You're going to need a beast of a machine to play the game according to the official Dying Light system requirements. It doesn't bode well for PS4 & XB1 versions either...
Seriously? That's way too much...
Yeah, seriously, those are some high requirements. I will be fine with my GTX 970, but I only have 8GB of system RAM. I hope those requirements are somewhat exaggerated. Every current gen open world game has been extremely demanding. AC Unity, Dragon Age Inquisition and now Dying Light require some very hefty hardware to max out at 60fps. I bet Batman Arkham Knight and The Witcher 3 will be the same way. It's just that we are finally starting to get past all the last gen ports and cross-gen games and these newer current gen games are simply more demanding. Open world games in particular are usually a lot more demanding.
Thing is, 970 is a new and powerful GPU, like my 780Ti. These shouldn't have a problem for the next 1-2 years, and yet we're already at the point where they might not run every game smoothly and with maxed settings. Ultimately, it's all in the hands of the developers. I don't believe Batman Arkham Knight and The Witcher 3 to be insanely demanding, though - first one uses Unreal Engine 3, while CD Projekt's FX programmer told us at Gamescom that the game would run fine even on not-so-powerful machines. Beautiful graphics doesn't necessarily equate poor performance, if the game is optimized.
wholeheartedly agree alexious. I shouldn't buy a top end graphics card of the time, then worry a few weeks later if I can even play a game. I have a 7950 w/boost. That card should meet minimums on games for years to come, yet its already borderline on some of these newer games. It used to be with adjustments that you could have a truely ancient card, and still get away with playing games on min settings. Now it seems devs dont care to optimize their games at all, on any platform, and look for raw power from hardware to compensate for their laziness. Meanwhile they are out making the sequel to what was just realeased. Quality seems to be a dieing thing.
@Alexious @pumpactionpimp I'm with you 100%. I thought the days of having to buy a new gpu every cycle was over years ago, but they're bringing it back with bad ports and optimization. With specs like this, its like they design it for ps4/x1, then do a straight port and and expect to just brute force it with system specs to overcome lack of coding. It's ridiculous and unnecessary.
AC Unity isn't demanding. It's poorly programmed. Look into it. The highest end computers can't run that well and consoles are even worse. Dragon Age Inquisition suffers from a similar problem but excessively powerful PC's can power through it.
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 Personally I don't have any issues with the maximum requirements but the minimum requirements make sure the low to medium (includes PS4 and XB1) PC players are left out. I guess they aren't really interested in selling many copies. From the article. "Let’s hope Techland does the same with Dying Light, as those are just too high and would severely limit the playerbase."
my laptop should be able to run this at 4k 240hz 120 fps. I just updated my windows 98 to xp ;)
I got the same specs and a weaker CPU. BUT i ran unity and Watch dogs and the other ones FINE with good fps. So i Think this is BS just to sell better graphic cards or hardwares
I've got a 3.8GHz 8-core CPU, 24GB RAM, and a GTX 770. And I don't mind playing at 30fps.
Neither console has 16gb of ram.
16GB RAM is absolute overkill.
16GB is beautiful dude. I set aside 4GB as a super fast ram drive. Everything just zips along.
So if i decided to become a pc gamer i have to spend alot of money on graphic cards every 2 year??? No thank you at least console games get better whit time when the developers starts getting all the tricks consoles have hidden ( just compare uncharted 1 to last of us or gta 4 to gat 5) while on pc you have to spend a lot of money to play games at top settings lol
go play skyrim on pc. it looks better than any ps4 game so far and its a old game. until you play a good pc you dont know what you are talking about
They're talking about system ram, i.e. DDR3, that you stick on the motherboard. Those are the cheapest and easiest PC component you can upgrade at any time. What people are wary about these sudden increase of system requirements is their real purpose. Does the game really need that much hardware on the PC when it can also play nicely on consoles that use lesser hardware? Is the game really that graphically advanced that it needs extremely high hardware requirement or is it just a case of devs trying to give a higher number than the other guy. Just years ago many devs said they don't need more than 2GB of RAM on the PC but now each and every one of the devs with big games seems to be trying to top one another by giving higher ram counts.
