bit-tech.net | GTA IV PC delayed, system requirements

spoon.uk 31st October 2008, 12:16

Quad-core? Not sure really what they need quad CPU for...

spectre456 31st October 2008, 12:24

I'm more concerned about why it requires 18 gigs of HD space. didn't this game fit on an xbox 360 disc (i.e a dvd). I'll assume they used a dual layer disc so it should be about 9 gigs plus an extra gig for the higher res textures.

g3n3tiX 31st October 2008, 12:24

Look like it MIGHT be poorly optimized, because the recommended specs are really high-end hardware...that's surely more powerful than a x360 or PS3 ?

ComputerKing 31st October 2008, 12:28

Dam. Those spec are high!!!!! Quad core... GRRR.... 18GB lol.

No comment. Waiting the game and will do any thing to make it work.

Hamish 31st October 2008, 12:29

glad that its delayed tbh, no time to play it atm with RA3, FO3 and L4D soon :p

those specs look a little high...

will. 31st October 2008, 12:47

It better look awesome or I'll be having words!

_DTM2000_ 31st October 2008, 12:53

I'd rather they delay it till next year than release it broken. I'm sick of games being released full of bugs.
On the subject of sytem specs, they do seem a little odd. Why does it need such a high end CPU but not so much GPU?
And the HDD space requirements are just silly. It better have some amazing textures.

I usually pre-order the PC releases of GTA but I think I'll wait for a Bit-Tech review this time round.

naokaji 31st October 2008, 12:54

Two conspiracies to pick from:

1: delayed because it still sells well on consoles.
2: delayed because noone has time to play it with too many high profile titles being released last week of oct and in nov.

chrisb2e9 31st October 2008, 13:03

They can delay it all they want. I still wont buy it till I have a few reviews to read. I was dissapointed in the past with the quality of the ports for gta games. I hope that this one runs better on the pc.

iwog 31st October 2008, 13:08

18 gig? WTF? Are we all expected to have 250gig primary partitions now? What happened to the days when an 80gig Raptor was considered more then enough for your OS and all you games

rjkoneill 31st October 2008, 13:12

why does a console port require a quad

ComputerKing 31st October 2008, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwog
18 gig? WTF? Are we all expected to have 250gig primary partitions now? What happened to the days when an 80gig Raptor was considered more then enough for your OS and all you games

They Expect that you have 300GB VelociRaptor :)

Whalemeister 31st October 2008, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwog
18 gig? WTF? Are we all expected to have 250gig primary partitions now? What happened to the days when an 80gig Raptor was considered more then enough for your OS and all you games

I believe it's known as 'progress' ;)

bubsterboo 31st October 2008, 13:25

Quad core Recommended? So, I'm assuming this game supports 4 threads? That's rare.

johnnyboy700 31st October 2008, 14:08

in line with some of the comments above, how come this game can run on a PS3 or a 360 but you need to meet some really eye bulging specs to run it on a PC?

I was considering buying this one but now I have my doubts, it would have to be truly awsome to warrant this kind of hardware setup.

The_EXorcist 31st October 2008, 14:25

it'll need this system requirements, because its a port, and will be done badly, because as PC gamers, we are treated as pirates, whether we are or not, and that means we get the **** end of the stick no matter what. Its becoming all the rage these days to leave PC gamers out, and console fanboys get the best, it's really a shame, considering they wouldnt have their consoles without our technology

ParaHelix.org 31st October 2008, 14:57

I love SA:MP (San Andres Multiplayer) mod for PC, I play it reguly simply to fly jets in formation and battle against the other hundred and odd users on each server, though I have to say a lot of the users are idiotic 12 year old noobs. I hope PC multiplayer of this new GTA will live up to our expectations, if not, SA:MP start working on a new one please ;)

Jordan Wise 31st October 2008, 15:04

why is service pack 1 necessary for vista? dx 10.1?

UrbanMarine 31st October 2008, 15:06

As long as it's not a port, I can handle the specs.

Ending Credits 31st October 2008, 15:10

I'm surprised no one noticed that Q6600 = Phenom 8750 apparently.

They probably meant a C2D rather than a Quad.

LeMaltor 31st October 2008, 15:20

Delayed due to work on 360 DLC content ♥$$$$♥

Lepermessiah 31st October 2008, 15:22

QUAD? LOL, a dual core PC cpu is significantly faster at gaming then the CPU in the consioles, is Rockstar that bad at making PC games? I am glad they seem to be trying to make it more of a Pc game then a port, but those specs are out of whack.

devdevil85 31st October 2008, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeMaltor
Delayed due to work on 360 DLC content ♥$$$$♥

conspiracy #3

rollo 31st October 2008, 16:19

id agree on the delayed due to the 360 dlc tbh

but whatever

with those specs half its market just disapeared

its specs are higher than crysis for just minimum

kiwik 31st October 2008, 16:31

Recommended : Geforce 8600 / Radeon 3870... Did they pull this one out of their asses, the 8600 is so much worse than the 3870 (or a X1900 that is the minimum) it doesn't make sense.

peti_s 31st October 2008, 16:33

This information is impossible. The 8600 GT is very lower card than a 3870.

wuyanxu 31st October 2008, 16:44

lol, quad core while only need a 8600?? you sure it's a games requirement? not some computing program?

still, i can't wait to play it on PC, it'd be much better than the PS3 version i was playing all last month

n3mo 31st October 2008, 17:24

Meh, another poorly optimized game. Is it just me or are devs getting lazier and lazier with every game?

