for clarification, this means that the current recommended system requirements for the base game will be updated to match the Phantom Liberty system requirements when the DLC releases? My rig is a 4790k + gtx 1060 6gb, and it would be unfortunate to buy the base now and play it at 60 fps only for it later in the year have it run at 30.
are you all actually expecting your game which was previously running fine to suddenly stop working?
they LITERALLY SAID in the post that this doesnt mean hardware below whats on this new list won't work, what it means is that the game will no longer be tested on cards below a 1060 or RX 580. and they will not be providing support for cards below those. so YMMV, but again, why in gods name would you think this means they are cranking up the graphics sll of a sudden with mandatory path tracing or someting?
and quite frankly, the current requirements are a bit silly and completely unrealistic.. they currently have an RX 590 listed as the reccomended for 1080p high? I assume targeting 60 fps?
assuming these are native resolutions thats completely delusional. that card is lucky to get 30 at those settings.
the new requirements look actually correct to me more or less.
for the minimum, they only moved up one generation. rx 580 as opposed to 470 and 1060 compared to 970.
for reccomended 1080p high 60 fps, they reccomend an rx 5700xt. I have an RX 6600, which is somewhat comparable performance wise, and i have no problem nailing 1080p native high. so that reccomendation is SPOT on
they actually provided an extensive table with multiple configurations that give you a fairly accurate idea of how the game will generally run, well above what most other companies do.
and you all ignored the literal words they wrote and spawned this thread of multiple pages of edit
Post automatically merged:
if your cpu runs the game now, it'll run the expansion.
as is, the game ALREADY takes a decent CPU to run well. it's hitting my 5900x for about 20-30% which isn't nothing. and they're going to have more complexity to the systems the game is running with the update.
dude it's not a need. the game hasn't magically become significantly more demanding. even so, the minimum requirements only went up ONE generation. it's a nothing burger. Edit you clearly did NOT read the entire announcement.
Post automatically merged:
exactly. 100%. thank you. Edit
Post automatically merged:
jump? what jump? am I suddenlly gonna have unplayable fps on my setup? when it's using the same engine in the same fucking game I've been running just fine for the past 2 years?
releasing a requirements list that's actually realistic and more in line with what the game ALREADY NEEDS is scammy? providing a detailed breakdown spanning multiple configurations and settings so you can really pinpoint about where you should land? which BTW means they've been extensively testing the game on a variety of hardware which is a GOOD thing.
Post automatically merged:
you're playing on path tracing on something LOWER than a 2060/6800xt??
I will answer you here since your other post, quoting my comment, was deleted.
I'm pretty sure your purpose was to come here and vomit your opinion, or you have serious reading comprehension issues. I clearly stated that it's a problem and a bad decision on the company's part to take a game that has been on the market for 3 years, which many people enjoy daily with high or ultra graphics settings, and now they simply won't be able to play it as they were used to. If this were a newly announced game, there would be no discussion. But considering the point you referred to in your rambling, I do find it problematic that the requirements have been raised so much, especially for 1080p without RT, which I find unreasonable. It's understood that the recommended requirements are not absolute, and the game will run on most medium and low-quality systems with greater performance issues or maybe not. The problem isn't even about buying the DLC; the problem is that the base game would also change to a more demanding version, which could exclude a lot of players who have been playing for three years.
I will answer you here since your other post, quoting my comment, was deleted.
I'm pretty sure your purpose was to come here and vomit your opinion, or you have serious reading comprehension issues. I clearly stated that it's a problem and a bad decision on the company's part to take a game that has been on the market for 3 years, which many people enjoy daily with high or ultra graphics settings, and now they simply won't be able to play it as they were used to. If this were a newly announced game, there would be no discussion. But considering the point you referred to in your rambling, I do find it problematic that the requirements have been raised so much, especially for 1080p without RT, which I find unreasonable. It's understood that the recommended requirements are not absolute, and the game will run on most medium and low-quality systems with greater performance issues or maybe not. The problem isn't even about buying the DLC; the problem is that the base game would also change to a more demanding version, which could exclude a lot of players who have been playing for three years.
the new upcoming requirements are ACTUALLY more in line with the requirements as they stand NOW.
as i said before, current requirements state a rx 590 can run 1080p high. I'm assuming targeting 60 fps. this is unequivocally and completely FALSE without FSR. it's lucky to get 30.
the new upcoming suggested spec for 1080p high is an RX 5700xt, and THAT is 100% accurate. as I said, an RX 6600 is generally comparable performance wise and It nails 1080p high, 60+ FPS with no upscaling.
so I just provided a perfect example of how the old requirements are WRONG, and the new ones are MORE ACCURATE literally based on the CURRENT state of the game.
no where did they imply this means the game is going to suddenlly become twice as demanding. nowhere did they imply systems that run it fine currently would suffer.
the engine is the same. there may be some graphical updates, im not sure, but at the cost of halving performance on many systems? that's delusional.