Grossly unoptimized game incoming? Only ubisoft throws out insane system requirements and we've seen that's largely due to them hoping that pc users can brute force a decent frame rate instead of their devs actually doing some fucking optimization work.
w00t my PC can run it!
lol that's retarded techland
I7. 16GB RAM, 2X ATI HD7990's. Life is good for me. Having played this on PS4 at Londons game expo I can tell you the build I played was absolutly fine.
Was it pretty fun?
It's fun indeed, played two years in a row at Gamescom, but they're making some weird choices. Between the preorder only invasion mode and these requirements, it looks like they're shooting themselves in the foot.
all i can do is laugh. this is way too freaking much and don't come at me with that oh this isnt that much pc crap.
What you don't seem to realize is that games like this will likely be so demanding that the console versions will have pared back graphics, a sub-1080p resolution and perhaps an unsteady framerate that dips below 30fps frequently. So of course it is going to take a beastly rig to max it out at 60fps. That doesn't mean that you can't get better graphics and performance than the console versions on a fairly modest gaming PC.
i figure someone was gonna defend this crap....the game doesn't even look that good to begin with. im not spending over a $1,000 just to play this one damn game and all the other so called unoptimized "next-gen"games on pc.
@Kane But people don't spend $1000 to play one game, but multiple games on PC with better performance, graphics, optimization, and mods. You also save more money building a PC than owning a console in the long run.
Surely you can play it with a gtx 970 card and 8 gb ram with a i5- 3450 cpu and hihger and still play good quality, BUT not 60 fps, meaby 30... like all open World games. Sett the shadow settings lower and u can run this shit good
PC's don't cost $1000. For as low as $500 you can build a PC that blows the PS4 out of the water. Not only that but it's also a PC so you get all the advantages of a computer. Look for yourself http://www.reddit.com/r/pcm...
Oh really! The lowest price is approximately US$404 and you have not even costed in the operating system or are you a member of the Green Parrot Brigade, Blu-ray/DVD player, extra 4GB of RAM as well as a Keyboard, mouse and possibly a controller. Of course it does help if you are technically minded to build the PC yourself which is what I would do however the majority of people can't and would have to pay for someone to do this. BTW. The first specs you gave don't even meet the minimum requirements of the game although the second one @ US$490 just squeaks in. Note: I am well aware a keyboard and mouse can be purchased very cheaply, however if you are a serious gamer you are going to spend more than a few dollars on those. The article you have given does explain this. Actually for around $1000 you can get quite a nice high medium end PC and monitor configuration providing you build it yourself.
do it!!! i wana be visually amazed
Thing is, it doesn't look THAT good. It looks nice, but not nearly enough to justify such requirements...
Have u played 4k mate? Consider your qualifications lacking...
Wow, never thought I would see my 670 as the MINIMUM requirements. Looks like that 8gb 980 cant drop soon enough.
Sounds about right to me. When I game on my pc it better looks leagues ahead of my console games.
Of course when you're spending 1k or more on a gaming pc lol
Don't believe he put a financial qualification to his statement...mane
Yeah, and for most people PCs are a sunk cost. It's not like you're spending $1000 JUST to play games (although you can if you want). Lots of people simply want or need a beefy desktop in their home. Price is hardly relevant when it comes to PC gaming because your options are so wide open.
Don't believe it was needed . @traum
Gaming PC's don't cost $1000. For as low as $500 you can build a PC that blows the PS4 out of the water. Not only that but it's also a PC so you get all the advantages of a computer. Such as mods and multitasking programs. Look for yourself http://www.reddit.com/r/pcm...
Time and time again we see this. PC users are deluded when they say PC gaming is cheaper. This game is guaranteed to work great on consoles, just like every other game. PC on the other hand is one big con. Sure the graphics CAN be better...but only if you acquire a 1-2 grand rig every couple of years. Once again im reassured that selling my gaming PC last Xmas was the best move i ever did. Its WAY less stressful and cheaper just to pop a disc in a console and know its going to work :)
Then consoles are for you mate, pcs for those who want to tinker...and money is not an issue. Just move on quietly...
