynardtatum: nah you'll be able to play just fine i'd wager, you'll just have to tweak a bit.

@whitegreyblack: sure, but it appears that this game is doing nothing to justify that leap.

@tuxfool: Well you are right in this game being made for consoles as all games seems to be. This means they will run optimal at console settings but you can ofc. cream up tesselation, resolution, fps, anti aliasing and whatnot on the PC to skyrocket the requirements with little visual improvements.

Playing this game at 1080p @30fps with deacent settings will probably be all good with 5Gb on the consoles.

@rethla: All those things you mentioned have very little to do with system ram requirements. I don't have much of a problem with the other requirements...

THEN I DEMAND THEY CHANGE THE WORD MINIMUM TO NOT MINIMUM!

The answer to our problems is shifting to consoles, you guys.

@theacidskull said:

@theacidskull: Such brazen blasphemy...

I mean, it's Techland. If the game can actually manage to boot up I'd be impressed.

Finally!

I have been waiting for a developer to put their whole game into RAM

The dream is real!

Except that games are now 40GB+.

So you're telling me that my GTX 660 won't even run the game? lol

Developers are so lazy these days its insane.

@onarum said:

@theacidskull said:

The answer to our problems is shifting to consoles, you guys.

Maybe...?

I don't get the problem? 16GB of RAM is hardly that expensive to freak out about. I mean, don't get me wrong, asking your audience to shell out $150 (granted you don't have any RAM currently) is a bit much, but how is it any different than a game requiring a hefty graphics card or processor?

Not to mention, it's a recommendation. Hasn't history taught us its more of a guesstimate instead of an actual guideline? Sometimes I really think that the common internet user doesn't actually care about what they are talkin about. They just want to yell the loudest and hope everyone is listening.

Using it isn't the same as needing it to run optimally, I ran PlanetSide 2 maxed out on a system with 4GB and it ran great.

I have 32 because why not. THat said i'm not particularly interested in this game anyway.

They can't even optimize these games for the consoles, so why should they ever be optimized for the PC? This is just saying that if you want what they consider to be a fluid and fancy experience, PC has you covered - if you're willing. If you want what they consider to be playable, you will be fine with a console and/or maybe slapping some extra RAM into your computer if you're not at 16gb yet.

I certainly don't see the problem with 8gb RAM and up being a requirement since last I heard, current gen consoles have and use 8gbs of RAM. I'm not a tech guru but that sounds like the games depend on it, hence they should also do so on PC? Or at least it sounds fair? I dunno.

Anyway, I'm covered for recommended at least though I don't really have an interest in the game mentioned.

I would not mind buying an extra bit of RAM to play the game, but upgrading my GPU? The hell with that! My 660 is fine and I'm not budging until this bullshit becomes the norm.

Specs like this kind of make me hesitant about ever opening up a PC and becoming part of the PC Gaming Scene.

Whoooooooooooooooooa... Not touching this one, I guess...

Also the game is still a 32bit program that runs on DirectX 9 and doesn't support SLI.