I came on here to comment because i cannot believe how stupid so many people are acting, and how much total ignorance I am seeing. you have no idea what you're talking about, you are just looking for an excuse to be angry about something.
for clarification, this means that the current recommended system requirements for the base game will be updated to match the Phantom Liberty system requirements when the DLC releases? My rig is a 4790k + gtx 1060 6gb, and it would be unfortunate to buy the base now and play it at 60 fps only for it later in the year have it run at 30.
the problem is that the base game would also change to a more demanding version, which could exclude a lot of players who have been playing for three years.
I think CDPR will do like they did with The Witcher 3 (a 7 years old game) on which requirements also changed, they let the "old" version available (apart on Epic). So if you no longer meet the requirements, well you still able to play on 1.62.
I think CDPR will do like they did with The Witcher 3 (a 7 years old game) on which requirements also changed, they let the "old" version available (apart on Epic). So if you no longer meet the requirements, well you still able to play on 1.62.
the new upcoming requirements are ACTUALLY more in line with the requirements as they stand NOW.
as i said before, current requirements state a rx 590 can run 1080p high. I'm assuming targeting 60 fps. this is unequivocally and completely FALSE without FSR. it's lucky to get 30.
the new upcoming suggested spec for 1080p high is an RX 5700xt, and THAT is 100% accurate. as I said, an RX 6600 is generally comparable performance wise and It nails 1080p high, 60+ FPS with no upscaling.
so I just provided a perfect example of how the old requirements are WRONG, and the new ones are MORE ACCURATE literally based on the CURRENT state of the game.
no where did they imply this means the game is going to suddenlly become twice as demanding. nowhere did they imply systems that run it fine currently would suffer.
I came on here to comment because i cannot believe how stupid so many people are acting, and how much total ignorance I am seeing. you have no idea what you're talking about, you are just looking for an excuse to be angry about something.
Post automatically merged:
if you actually havent played it at all yet, you should just wait and play it as a complete package.
Imagine that currently you are playing on HIGH settings with an R5 5600, GTX 1660 S, 1TB M2, 32GB RAM, and the game runs at 60 fps most of the time, except for a few occasions that are totally acceptable. This is without Ray Tracing, obviously, since the 1660s doesn't support this technology. Then suddenly, you went from being able to enjoy an experience you've been accustomed to for 3 years to having to configure it at lower graphic quality, probably Low or Medium-Low, and even having to activate FSR to achieve this. Not to mention the number of people currently playing at the limit of the requirements.
For some reason I doubt the sky is falling here. The tidbit about what is tested to formulate the system requirements stands out. Presumably to create these system req charts they would pluck out specific hardware configurations, test and observe the performance. I'm guessing these updated system requirements are meant to illustrate the test targets changing.
The SSD point would be a quick and easy example. That doesn't mean a HDD can't run the game, as has been stated. It just means they're not testing with HDD's for the purpose of the system requirements.
I doubt existing hardware is suddenly going to run the game like ass (or surprisingly well, depending how you look at it ). It's more likely any existing hardware configuration will run a little worse from the burden created by whatever new features are included. The notion some hardware will lose it's ability to run the game at all or yield terrible performance feels a little presumptuous and premature. Expansions/additions elevating system requirements is not without precedent. I seriously doubt the new stuff in PL/1.7 is going to send the requirements into the stratosphere though.
I don't think it will change that much. i think they just updated the requirements cause they add some events/places in the city, and performances will drop with low-end CPU, like near jig jig and lizzy's bar now (my 9600k isn't enough, even on low settings + dlss).
RT low is Ultra with RT shadows, and i can say, i7 9700 is the min to have 60fps. (i have 9600k, and even on low settings no RT with low crowd, i drop below 60 while driving in some area).
I think they just don't want people to expect stable 60 fps (or even 30) everywhere with old CPU/GPU.
It all depends on the GPU as well. If you'd have a RX 6400, then no CPU will let you play with RT. On the other hand, I could play RT Low with i7-6700 and RX 6600 and for some people I'm sure it'd be acceptable performance.
And you DO have the i7-12700 along with your 6600? xD Because, obviously, anything below would not be able to drive such a HUGE card, right? I have a 6600 myself nad a i7-12700 would be rather an overkill in this setup. My i5-11400F is sitting at ~40% usage with 1080p Ultra settings. I had an i7-6700 previously, and it rarely went over 50% usage.
Now compare PS5 prices with an equivalent PC needed... I was always the PCMR guy, but I'm getting closer and closer to the point of buying an Xbox and just have a decent PC for other stuff than gaming. You can easily use a 10-year old PC now for almost anything else than AAA games (meaning casual usage, not CAD engineering or video editing).