Completely agree. Its almost worth spending money on a decent rig just to see a game actually work how it should do. Therein lie one issue with PC gaming though. Getting games to work is often more fun and rewarding than actually playing them.
Games are guaranteed to work on the consoles? Lol. That's funny. My issues with with AC: Unity and Drive Club must really not exist. Or are you gaming on a PS2 where's no such thing as day 1 patches?
Or, just like every other PC port this gen; the specs are total bullshit.
"PC users are deluded when they say PC gaming is cheaper." From my experience, PC gaming can be cheaper. To build a PC that will comfortably outpace the consoles in current gen games isn't drastically more expensive than a console. I could build a PC for around $600 that would consistently outperform the consoles. When you consider that a PC can also do a million things for you that a console can't and is something most people want to own anyway, the extra cost doesn't seem unreasonable at all. More importantly, games are generally cheaper on PC and online gaming is free. The cost difference is quickly made irrelevant and the PC becomes the cheaper gaming platform over the mid to long term. It's true that people can choose to spend a lot more than that to build a very powerful PC that can do things a console couldn't even begin to do, but that is a good thing. The freedom to build just the kind of machine you want is one of the strengths of PC gaming. "This game is guaranteed to work great on consoles, just like every other game." It depends on what your definition of "to work" is. AC Unity on consoles is 900p with pared back visuals and a sub-30fps framerate. That isn't the kind of performance or visuals I want in my games. I could give lots of other examples too. Last gen and this gen there have been many games on consoles that have performance or image quality that simply aren't desirable to me. And don't delude yourself into thinking that you need a PC with the recommended specs just to get the game "to work". There are always PC gamers with specs barely matching the minimum specs, or often even below the minimum specs, that are still enjoying better graphics and performance than they could with the console versions. The minimum specs for AC Unity, for example, included a GTX 680, but there are plenty of people with weaker graphics cards that are playing the game with better-than-console graphics and performance. https://www.youtube.com/wat... https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I used to think like you, then I built a gaming PC. Turns out, a lot of my complaints were blown out of proportion because of my console bias. My PC didn't cost anywhere near a $1000 and our runs everything high/ultra 1080p and 45 + fps on a non overclocked rig. Gotta say though, first day I built it was a PITA, but then I discovered AMDs Catalyst and everything has been great since. I have no regrets and with my mobo and processor I have many years before I even think of upgrading. A new gen of consoles will be out by then. Maybe just a newer video card, but the used market is a good place if you don't need cutting edge, which I don't.
"This game is guaranteed to work great on consoles, just like every other game." What's funny is the last game with high PC requirements ran at 20 fps 900p on consoles aka AC Unity. "Time and time again we see this" people like you spout inaccurate information 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 Except for the added RAM I don't see what the problem is. I'd say that's a pretty general standard setup & the extra RAM isn't exactly expensive. Time for me to buy another 8GB
Perhaps its the fact that they want a GTX670 as their minimum, or the fact that 8GB is also the minimum. A 3.3GHz CPU for minimum is also massive. The problem is, is that the minimum for this is usually more around the recommended for other games and in reality this does not look that much better than titles released recently (eg, FC4)
Yea I haven't seen much of the game so I wasn't necessarily comparing to other games. My point was really that if you're into PC gaming then that's generally just a standard desktop rig - 8gb ram, i5, 3 year old gfx card. If you're buying a complete system that's generally the exact spec you would see classed as the most popular all-rounder. If you've built the system yourself then again that setup offers the most bang for your buck. A cheap setup but powerful enough also. Personally, as long as they're using that additional spec & it's not just used to cover up bad/poor coding then I'm all for it. PC gaming has been stagnant now for the best part of a decade. I also think we've hit a point where developers/publishers are starting to get in trouble for printing minimum specs which simply arn't realistic or true & are more likely to encounter legal issues.