BioSniper 31st October 2008, 20:16

Is it just me or do people forget that the consoles are all multi core? (except the Wii)
Why would it NOT need multi core CPU's when the code is clearly optimized for such CPU's? (the 360 is a tri-core CPU and the PS3 is 8 "cells")

And 18GB is hardly large sheesh. What you have to think of is that they are probably using higher compression ratios on the console DVD's so as to conserve space and also probably lower res textures.
Why keep the data compressed on the PC when you can run with it uncompressed because space allows for it?

wuyanxu 31st October 2008, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioSniper
Is it just me or do people forget that the consoles are all multi core? (except the Wii)
Why would it NOT need multi core CPU's when the code is clearly optimized for such CPU's? (the 360 is a tri-core CPU and the PS3 is 8 "cells")

And 18GB is hardly large sheesh. What you have to think of is that they are probably using higher compression ratios on the console DVD's so as to conserve space and also probably lower res textures.
Why keep the data compressed on the PC when you can run with it uncompressed because space allows for it?

very good point.

but 8600? im not sure about the level of graphics details now :( something like 8800GTS 640MB (what Crysis recommended) should be more reassuring.

Cthippo 31st October 2008, 20:49

Those specs are for the DRM, the game itself will run on a 386 :p

Darkefire 31st October 2008, 21:06

Everyone also seems to forget that on the consoles this game runs at a maximum of 720p, and even then barely pulls 30 frames a second. Unlike consoles, the PC can scale performance as better hardware comes out, so what looked grungy at times on the console versions will look much, much better on a PC running it at the typical resolutions.

LordPyrinc 1st November 2008, 00:11

While I've never played the any of the games in the series. I just never could see the appeal of the concept of the game.

notatoad 1st November 2008, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyboy700
in line with some of the comments above, how come this game can run on a PS3 or a 360 but you need to meet some really eye bulging specs to run it on a PC?

iirc the ps3 version is something like 560x1000 upscaled to 720p and the 360 version is even worse. the PC version has to run at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200

Tile 1st November 2008, 01:11

Deleted

speedfreek 1st November 2008, 07:01

My laptop is leagues slower than my desktop but it could run this, the desktop couldn't. Since when were service packs considered system requirements?

Oh and games for windows, I would rather continue playing on my ps3.

Adnoctum 1st November 2008, 07:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
While I've never played the any of the games in the series. I just never could see the appeal of the concept of the game.

Thank-you for contributing to the discussion. Your point was certainly meaningful.

LeMaltor 1st November 2008, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordPyrinc
While I've never played the any of the games in the series. I just never could see the appeal of the concept of the game.

....................try one then...........also take off your serious hat if you play, they are meant to be fun and at times wacky games, also takes the mick out of a lot of things.........

leexgx 1st November 2008, 12:57

XP SP3 will need to be installed to run this game ??

Xtrafresh 1st November 2008, 16:44

looks like whoever released those specs has the dumb.

q6600 != Phenom 8750
8600 != 3870

And wtf is with the low GPUs? are they playing at 640x480?

And in response to the delay: ****

Primoz 1st November 2008, 17:57

If it gets delayed anymore, the boy i won't bea ble to tick will be the HD space...

confusis 2nd November 2008, 05:08

craaaaaaaaaaaaaaapp! time to upgrade to even make the minimum system req's!

Keivz 2nd November 2008, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by supertoad
iirc the ps3 version is something like 560x1000 upscaled to 720p and the 360 version is even worse. the PC version has to run at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200

Actually the PS3 version is 1152x640 upscaled to 720p. The 360 version is 720p native.

oasked 2nd November 2008, 16:40

Why the hell are so many of you jumping to conclusions already?

Before you criticise a game for being poorly ported, or infested with DRM or resource hungry at least play the bloody thing first.

I'm looking forward to this game so much, having never played it on the PS3 or Xbox 360. It's going to look a fair bit better on the ol' PC. :)

Gunsmith 2nd November 2008, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by oasked
Why the hell are so many of you jumping to conclusions already?

Before you criticise a game for being poorly ported, or infested with DRM or resource hungry at least play the bloody thing first.

^THIS.

iwog 3rd November 2008, 01:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by oasked
Why the hell are so many of you jumping to conclusions already?

-snip-

Because we're human we learn from past experiences, yes it may take some of us a while but eventually learn that putting your hand in the fire is a bad idea and that console to PC ports are normally poorly implemented as developers are encouraged to be lazy by the higher ups and do the minimum needed to ship it out the door and call it working. This is why there are many console to PC ports with idiotic key bindings and often a blind refusal to let you change them or anything but the most basic graphical settings.

AlexB 3rd November 2008, 10:13

I'm looking forward to this. Quad core - this means its a proper game written properly to make use of multi-cores.. wahoo! Go rockstar =)

steveo_mcg 3rd November 2008, 10:43

You sir have more faith than I.

oasked 3rd November 2008, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwog
Quote:
Originally Posted by oasked
Why the hell are so many of you jumping to conclusions already?

-snip-

Because we're human we learn from past experiences, yes it may take some of us a while but eventually learn that putting your hand in the fire is a bad idea and that console to PC ports are normally poorly implemented as developers are encouraged to be lazy by the higher ups and do the minimum needed to ship it out the door and call it working. This is why there are many console to PC ports with idiotic key bindings and often a blind refusal to let you change them or anything but the most basic graphical settings.

Surely the best past experience to go on would be that of Rockstar's previous GTA games rather than products of other companies. San Andreas ran well on my machine and I had no problems with it at all. I have no reason to believe that Rockstar would be releasing a dodgy port.

Log in

GTA IV PC delayed, system requirements

Related