But if they set the absurd requirements themselves, I'm just afraid it's because they're too lazy to work on optimization - you can always ask people to buy new stuff, right?
Obviously, most of us already have SSDs - and even if not, you can buy a SATA SSD for very little money and update basically any PC that is still running. Swapping a graphics card is also fairly easy. But going from i7-4790 (current Recommended) to i7-12700 (future Recommended) means buyin a new mainboard, RAM, CPU (cooler, if you don't want to use OEM) at the very least. And the requirements are going up by roughly 100%:
CPU: (https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790-vs-Intel-Core-i7-12700/2293vsm1750830)
GPU:
Will the game (CP2077) be 2x better than the current one? Doubt it. Will the PS5 version be 2x worse than the PC one (since PS5 is the same PS5 it was when the original CP2077 was released)
I did a quick Recommended build on PC Part Picker (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/JwDHk9). It's very basic, just to run 1080p High (!) and I ended up with 906 USD. PS5 is 499 USD. How much more abuse can we take?
Yes you won't be able to play the expansion, but as far as I know, the expansion was not included in the game you paid for and above all, the expansion is not released yet. Meaning that you're aware about requirement before the release
Now compare PS5 prices with an equivalent PC needed... I was always the PCMR guy, but I'm getting closer and closer to the point of buying an Xbox and just have a decent PC for other stuff than gaming. You can easily use a 10-year old PC now for almost anything else than AAA games (meaning casual usage, not CAD engineering or video editing).
Well, they did mention in a footnote that this doesn't necessarily mean the game will suddenly stop working on older hardware but that they're ceasing 'support' for hardware lower than these specs - though that wording doesn't mean it will run well either. I'm not sure why even post the updated requirements and recommendations if that's simply the case - perhaps there will be a notable divergence between the consoles and PC beyond visuals but the systems as well though I'm not sure how much thought I would give that. tbh I don't entirely understand and I think it's something they should clear up, and I think they will as we get closer to the update - people will want to see why this is being asked of them.
I can imagine with the word that's spreading about the sweeping changes to systems, new systems, how dense many of those systems are - it's an ask that I don't find entirely absurd. The gigs added with 1.6 weren't even available on previous gen hardware, both involved vehicles that were seemingly not entirely on the rails(bit of a test I suppose), and the game on last gen has Night City looking like a ghost town as is so it would seem crowd/traffic are rather intensive. I know that using the Realistic Traffic Density mod on my PC does noticably increase CPU utilization and from the limited pics we've seen of Nighty City in the upcoming update - it will have not only a denser traffic and crowd system, but several ai archetypes as well while taking into consideration gameplay systems.
An anecdote I can offer is that my previous CPU(which turned out to be one the many busted 5900X models floating around) could run damn near any game I could throw at it even though it was gimped, even 2077. With the Crowd and Traffic density increase alone - it caused safety to trip on my rig. Again, this was a busted model, but it's worth noting it could still run other games for the most part but that one mod asked too much of it.
As for your case about keeping up with PC gaming - I wouldn't know specifically. I play a handful of games if even that, I need a big GPU for work and the 4090 had a humongous increase in CUDA cores. I'm curious to see how/if I will utilize a local ai for my work in the future, so how many Tensor cores may also be more relevant then even though ai utilizes as well CUDA from my understanding, but for now CUDA is what I need and if the 5090 has a massive increase in them then I will be buying that. If it weren't for work I'm not sure I would drop the cash on this hardware even though I am a visual enthusiast. I can't fault someone such as yourself who would forgo the costs if they were only interested in gaming when you have only CDPR really putting in the effort to utilize the tech to it's full potential right now.
They do all the bling like RT Overdrive, but the game in its single aspects (physics, police, crowd etc.) can be more stupid than GTA IV. Vehicle damage model is virtually non existent for example. Would you say that anything in particular (apart from graphics) feels much better than GTA IV (that is 2008)? And I could probably find a few things that are worse... I'm not saying anything about GTA V even.
While the game is breathtakingly beautiful, it's not that I would notice that much work being done below the surface. I was playing through the mission races yesterday for the first time on a Medium difficulty and boy, that was no hassle at all. Won three of them at the first take, leading from the start till the finish line. This is where the CPU should be taxed, not only raytraced reflections in the puddles. Will it be raining all the time in the expansion now?
Don't get me wrong, CP2007 is a 9+/10 game for me - for the beautiful setting, for the atmosphere, for the story - but as a sandbox itself it's far far far from being a decent one. Feels quite flawed, actually. I wanted to go into a trailer somewhere in Badlands while playing yesterday - of course, all the doors were closed without any possibility to open, and while the glass windows looked nice, you could not break them, you could unload a full clip and just see a few marks on the glass. Not really immersive, is it?