A standard rig is usually around where the minimum specs are and not the recommended ones. If the recommended specs had have been the minimum that would have been completely fair. A game should be able to run fine on low with a >460 + 4/6GB RAM + 2.7GHz CPU and if not the developers are doing something wrong.
My processor is minimum (fx8320) my ram is minimum (8gb) I use my current specs to play at 1440p with 60fps or over in any game. Seems like the light just died for me.
But what GPU do you have?
GTX 970 sli coming next week I just got money
I can also run it but that doesnt mean that these specs are absolutely ridiculous. 16gb of ram? is that a joke? games dont even fully utilize 8!
Shame i've only got a hd 7950. Looks like i'll be picking this up on xbox instead then. I want to wait until r290 is under £200 before pickign up a new gpu.
Minimum 8 GB DDR3 RAM? What? There's no way it's that poorly optimized. Edit: I do agree that we need to move on at some point. Eventually, 8 GB or 16 GB will become the norm for minimum. I'm just not convinced Dying Light is one of those games.
What if the game actually requires ~8 GB of RAM to effectively run? It's not hard to believe that RAM requirements in PC games are starting to balloon. There's so much data that goes into games these days in the form of models, textures (are huge in memory), sound and animation. After a certain point, if you want games to even begin to push the envelope, we're gonna have to get past these ideas that games need to cater to low end machines.
True...but eventually devs NEED to grasp the idea of optimization. When there's APIs out there that would greatly reduce bloated system requirements like this and provide for an all around better experience and devs don't use them that's bullshit. Its laziness.
.. Seems fine to me. It'd be great if more games had such high min specs, then we'd start getting some amazingly nice looking/running PC games.
while I agree I would like to see games push higher end systems, you obviously dont understand optimization. This game does nothing groundbreaking I've seen. So to demand these kind of requirements is ludicrous. Example arma3 sys requirements: System Requirements MINIMUM: OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1 Processor: Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz Memory: 2 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM DirectX®: 10 Hard Drive: 15 GB free space Sound: DirectX®-compatible RECOMMENDED: OS: Windows 7/ 8 (64bit) Processor: Intel Core i5-2300 or AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better Memory: 4 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 7750 with 1 GB VRAM or better DirectX®: 11 Hard Drive: 25 GB free space (SSD/Hybrid HDD/SSHD storage) Sound: DirectX®-compatible That game looks pretty amazing... for such low system requirements.
I understand optimisation fine. :P Regardless of optimisation, the lowest minimum spec means the more they can pile in without having to worry about it. Usually the minimums aren't enforced outside of stuff like RAM anyway.
Its all well and good but not all PC gamers have the rig to handle it. I wouldn't have a problem if the game looked as though it warrants these specs (as that is actually progress), but it doesn't and seems to me it is just poorly optimized and when most games that are coming out still run on med - high with my 660 you know there is something wrong when I supposedly would hardly be able to run this on low, especially when this doesn't look much better.
@mixelon From my experiences with PC games for over 10 Years, minimum requirements are the deadline, the one which if you don't meet, you won't be able to play the game. If you do meet minimum, you will be able to play it at around 20-30fp/s on minimum settings, which for some people is okay. Why would they block wallets of people who have low-end PC's? That would be idiotic from their point of view.
And we console gamers will get about the same graphic fidelity with much cheaper hardware. :-)
Yeah, but what about the people like me that have had a system capable of running this game for 2+ years now? My desktop was paid off long ago and I didn't even have to pay $400 to update to a new generation of already dated machines! But really, Bragging about the cost differential is completely irrelevant to people that already have the systems.
These guys made Dead Island. A game know for its smooth launch and smooth performance. Am I rite kids? With that in mind prepare for this game to be a buggy mess on launch date.
I don't want to spend another 300$ on my PC to play a game with slightly better graphics
If its really pushing the limits of computing then this could be a great benefit like the first crysis, but more likely its in vein of AC:unity and just really shoddily coded. The truth will come out, PC users will pick it apart with a fine toothed comb, so most will just kick back and wait to see.