MINIMUM:
OS: OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit / Windows 8.1 64-Bit
Processor: Intel® CoreTM i3-530 @ 2.93 GHz / AMD PhenomTM II X4 810 @ 2.80 GHz or better
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTS 450 @ 1GB / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 @ 1GB or better
DirectX: Version 11
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Hard Drive: 55 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX-compatible
Beamer wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 17:53:
.The guy you're responding to doesn't seem to understand how consoles work. It's actually kind of frightening how many people post authoritative opinions on development without ever having worked for a developer and understand the processes software goes through as it's developed, how it changes over time, and how consoles manage significantly more out of less hardware than PCs do.
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 17:11:Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:35:shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.
You do know, you computer illiterate that Titanfall was released for the Xbox 360 which is beneath a Core 2 duo E6600 and 8800 GTX in horsepower, don't you? Your post is so full of lies and fail I'm laughing at just how much bullshit you bullshitters are spewing.
I was talking about the PC version. I know nothing about the console version nor do I care.
Optimizations which go into console versions are vastly different in nature, because they have more direct access to fixed, predictable set of hardware which is increasingly mastered and used more efficiently as it approaches the end of its life.
That's how they managed to squeeze Quake 2 onto the PS1.
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:35:shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.
You do know, you computer illiterate that Titanfall was released for the Xbox 360 which is beneath a Core 2 duo E6600 and 8800 GTX in horsepower, don't you? Your post is so full of lies and fail I'm laughing at just how much bullshit you bullshitters are spewing.
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:36:UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:
Calm down bro, it's just video games.
When people start trying to fake "understanding" about how computers work and pushing their little bullshit gaming lies, I get pissed and so should other people. Spreading disinformation about how computers actually work is exactly why we have the cult of steam, people believing games couldn't work without steamworks or steamworks isn't DRM (which it is).
UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:
Calm down bro, it's just video games.
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.
UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 08:52:ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:13:
Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads.
And this son proves you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, the fact that you are throwing the idea of "threads around" for audio! And that audio "takes up its own core" shows you don't understand a god damn thing.
The xbox 360 is a much less powerful system then a core 2 duo with an 8800 GTX. Shows how much you don't know jack shit about computers. Go load up your favorite mp3 player, press ALT-CTRL-DELETE and notice that your mp3 doesn't even take up 1% of the CPU's power. THE IDEA that the audio cant work on a "slow" core 2 duo is laughable! It's downright fantasy you dumb uneducated computer illiterate retard.
Calm down bro, it's just video games.
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 08:52:ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:13:
Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads.
And this son proves you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, the fact that you are throwing the idea of "threads around" for audio! And that audio "takes up its own core" shows you don't understand a god damn thing.
The xbox 360 is a much less powerful system then a core 2 duo with an 8800 GTX. Shows how much you don't know jack shit about computers. Go load up your favorite mp3 player, press ALT-CTRL-DELETE and notice that your mp3 doesn't even take up 1% of the CPU's power. THE IDEA that the audio cant work on a "slow" core 2 duo is laughable! It's downright fantasy you dumb uneducated computer illiterate retard.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:02:
And I said that where? Oh, right, I didn't. What I did say was misusing a platform in a manner other than intended was stupid.
Further, there is zero proof that SSDs are in any way, shape or form more "durable" than HDDs. Look, if you want to jerk off over your Samsung 850 Pro, that's fine. I have one, too, and they are in fact awesome. However, let's not spread your opinionated bullshit as fact. The BEST case I have seen for SSD durability is from The Tech Report right here. However, that's only 1.5PB of reads and writes. That's it. Even then, 66% of the drives are dead and only one of the two is still going strong with showing no signs of errors whatsoever.
On the flip side, I have a single 4TB drive that has written more than 10 times that amount and read more than 20 times that amount in two months and guess how many write delays I've had, let alone anything more serious like read failures, seek failures or sectors flagged as bad? ZERO! That's right, none!
By your claim, the HDD should be a flaming wreck whereas an SSD would be smiling from on high like a beneficent deity. Too bad real world testing and application blows your opinion out of the water.
Oh, you mean the statement where I was intellectually honest and said "Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive"? That statement?
If the owner of said 2TB hard drive is a mouth breathing retard who doesn't understand the concepts of "uninstall" and "delete", then sure, you are going to fill that up pretty fast.
Pretty much like shitting in a toilet and never flushing it. Mouth breathing retards do that, too.
The minute you said "essentially", you lost any sort of intelligent response capability.
I don't see 3% of a standard hard drive size to be anything less than "reasonable". You are free to return to the glory days of DOS and 3.5" 1.44MB floppies. That way you can bitch and moan when anything takes up larger than 10MB as that's half your hard drive space.
