The Evil Within Goes Gold, Recommended Specs Revealed

[zzdude]

They're trying to get you to buy NEXT GEN CONSOLES, and ditch the PC Gaming scene. The cost of a 4GB VRAM Video is the same as a NEXT GEN console. Plus, these game makers get more $$$ in royalties, while dev costs decrease !! win-win

 

[Guest]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285
cheapest 8 core/thread processor 140$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127775
cheapest 4Gb "gaming" card 230$

370$ for a (modern day/next gen) rig aint bad.

 

[psiboy]

Another shitty bloated piece of code dumped on PC gamers.. My system meets all the specs (FX-8350, 16GB Ram, 7870 LE 2GB Vram) except the stupid 4gb vram... I have 2 which is heaps for other new release games.. Shame It's the kind of game I would have bought but I'm not replacing perfectly good hardware for one game from these lazy arsehat coders!

 

[Christopher1]

Guys, I think they meant to say that you would need at least 4GB's of system RAM, i.e. the sticks that you put on a computer motherboard.

 

[Thaisnang]

Guys, I think they meant to say that you would need at least 4GB's of system RAM, i.e. the sticks that you put on a computer motherboard.

We know what RAM is and I think you should read it again, it says 4 GB VRAM in the face.

 

[Christopher1]

Guys, I think they meant to say that you would need at least 4GB's of system RAM, i.e. the sticks that you put on a computer motherboard.

We know what RAM is and I think you should read it again, it says 4 GB VRAM in the face.

And I believe that is a misstatement and error on the part of the makers of this game. 4GB's SYSTEM RAM would be reasonable.... 4 GB's GPU RAM is not, even most consoles do not have that much.

 

[Thaisnang]

Guys, I think they meant to say that you would need at least 4GB's of system RAM, i.e. the sticks that you put on a computer motherboard.

We know what RAM is and I think you should read it again, it says 4 GB VRAM in the face.

And I believe that is a misstatement and error on the part of the makers of this game. 4GB's SYSTEM RAM would be reasonable.... 4 GB's GPU RAM is not, even most consoles do not have that much.

Console's don't run games on ultra. And they've already mentioned a 4 GB RAM. A 4 GB VRAM is nuts. Exact reason why all this comments are here.

 

[Sig2525]

marketing marketing marketing,..

that is all i can see with those optimal specs, makes you want to upgrade so you can play this awesome game (if it is awesome)

 

[oxiide]

Its also probably worth pointing out that many games recently have been claiming they need unusually large amounts of VRAM, and few have actually used as much as advertised. Titanfall warns that it needs 3 GB for the max texture setting, and I've heard Shadows of Mordor doesn't actually need the 3 GB for high textures/6 GB (!) for ultra that it claims. I think Watch Dogs may be the only recent game that says it needs 3 GB of VRAM at mainstream resolutions and actually means it.

That being said, sooner or later VRAM requirements are going to inch forward, and that isn't necessarily a sign of poor optimization. They're going to have to keep supporting smaller frame buffers, though, as there still isn't a very large installed user base with > 2 GB of VRAM.

 

[skit75]

Its also probably worth pointing out that many games recently have been claiming they need unusually large amounts of VRAM, and few have actually used as much as advertised. Titanfall warns that it needs 3 GB for the max texture setting, and I've heard Shadows of Mordor doesn't actually need the 3 GB for high textures/6 GB (!) for ultra that it claims. I think Watch Dogs may be the only recent game that says it needs 3 GB of VRAM at mainstream resolutions and actually means it.

That being said, sooner or later VRAM requirements are going to inch forward, and that isn't necessarily a sign of poor optimization. They're going to have to keep supporting smaller frame buffers, though, as there still isn't a very large installed user base with > 2 GB of VRAM.

Around 4.5% of Steam users have more than 2GB of VRAM as of September 2014. It could be a little bit more depending on what is being included in the "Other" category. Still, a small number of users, developers would be coding for.

Source: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

128 MB 0.61%-0.08%
256 MB 3.80% -0.26%
384 MB 1.25% -0.10%
512 MB 11.95% -0.22%
768 MB 1.68% +0.18%
896 MB 0.49% -0.03%
1023 MB 1.37% -0.04%
1024 MB 33.95% -0.15%
1280 MB 0.97% -0.06%
1536 MB 1.22% -0.04%
1797 MB 0.56% -0.05%
2047 MB 20.68% +0.99%
2048 MB 3.21% -0.02%
3071 MB 2.60% +0.08%
4095 MB 1.91% +0.20%
Other 13.74% -0.40%

 

[oxiide]

Its also probably worth pointing out that many games recently have been claiming they need unusually large amounts of VRAM, and few have actually used as much as advertised. Titanfall warns that it needs 3 GB for the max texture setting, and I've heard Shadows of Mordor doesn't actually need the 3 GB for high textures/6 GB (!) for ultra that it claims. I think Watch Dogs may be the only recent game that says it needs 3 GB of VRAM at mainstream resolutions and actually means it.

That being said, sooner or later VRAM requirements are going to inch forward, and that isn't necessarily a sign of poor optimization. They're going to have to keep supporting smaller frame buffers, though, as there still isn't a very large installed user base with > 2 GB of VRAM.

Around 4.5% of Steam users have more than 2GB of VRAM as of September 2014. It could be a little bit more depending on what it is being included in the "Other" category. Still, a small number of users, developers would be coding for.

