What is Digg?412 Comments
- DiggerThomas, on 01/22/2008, -3/+144I'm sure they'll blame the lack of sales on piracy and not these absurd specs.
- boomybx, on 01/22/2008, -4/+962GB of disk space, that's below the average.. wait, you're talking about RAM ? WTF!
- Bo0st510, on 01/22/2008, -9/+91Jesus Christ....I'll just play it on 360.
- KnightMareInc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+80looks like I wont be playing AC
- ummy, on 01/22/2008, -1/+73Ubisoft unveiled the specs of Assassin's Creed? More like Ubisoft buried the specs, and hoped that nobody finds them.
- KMartSheriff, on 01/22/2008, -1/+68But Crysis looks amazing. AC looks...nice...
- Jarnis, on 01/22/2008, -6/+653GB... I guess, so that Vista would fit into memory as well. Single application can't use more than 2GB on 32bit XP anyway, but I guess Assassin's Creed will go close to that mark...
The game fit to 512MB on the Xbox 360, so I guess they just skipped streaming of the map data, and instead just load whole levels to RAM. Easier, but that makes the RAM requirements a bit insane. Stranglehold on the PC actually did exact same thing - the PC version required effectively 2GB to run, and that too was a port from Xbox 360. - inactive, on 01/22/2008, -4/+58And everyone thought Crysis was bad... well it is but not THIS bad.
- FishHammer, on 01/22/2008, -4/+53well, this will probably be a "basic" computer in a year or two, but still, nobody's going to shell out $600 to play assassin's creed...right?....please?
- rbross2005, on 01/22/2008, -2/+50***** game developers demonstrate their true abilities of poor programming...
- inactive, on 01/22/2008, -1/+47is this a ***** joke, i upgraded my computer to play oblivion almost a year ago. Assasin's creed looks good but doesnt look worth the requirements, they should make games that are more effective in minimizing usage of to much computer resources like how they do for the consoles.
- UltraKill, on 01/22/2008, -2/+43Considering that it needs a higher minimum requirement then Crysis, I think I am going to go out on a limb here and agree with akarpo.
- MrTulip, on 01/22/2008, -4/+38turns out crytek's coding department is not so lazy and incompetent after all
- JamesMorris, on 01/22/2008, -1/+34This is absolutely stupid, even though i meet the recommended specification i think Ubisoft is shooting themselves in the foot. I don't know anyone around me with a spec that will run this game on recommended.. Plus the game is just a big pile of _Average_ anyway.
- psg188, on 01/22/2008, -2/+35Which is why I love Valve.
I thought Episode 2 was beautiful and I could actually run it! - virtualball, on 01/22/2008, -5/+36Damn you MacBook! You've failed me again! Oh well, I guess I'll just go back to remixing John Mayer songs in GarageBand and then making iMovies about it...
It's okay! They made Peggle for us :) - joltjake, on 01/22/2008, -7/+37Yeah, an Assassins Creed isn't even remotely worth it. ***** that *****, I'll stick with source stuff.
- kuzotz, on 01/22/2008, -6/+35You haven't missed anything special.
- tymme, on 01/22/2008, -1/+30At this point in time? The PC gaming industry has always been one of the biggest PC-tech pushes...
- spyrochaete, on 01/22/2008, -3/+30FTA:
"NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives."
Nice of them to mention this, but this is reason enough for me to give this game a pass (even though my kickass PC meets the minimum requirements.. barely) - akarpo, on 01/22/2008, -18/+45***** coding, sorry guys; just buy better computers!
- inactive, on 01/22/2008, -0/+25So in a couple of years people will buy it...out of the bargain bin. :)
- kuzotz, on 01/22/2008, -15/+40that's too much, and extremely lazy.
PC gaming at this point in time is no longer worth the investments seeing that once you get up-to-date stuff something comes out to tell you that your hardware on your PC is obsolete. - counterplex, on 01/22/2008, -1/+26Seriously I've heard the whole "PC gaming is dying because of XXX" so many times now it's not even funny. You don't bother to look at the vast number of other titles out there that are more than happy running on old hardware including games by the makers of the newest engines e.g. Source, Unreal 3 and Doom 3. While console games have only now starting appearing at resolutions higher than 480p (i.e. 720p and 1080p) I submit that PC gamers crossed that threshold many years ago. I was playing Unreal Tournament (yes, the original) at 1280 x 1024 on mediocre hardware a long time before anyone even mentioned 720p to me.
Having been spoiled like that, a lot of PC gamers tend to upgrade more often than console gamers so they can hit the next higher resolution which console games won't even think of for a few years. PC gamers keep wanting to see e.g. Crysis running at insane resolutions with a whole host of visual enhancements and PC game developers keep obliging them by using all available hardware to the fullest extent. Most of the PC gaming community, however, is fine using medium settings (still higher than 1080p these days) or high settings with some compromises as long as we get to play the game.
Sometimes, as with Assassin's Creed, PC game developers get lazy and rely heavily on dedicated hardware to do their job. In that case, they're clearly locking out a large number of customers who won't play the game now but probably later. More often than not PC game developers do what e.g. the Call of Duty developers did - keep adding visual enhancements as you put in more hardware in the PC. That gives the game some replayability just to see what it will look like on your cool new video card. - spyrochaete, on 01/22/2008, -1/+24Whatever. This is one game. There are zillions of PC games that will be fully playable and enjoyable on far lesser PCs in the coming months and years. In fact, you can expect the casual games market to explode this year and those games will run on little more than a pocket calculator. However, many upcoming blockbuster titles like Spore and Sacred 2 have advertised in advance that they'll have nice low system reqs.