Those of us who live in 2014 and use equipment that was not purchased at Walmart for $199 have large drives, brutally fast components and systems that don't even blink when you dump 200 gigs on them, let alone a paltry 55GB.
If that makes me an "apologist" for not giving a flying fuck about the system resources I purchased to be used actually being used, then I apologize profusely for using my systems EXACTLY in the way they were designed and built to be used.
You clearly have zero real world technical knowledge on the use of large data stores and it's glaringly obvious when you try to pontificate on resource utilization. If you're running an embedded system on bespoke hardware that's microsized, then you'd have tenuous leg to stand on. But we aren't and it isn't and you don't.
Agreed, which is why someone like you should never, ever try to pontificate on effective and efficient usage of large storage pools, arrays or volumes. Leave space calculation and "reasonable" judgements to those who do understand and don't shit their panties over a mere 3% usage case.
NKD wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:19:
I think you misunderstand the concept of "magical". Everyone knows that quality lossy compression exists. Some of those compression methods are actually quite decent. (JPEG is not one of the decent ones BTW). But many are extremely computationally expensive and only save you another 7 or 8% of space over a method that takes 1/10th the computation. They are not suitable for real-time graphics.
There's no way around that. Textures are already compressed using very effective industry standard methods. There are no huge gains to be made there.
Indeed. That's why it's requiring 6GB system RAM, and only 1GB of VRAM.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:02:
On the flip side, I have a single 4TB drive that has written more than 10 times that amount and read more than 20 times that amount in two months and guess how many write delays I've had, let alone anything more serious like read failures, seek failures or sectors flagged as bad? ZERO! That's right, none!
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
First, there ARE magical compression algorithms which drastically reduce image size with minimal quality loss. You may be familiar with the general concept of such compression in form a JPEG file.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
Optimization involves knowing when inactive textures can be swept into slower system memory. CoD series is hardly known for amazing open vistas with complex geography that you can explore up-close.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
How does this any of this apply to CoD games? They have neither super cool AI routines, nor large autonomous areas with freeform gameplay.
Their pathfinding is rudimentary, and all the cool stuff is rigidly pre-scripted.
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:15:Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads. Which means they either had to make the minimum system requirement a Core i5 (as opposed to a Core i3), or use uncompressed audio. They chose the latter.ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 17:53:
Respectfully, you make a few assumptions here that are just flat-out wrong.
Uncompressed Audio: I'm assuming you're referring to Titanfall here? Titanfall's audio was shipping uncompressed because low-end PCs can't handle compressed audio. The consoles? They have dedicated audio decoders and can decompress audio until the cows come home.
I'm sorry but you are both fucking wrong! God the tech illiteracy of the new generation of gamers astounds me. The reality is these games are pushed out unfinished and devs are giving you excuses for their unfinished games.
No PC within the last 6 years would break a sweat processing audio, audio has been cheap since Core 2 duo for fuck sakes. The idea that PC's are the ones holding gaming back is laughable.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:Every form of compression available to the PC is already in use and available on the consoles. Both support the latest audio, texture, and video compression technologies including BC6/BC7 and H.264.
First, there ARE magical compression algorithms which drastically reduce image size with minimal quality loss. You may be familiar with the general concept of such compression in form a JPEG file.
Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information for such a game regardless. It is insane, in fact, and clearly compression and intelligent asset reuse were neglected on several levels.The list goes on and on.
No, it doesn't.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
1) Space issues aside, SSDs are more durable than HDDs now. So the Ferrari's "wear out" example isn't valid.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
2) You have about 30 times more storage than an average user, so your entire perspective is heavily skewed. And a 2TB drive can fill out pretty fast with space-hungry games made by stupid people.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
Essentially, apologists like you are enablers for poor programming and design. The core problem here is insufficient level of technical understanding necessary to estimate just how much space/resources taken by a specific product should be considered "reasonable".
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
The most dangerous kind of idiot is the idiot that knows just enough.
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:07:shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information...
While I care little for the pissing contest going on about this, this small part I take an exception to and here's why:
There's no reason you should be using a single SSD as anything more than a boot drive. It makes no sense to use it as your storage device for infrequently used executables (infrequently being whenever you load it up and not running constantly). It is like buying a Ferrari so you can haul dirt and take the kids to the market. Outside of morons, who does that?
Further, 55GBs is nothing. I have 56 TB of storage available at my command. 56TB. Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive. A quick check on Newegg and Amazon shows them to be less than $100. So, since 1000GB = 1 TB, that means that installing this game takes up a whopping 3% (rounded up from the actual 2.75%). 3%. Why, I'm practically agog at how much space that is!
Even if you're running an SFF box like a Shuttle (which one of my machines is), you STILL have the ability to have two hard drives and an optical drive so physical mounting space isn't even a real explanation for having an SSD only build.
If someone's storage drive is a small SSD, then the fact is that they are idiots, plain and simple.
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information...