Source: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

128 MB 0.61%-0.08%
256 MB 3.80% -0.26%
384 MB 1.25% -0.10%
512 MB 11.95% -0.22%
768 MB 1.68% +0.18%
896 MB 0.49% -0.03%
1023 MB 1.37% -0.04%
1024 MB 33.95% -0.15%
1280 MB 0.97% -0.06%
1536 MB 1.22% -0.04%
1797 MB 0.56% -0.05%
2047 MB 20.68% +0.99%
2048 MB 3.21% -0.02%
3071 MB 2.60% +0.08%
4095 MB 1.91% +0.20%
Other 13.74% -0.40%

Exactly. So if we take them at their word, Bethesda believes < 4% of Steam users can play this game the way its intended.

There is marketing incentive for publishers to suggest to the PC enthusiast market that their game is exceptionally demanding, and I think there's some need for proof before getting upset. While I'm going to be waiting for benchmarks to be done, I think there's plenty of precedent to suggest that this game may run fine with 2 GB of VRAM at 1080p.

 

[skit75]

Its also probably worth pointing out that many games recently have been claiming they need unusually large amounts of VRAM, and few have actually used as much as advertised. Titanfall warns that it needs 3 GB for the max texture setting, and I've heard Shadows of Mordor doesn't actually need the 3 GB for high textures/6 GB (!) for ultra that it claims. I think Watch Dogs may be the only recent game that says it needs 3 GB of VRAM at mainstream resolutions and actually means it.

That being said, sooner or later VRAM requirements are going to inch forward, and that isn't necessarily a sign of poor optimization. They're going to have to keep supporting smaller frame buffers, though, as there still isn't a very large installed user base with > 2 GB of VRAM.

Around 4.5% of Steam users have more than 2GB of VRAM as of September 2014. It could be a little bit more depending on what it is being included in the "Other" category. Still, a small number of users, developers would be coding for.

Source: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

128 MB 0.61%-0.08%
256 MB 3.80% -0.26%
384 MB 1.25% -0.10%
512 MB 11.95% -0.22%
768 MB 1.68% +0.18%
896 MB 0.49% -0.03%
1023 MB 1.37% -0.04%
1024 MB 33.95% -0.15%
1280 MB 0.97% -0.06%
1536 MB 1.22% -0.04%
1797 MB 0.56% -0.05%
2047 MB 20.68% +0.99%
2048 MB 3.21% -0.02%
3071 MB 2.60% +0.08%
4095 MB 1.91% +0.20%
Other 13.74% -0.40%

Exactly. So if we take them at their word, Bethesda believes < 4% of Steam users can play this game the way its intended.

There is marketing incentive for publishers to suggest to the PC enthusiast market that their game is exceptionally demanding, and I think there's some need for proof before getting upset. While I'm going to be waiting for benchmarks to be done, I think there's plenty of precedent to suggest that this game may run fine with 2 GB of VRAM at 1080p.

It leads me to believe shareholders said "ship now, fix later or let hardware vendors brute-force their way through it" for PC. Console is fine and that is what the are developing for.

Everything else is an afterthought. What investor/shareholder would sign off on developing for <5% of gamers? Easy answer is none.

This is a console game with a horrible PC port, not a revolutionary game that needs what 95% of people, don't have.

 

[oxiide]

Its also probably worth pointing out that many games recently have been claiming they need unusually large amounts of VRAM, and few have actually used as much as advertised. Titanfall warns that it needs 3 GB for the max texture setting, and I've heard Shadows of Mordor doesn't actually need the 3 GB for high textures/6 GB (!) for ultra that it claims. I think Watch Dogs may be the only recent game that says it needs 3 GB of VRAM at mainstream resolutions and actually means it.

That being said, sooner or later VRAM requirements are going to inch forward, and that isn't necessarily a sign of poor optimization. They're going to have to keep supporting smaller frame buffers, though, as there still isn't a very large installed user base with > 2 GB of VRAM.

Around 4.5% of Steam users have more than 2GB of VRAM as of September 2014. It could be a little bit more depending on what it is being included in the "Other" category. Still, a small number of users, developers would be coding for.

Source: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

128 MB 0.61%-0.08%
256 MB 3.80% -0.26%
384 MB 1.25% -0.10%
512 MB 11.95% -0.22%
768 MB 1.68% +0.18%
896 MB 0.49% -0.03%
1023 MB 1.37% -0.04%
1024 MB 33.95% -0.15%
1280 MB 0.97% -0.06%
1536 MB 1.22% -0.04%
1797 MB 0.56% -0.05%
2047 MB 20.68% +0.99%
2048 MB 3.21% -0.02%
3071 MB 2.60% +0.08%
4095 MB 1.91% +0.20%
Other 13.74% -0.40%

Exactly. So if we take them at their word, Bethesda believes < 4% of Steam users can play this game the way its intended.

There is marketing incentive for publishers to suggest to the PC enthusiast market that their game is exceptionally demanding, and I think there's some need for proof before getting upset. While I'm going to be waiting for benchmarks to be done, I think there's plenty of precedent to suggest that this game may run fine with 2 GB of VRAM at 1080p.

It leads me to believe shareholders said "ship now, fix later or let hardware vendors brute-force their way through it" for PC. Console is fine and that is what the are developing for.

Everything else is an afterthought. What investor/shareholder would sign off on developing for <5% of gamers? Easy answer is none.

This is a console game with a horrible PC port, not a revolutionary game that needs what 95% of people, don't have.

It may end up being like Watch Dogs, where one particular setting (say, textures on ultra) suddenly demands a mountain of VRAM, while "high" still works fine for most. Still, that's an extremely rare situation and I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[xgamer1500]

Another shitty bloated piece of code dumped on PC gamers.. My system meets all the specs (FX-8350, 16GB Ram, 7870 LE 2GB Vram) except the stupid 4gb vram... I have 2 which is heaps for other new release games.. Shame It's the kind of game I would have bought but I'm not replacing perfectly good hardware for one game from these lazy arsehat coders!

+100
I wish more PC gamers thought the same way, im not replacing shit either especially when the game is 8/10 chance going to suck.