Doom: The Dark Ages [XBSX|S, PC, PS5, XGP]

[arandomguy]

I know system requirements are usually full of nonsense, but this is very specific nonsense. They are adamant regarding 8c/16t. Usually system requirements don't specifically repeatedly state that the majority of PC gamers (with capable gaming PCs) can't run your game at all.

There might just to much reading into that. Those CPU requirements are actually lower than Indiana Jones other than stating a 3700x instead of a 3600 for the minimum, which at the time people brought up that a 3600 is nowhere near equivalent of the 10700k. Otherwise they dropped it down for AMD from Zen 4 to Zen 3.

And in real terms a 3600 (and Zen 2 in general) while it's I guess the console equivalent it's really quite slow in PC terms nowadays and by the time the game releases that's going to be a CPU you could've bought 6 years ago.

Spoiler

 

[cheapchips]

I thought it was the correct thing to do to reveal this (and Indy for that matter) with essentially console RT settings.

DF mention that they'd seen the 'path traced' version but had no footage of it. The bottom line is that isn't how most people, even PC players, will experience the game this year.

It's nice future proofing / willy waving for 4090+ owners though.

 

[Seanspeed]

I know system requirements are usually full of nonsense, but this is very specific nonsense. They are adamant regarding 8c/16t. Usually system requirements don't specifically repeatedly state that the majority of PC gamers (with capable gaming PCs) can't run your game at all.

I'll bet five donuts that the game will run half decent on 6 core CPU's and wont at all be a true minimum requirement.

I think it's gonna be a perfect example of the 'nonsense' that these system requirements spew up.

 

[Dampf]

I don't get that minimum requirements recently are noticeably higher than what the lowest common denominator offers, the Series S. Series S just has 14 effective threads for games, not 16. On top of that the CPU is weaker due to the high latency GDDR-RAM. It also just has 10 GB shared between CPU and GPU. Why does the PC need 16 GB RAM + 8 GB VRAM? Why does it need 16 threads?

We all know the answer: Lowest console settings are not exposed on PC for whatever reason. Why? Just make that as the minimum requirement and thus, more people can play the game in a decent fashion. Consoles aren't magic anymore, they are just PCs with a more closed system.

 

[homerdog]

There might just to much reading into that. Those CPU requirements are actually lower than Indiana Jones other than stating a 3700x instead of a 3600 for the minimum, which at the time people brought up that a 3600 is nowhere near equivalent of the 10700k. Otherwise they dropped it down for AMD from Zen 4 to Zen 3.

And in real terms a 3600 (and Zen 2 in general) while it's I guess the console equivalent it's really quite slow in PC terms nowadays and by the time the game releases that's going to be a CPU you could've bought 6 years ago.

Spoiler

I didn't realize Indy was like this as well. From what I can tell it runs fine on 6 core CPUs. In fact the benches I've found show no difference at all going from 6 to 8 cores. Ryzen 7700X and 7600X are tied.

https://en.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/indiana-jones-and-the-great-circle-test-gpu-cpu

I imagine loading 8 cores evenly is a tall order. So even if your game is made to run on 16 threads, if one thread is ever the bottleneck, work can be moved around to cores that would otherwise be idling.

 

[pcchen]

I don't get that minimum requirements recently are noticeably higher than what the lowest common denominator offers, the Series S. Series S just has 14 effective threads for games, not 16. On top of that the CPU is weaker due to the high latency GDDR-RAM. It also just has 10 GB shared between CPU and GPU. Why does the PC need 16 GB RAM + 8 GB VRAM? Why does it need 16 threads?

We all know the answer: Lowest console settings are not exposed on PC for whatever reason. Why? Just make that as the minimum requirement and thus, more people can play the game in a decent fashion. Consoles aren't magic anymore, they are just PCs with a more closed system.

I guess they just don't want to test so many different configurations, especially lower end ones. While it's easy to say "just allow lower console settings" but they are still not equivalent to PC settings. Windows does eat more resources than console OS, for example. Supporting a lower settings means more testing on lower end hardwares and if there's a problem, the developers have to fix them. These are all extra works, and the benefit is probably very small.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yah, on the cpu-side of things console is way more efficient. GPU it's probably not hugely different, more an issue of feeding the gpu.