[quotemsg=19010437,0,490098]Who the hell puts games on CPUs instead of GPUs nowadays? That's where they went wrong.[/quotemsg]
Their limitation was that the game engine did not support GPU physics, thus they were forced to put it all on the CPU. If you look at CPU vs GPU physics calculations, the GPU will be multiple orders of magnitude faster, the difference is larger than CPU VS GPU rendering of 3D graphics. This is why for a while now, when they do benchmarks of physx enabled games with 1 GPU, and again with 2 GPUs not in SLI, so that one can be dedicated to physics, the performance difference is often very slight.
If you run GPUz, you will often see that for most VR titles, they cards in the GTX 970 range, will often not even reach full load, thus if the game engine supported GPU physics acceleration, there would in most cases, be additional headroom to handle it, and if not, they could simply choose automatically based on the hardware, whether to use the CPU or GPU for physics.
PS, most game developers, significantly overestimate the requirements for their game for 2 major reasons.
The first, is because they have to account for the user whose PC takes 15 minutes to boot because it has 200 startup items and half the RAM is being used on them.
The second reason, is because people will be more pissed off if they buy a game with a system that meats the minimum requirements, but the game ends up being unplayable at all settings due to variety of things that are causing reduced performance (running a crappy AV, or other random things).