- JasonCox, on 01/22/2008, -2/+23After reading the reviews about this game on the Xbox and hearing about it from friends who played it- there's no way in hell I'd buy it for the PC.
- yujie, on 01/22/2008, -0/+20So is the minimun specs for the DRM or for the game?
- Matt2k, on 01/22/2008, -2/+21Oblivion was one of the best optimized games I've seen for the PC in a very very long time. It scales upwardly and downwardly very well, and runs smoothly on even relatively older machines. Whether that was because they licensed off the shelf components like speedtree rather than trying to do it all themselves, I really don't know.
- Chicken, on 01/22/2008, -3/+21You know, they could just make an OS that is for Gaming alone so it can use the computer's resources on games only, kind of like what the consoles do but in the PC case, we would have an extremely buffed up console but its a PC!
- l0k0, on 01/22/2008, -0/+18Ubisoft officially substitutes PC gamers with toilet paper. Double Agent and Rainbow Six: Vegas were horrendous ports and this looks like it won't be any different. How EA and Ubisoft are so successful when they treat PC gamers like this is beyond me.
- dougmc, on 01/22/2008, -0/+16> Single application can't use more than 2GB on 32bit XP anyway,
True, but there's nothing preventing them from starting two (or more) processes and doing IPC between then if needed. It might be less convenient to do it this way, but certainly, 2GB limits can generally be overcome when needed.
Though as suggested, the game itself probably will need slightly less than 2GB, but they want to have some memory for other things, including Direct X and the OS itself. - DemonWasp, on 01/22/2008, -3/+19Congratulations. Your mbp can't run this anyway, partially because it's a laptop, but also entirely because it's a mac and very very few games are coded for mac.
That's not a remark on how good your O/S is, but it *is* a remark on how little effort Apple seems to be putting into getting games on their platform. - ghaltmann, on 01/22/2008, -4/+20Those specs should be the minimum for submitting/commenting on digg gaming stories.
- PrismSub7, on 01/22/2008, -2/+16Considering the xenon and cell, a 2.6ghz dual core is understandable.
SM3 minimum? Even my budget x1600 (something) has that.
Only the ram usage is about 10x higher >.>;
But I dislike the 'NOTICE: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some disc and virtual drives.' more then the requirements. - spyrochaete, on 01/22/2008, -0/+13Once porn-oglers got their colour graphics adaptors games have been the biggest PC tech pusher ever since.
- kuzotz, on 01/22/2008, -1/+14Well my laptop is obsolete now XD
- spyrochaete, on 01/22/2008, -0/+13The system requirements for Crysis plummeted with the new 1.1 patch. I stopped playing the game at a certain point because I was getting about 5fps, but after the patch I get 25fps as well as lesser improvements in other areas.
- inactive, on 01/22/2008, -1/+14if you quit PC gaming after Quake 2, then you never were in the "biz". happy self delusions, bro.
- BabyBrumak, on 01/22/2008, -1/+14I think we're all fed up with the endless cycle of upgrading to play the latest games. Why can't developers just write something that will run incredibly well on current hardware? Epic did it with the Unreal 3 engine. It scales well on hardware ranging from a couple of years back to today and looks incredible.
What the makers of Crysis and Assasin's Creed are doing is giving the finger to their customers saying, "Our game is so cool and great you'll pay anything just to play it." - MalDON, on 01/22/2008, -0/+12They need to learn from Valve and actually find out what hardware people actually have.
- stevea1210, on 01/22/2008, -0/+13That sounds like the good ol' Starforce warning. I refuse to buy any game that uses it for copy protection.
- DemonWasp, on 01/22/2008, -2/+14Yes, I know that. But then, why did you buy a Mac if you're just going to run Windows?
If you want to run Windows, then run it. Don't bother paying the Mac tax, just buy a PC or laptop. - Dustmuffins, on 01/22/2008, -2/+14You may want to look into expanding your vocabulary.
- Stevethegreat, on 01/22/2008, -1/+13If the PC game indeed dies, in the end -though- you have to forget your precious consoles as well since ATI and nVidia are virtually the sole big players on game graphics and they make most of their profits from PC hardware. If gamers all migrate to consoles, graphics cards innovation will stagnate (like it already seems to happen, ATI does not intend to release a new generation card for 2008) and this would lead for PS4 to be at best twice as fast as PS3. I'm sorry to say but graphics cards are 90% of modern day games and if they stagnate, gaming will stagnate....
- hockey, on 01/22/2008, -2/+14There isn't one. This is just another example of mob internet rage over nothing of importance at all.
- spyrochaete, on 01/22/2008, -0/+12If this was true there would be no market for high-end or even middle-of-the-road parts. The average PC gamer is 35 year old men. This has been true for over 20 years.
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -3/+14What's the...big deal?
- PleaseJustDie, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11not necessarily they can still be lazy and incompetent, just not the laziest and most incompetent.
- Spuy767, on 01/22/2008, -2/+12That was the old Pentium D, not the new C2D.
- slowmo, on 01/22/2008, -7/+173gb is really nothing to be upset about. With 2x2gb PC6400 available for under $100 dollars it will only be a matter of time before 4gb is going to be the standard. The only people who are complaining about it are the AMD folks who bet on the wrong race horse and are stuck with their 939 boards paying at least $100 for only 2gb of 184-pin DDR RAM.
If you still think AMD can pull their head out of their ass, make a decent socket, and stick with it for over a year, then you are probably delusional. The only sensible platform is 775 and any serious PC gamer already knows this. Cheap CPUs, cheap ram, and viable. -
Show 51 - 100 of 410 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is