With all the expensive hardware you own, do you still actually need to click a button to see your reflection in the mirror? I think it worked pretty decently in Max Payne 3 in 2012...
This is of course 2020 video, so some things have improved but this is due care in designing the game vs doing a NVIDIA show off demo:
They do all the bling like RT Overdrive, but the game in its single aspects (physics, police, crowd etc.) can be more stupid than GTA IV. Vahicle damage model is virtually non existent for example. While the game is breathtakingly beautiful, it's not that I would notice that much work being done below the surface. I was playing through the mission races yesterday for the first time on a Medium difficulty and boy, that was no hassle at all. Won three of them at the first take, leading from the start till the finish line. This is where the CPU should be taxed, not only raytraced reflections in the puddles. Will it be raining all the time in the expansion now?
Yes, but we're talking about the game coming in September not the one here right now.
Those are the things the next update is addressing significantly. I can't really do into details of how the information was obtained, because 'datamining' is treated the same as hacking here... but, you can go read an article on Forbes from... maybe early 2021 that detailed alleged planned DLC releases. One of them had a particular name that gave the impression it would be massive, and CDPR accidentally uploaded several pages listed as DLC on the Epic Store front that included a number of those things.
I say the following as someone who enjoyed GTAV, and didn't entertain the argument of "this isn't GTA" whenever those issues you mentioned were brought up in the past. Believe me, I've been a big critic of this game and I won't hold back when I do my final review after PL. All the things you've mentioned and more I have been banging on about since release.
So - this city, the things I just mentioned above, all the gameplay systems and their impending updates, along with even raster rendering on high sounds rather demanding when you take it all into consideration. It's easy to say "well GTA" of course, GTA's world density and details are far below this one though and Night City wouldn't be the same if you flattened it out like Los Santos and then reduced the geometry and texture detail. I don't doubt that having aggressive and passive ai dynamically navigate the complex terrain of Night City is going to be heavy. GTA has a strict set of flat weapons - no mods, no scope additions, no scaling, no leveling, etc.
Likewise - the cars in this game shit all over any other game, no argument. From design to details. Maybe Forza could argue they have more details - sure, that's easier when you have five cars on screen and you're driving through a barren countryside though. You car can also be used to access your stash anywhere in the gameworld. The NPCs in the open world rival those of linear campaigns in other games(even if they are braindead right now), with some along the critical path being untouchable. This isn't even mentioning player stats, looks, cyberware, etc.
They've made no mention of Trauma Team at the moment, but I anticipate they won't remain shop mannequins that laze about only to abruptly despawn if you stare at them for too long following the update as well.
The point is - these requirements and recommendations may actually be reasonable all things considered. If so, CDPR needs to offer a beta branch for people who can't upgrade and they need to show people what's under the hood that would require all that fire power if so.
We'll see. Even still - when you mention the cars, great that they have cool design and many details, but when you drive at high speed through dense traffic, it's not the details or reflections that matter, but the collision model, other drivers' reactions etc. It all the time feels more attention is put to the looks than all the tiny details that create immersion. It's cool that there are many detailed NPCs, but when you run through a crowded pavement, you don't even anticipate any collitions with pedestrians, so if you'd be to chase anybody, you'd just run damn straight, which normally would not work at all.
And GTA IV is 15 (!!!) years old, also requirements were completely different (even with all the moaning how bad port that is).
I do hope for all the improvements you're mentioning, but I am not holding my breath.
For a lot gamers they are going to have a "downgraded experience" when they "upgrade" their game. It seems to me that they are trying to turn the "red engine" into the "unreal 5 engine" to make a hybrid or a "Frankenstein's Monster" DLC for graphics.
The worst thing is that cd projekt red has the temerity to ask gamers to pay 30€ for this [...] !
Just to get it right… I can play it high cls on my pc if I don’t just pay for the DLC but invest into state of the art hardware as well, while my kids next door gonna play the minecraft version on their ps5?…
For a lot gamers they are going to have a "downgraded experience" when they "upgrade" their game. It seems to me that they are trying to turn the "red engine" into the "unreal 5 engine" to make a hybrid or a "Frankenstein's Monster" DLC for graphics.
The worst thing is that cd projekt red has the temerity to ask gamers to pay 30€ for this [...] !
). It's more likely any existing hardware configuration will run a little worse from the burden created by whatever new features are included. The notion some hardware will lose it's ability to run the game at all or yield terrible performance feels a little presumptuous and premature. Expansions/additions elevating system requirements is not without precedent. I seriously doubt the new stuff in PL/1.7 is going to send the requirements into the stratosphere though.
