bit-gamer.net

Ubisoft bumps Watch_Dogs system requirements

Ubisoft bumps Watch_Dogs system requirements

Ubisoft has quietly bumped the minimum system requirements for its upcoming hack-'em-up Watch_Dogs to include a minimum of 6GB of RAM.

Following the leak of non-final system requirements for its upcoming third-person hack-'em-up Watch_Dogs, Ubisoft has made public the official stats - and the news isn't good for those running on 4GB of RAM.

Leaked last week in a hastily-removed listing on the Uplay storefront, the preliminary system requirements for the cross-platform title showed early signs of the upcoming next-generation consoles' influence on the future of PC gaming: a 64-bit OS requirement, the need for a quad-core CPU and recommendations to install an eight-core or better chip in order to get the most out of the game.

Now, Ubisoft has formally announced final specifications - and there are some interesting changes. First, the high-end Ultra specification has been removed from the game's revised listing - a level of graphical fidelity the company had previously claimed would require an Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 GPU alongside an Intel Core i7-3930K or AMD FX-9370 CPU.

The most interesting change, however, comes at the bottom end of the specifications: whereas the previously-leaked minimum system requirements had mandated just 4GB of RAM, the new - and presumably final - requirements request a minimum of 6GB of RAM just to run the game at its lowest possible settings, alongside a more powerful quad-core Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400, AMD Phenom II X4 940 or better CPU.

From the perspective of a game aimed at next-generation consoles, the change makes sense: both Sony's PlayStation 4 and Microsoft's Xbox One include eight-core AMD accelerated processing unit (APU) chips linked to 8GB of GDDR5 or DDR3 memory respectively. The game will, however, also be released on the Xbox 360, Wii U and PlayStation 3 current-generation consoles - the latter of which has just 256MB of system memory alongside 256MB of VRAM.

The full and final specifications, which include new support for Intel's Iris Pro HD 5200 integrated GPUs, can be found over on the Uplay Store. Ubisoft has not given an explanation for the bump in minimum system requirements.

17 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Mentai 8th October 2013, 11:44 Quote
I wonder about those recommended 8core specs. From memory the first games that recommended quad cores ran better on equivalently priced but faster dual cores. Will be interesting to see the benchmarks when the game is out.
Cerberus90 8th October 2013, 12:02 Quote
Since when was a Q8400 better than a 6600? I thought the 6600 was the be all and end all of 775 quads apart from the silly "extreme x" edition things.
Corky42 8th October 2013, 12:26 Quote
AFAIK the Q8400 is a little better for gaming, not by much though.
rollo 8th October 2013, 12:36 Quote
6gb ram minimum so they have just removed 90% of the pc market. Latest steam survey put most people below 5gb of ram.
Parge 8th October 2013, 12:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
6gb ram minimum so they have just removed 90% of the pc market. Latest steam survey put most people below 5gb of ram.

Fine by me, we need to push on. The reason 90% of the population have less than 4GB of RAM is because up until now, no games have used more than 2!
sandys 8th October 2013, 12:59 Quote
Call of duty Ghost is 6GB min too Source
AlienwareAndy 8th October 2013, 13:06 Quote
Wow it looks like gaming is finally going to X64 only.
ChaosDefinesOrder 8th October 2013, 13:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parge
Fine by me, we need to push on. The reason 90% of the population have less than 4GB of RAM is because up until now, no games have used more than 2!

Definitely this! Up until now, games have (mostly) been targeting Xbox 360 and PS3, then (only sometimes) adding extra stuff for PCs. Consequently, low spec PCs are more than enough for games because even mid to lowish spec PC is more powerful than a PS3/360. Now dev are going to target PS4 and XBone and port to PCs, the base PC requirement is going to be higher...

Whilst it is a pain to have to upgrade, it has been a VERY long time since major upgrades have been needed due to the aforementioned PS3/360 dev target...
Snips 8th October 2013, 14:38 Quote
I think the development target is still set at PSBore settings. It's only one PC game every five years or so that gets the blood pumping in our PC enthusiasts to upgrade.

Although it's welcome, it's still not enough.
Corky42 8th October 2013, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I think the development target is still set at PSBore settings.

Aren't the two consoles so similar as to make little difference (hardware wise) ?
Yslen 8th October 2013, 15:04 Quote
If having all that RAM available makes a significant difference to a game, why haven't we seen it done before now?

Creative Assembly could have taken the PC-only Total War series 64-bit years ago, but Rome II is instead a 32-bit game that barely uses 1.5GB of RAM.
jinq-sea 8th October 2013, 15:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90
Since when was a Q8400 better than a 6600? I thought the 6600 was the be all and end all of 775 quads apart from the silly "extreme x" edition things.

The Q8xxx (IIRC) and definitely the Q9xxx series chips had more cache and ran a bit cooler (45nm), but otherwise there's not much in it. The 12Mb cache on a Q9450 made for a bit of a performance jump.

--

As regards the need for 6Gb RAM, I'm with Parge here. It's not a bad thing - a bit of a shake-up might do us all the world of good :D
IvanIvanovich 8th October 2013, 15:32 Quote
Well at least something good can come out of consoles for a change for the PC gamer. Only been waiting almost a decade for x64 gaming to become the norm.
Snips 8th October 2013, 16:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I think the development target is still set at PSBore settings.

Aren't the two consoles so similar as to make little difference (hardware wise) ?

Exactly but game developers still set their targets on those specs and not PC specs. I know the rule of thumb has to be the lowest common denominator of hardware but I just question why is it only every 5 years or so does a game slap us in the face and make us upgrade our PC's?

Wearing a business head it makes perfect sense to do it the current way, especially when you see Crysis was not the financial success through pirating, as well as hardware shortcomings than it deserved.
sandys 8th October 2013, 17:04 Quote
Because a continual upgrade cycle for each game would mean only a handful of people would bother, therefore no market to sell to, you said it your self, there needs to be a line in the sand at some point.
Skill3d 9th October 2013, 00:59 Quote
So this will become the new crysis benchmark type?
javaman 9th October 2013, 10:12 Quote
Ill wait till the benchmarks come out and till about March if an upgrade is needed. It is about time things moved on but there's no need to jump the gun yet. AMD processors could be brilliant, multicore gaming could be poorly optimised. Who knows? By the same amount a highly clocked core2 or athlon dual are starting to struggle. How long have some of you been rocking them? They've had a good run thanks to consoles and hopefully current i7 and fx processors can enjoy a similar return for investment. My situation I could hunt for a new set of ddr2 ram and hold out another year. Would make for an interesting article but ultimately no point denying the ever approaching enevitable.

Now 6GB of ram does that allow for OS and background tasks or is that just for the game?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums