Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
Finite space on the box is less of a concern now of course. But changing how we do it industry-wide after decades of status quo is easier said then done.
Also, arguably, if you do spell out performance targets people will get mad and claim they've been lied to whenever they don't hit those targets. Could be they barely or "mostly" meet the recommended specs, or their PC is mis-configured or they otherwise cherry pick or unreasonably expect concrete precision. Customers are fickle.
Ultimately system requirements fall in the category of "if you want to be right, be vague".
I expect slow change on the system requirements front, some games are pretty details about spelling out performance and that may become the norm in the coming decades, but we've all managed to live with it for decades, what makes today special where it's suddenly "misleading".
But if we add anecdotes, I've played loads of games on my potato laptop that were way below specs and the games ran perfectly fine on medium settings. Seems they overestimate their specs.
Well, I did touch this. The specs are fuzzy, and without specific examples and your hardware specs to gauge how reasonable your assessment is, it's hard to be certain how accurate your claims are. Especially when they go against personal experience.
It's plausible that your old PC wasn't as good as you appraised it, maybe you were rounding up a bit, or there were other issues. Two systems can be similar on paper if you're vague, but once you dig in they can perform quite differently. Slow RAM, insufficient cooling. A few percent performance here and there starts adding up.
In twenty five years I haven't experienced system requirements being off so far as you claim. And one edge case exception hardly makes for a strong argument. In my experience the minimum requirements let will get you 1080p medium/medium-low, 60FPS. But minimum system requirements can be fuzzier still than recommended requirements. But it's rarely anywhere close to "below this and the game won't boot"
The game runs on an engine from 2010, so any computer from this century is probably fine as long as it has the hardware and software support for running the game in the first place.
If you want to run the game well, the hardware requirements are going to almost entirely depend on what you're doing in the game. If you're just playing without mods on normal difficulty, you can get by with the bare minimum specs even on very high resolutions and frame rates. If you're playing a custom game mode where there are ten times as many enemies with a gigabyte of downloaded cosmetic addons, you're gonna need some slightly beefier hardware to make the game not struggle to render frames in time.
For almost every game, my best advice for you is to play it if you think it sounds interesting, and if it doesn't perform well enough on your hardware and you don't feel like it's worth upgrading your hardware to play that specific game, you'll know well within the first two hours of gameplay and you can get a refund no questions asked.
There are just too many possible hardware and software combinations for a studio to test even a fraction of the possible setups you could be running the game on if they're developing for PC. The best they can do is tell you the lowest-spec machine they've ever tried to run it on, or the technologies that are required to make the game start up.
Beyond that, just ask for a refund if a game you decided looks interesting doesn't work well enough on your system.
I'll admit it's FAR from perfect, but at least it's something.
The problem is that there is NO WAY to make this really any better. Purely because there are so many different variables, there is no way any company or anyone can calculate all possible variables to give such an answer.
The point is these terms are GUIDELINES at best. It does not guarantee a standard of performance or fluidity.
RECOMMENDED
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2070ti/ Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070
Storage: 90 GB available space
Additional Notes: Graphics Preset: MEDIUM / Resolution: 1440p / Target FPS: 60.
and these have been so misleading or wrong that it's just caused complete confusion among users. Sometimes you can wait for benchmarks or just have to take a punt. I've also seen plenty of games where the minimum card is high yet low-end users can still comfortably run the game on reasonable settings at a decent 1080p resolution.
If you fail to achieve anything near that, then things like a full main drive also being the os drive, and very low ram will strongly negatively affect performance.
Well if one has 16-32BGs of RAM and plays flawlessly with the recommended specs, the game takes 11GBs of RAM to operate and someone with a different system has 8GBs of RAM and half is used for the OS & background apps to which it performs poorly, then operator error is a thing.