Cyberpunk 2077 update will increase minimum system requirements, and folks aren't happy

[godrilla]

Seems like CDPR is just a company whose focus is tech demos for nvidia.

But at the same time people hanging to a Haswell and 780ti probably need to upgrade their hardware.

That hardware came out 10 years ago.
I remember playing Metro exodus on a 10 year old i7 980xe at 4.3 ghz all cores although the gpu was the flagship 1080ti ftw3 liquid at the time, got me 60 fps at max settings( extreme minus rt) at 3440x1440p gsyncd. How times have changed . This was all with 12 gigs of ddr2 @ 2 ghz and 11 gigs of vram. Games today barely look better.

New item by Aberkae Godrilla

photos.app.goo.gl

New item by Aberkae Godrilla

photos.app.goo.gl

 

[nnguy2]

Νot rly.

I have never played Cyberpunk and never will and I don't play any "Triple A" titles.

My 4770K and GTX 1080 are perfecly adequate for my gaming needs and will still be for probably another decade.

Sry if that upsets you but I couldn't care less.

Then this post isn't for you. It's the people with old hardware wanting to play the latest AAA and complaining.

 

[yukka]

Looks like they are adding improved cops etc with a 5 star system where they come after you in drop ships so it’s not all graphics upgrades. .

 

[Adhmuz]

False; even my almost 15 year old i7 920@3.8Ghz can still handle new titles aside from ubisoft's unsupported instruction drm on AC Origins; RDR 2 and Cyberpunk 2077 run fantastic on it; as do chart toppers like GTA V, APEX Legends, Overwatch 2, World of Tanks, Destiny 2, Fortnite etc. I can even stay playable recording 3440x1440@30FPS with bandicam.

Even my older QX6700@3.2Ghz and Q9650@3.8Ghz each with 8GB of RAM can play many modern titles @30FPS.

Also CDPR's TW3 update is still such a sluggish mess on my i9 10920/3080Ti and i7 10700KF/7900XT I reverted back to the DX11 version.

And newer hardware will still not get you 60FPS in some games regardless; give CM Black Sea a go.

Your RAM estimate is flawed; the system adjusts if you have less RAM; that i7 920 only has 12GB; which is still plenty. No shutdows or crashes even with 8GB.

Several of the games you listed are running older engines or esports titles designed to run on just about anything, GTA V was released 10 years ago on PC, I played it on my first gen i7 just fine too.

If you're willing to accept 30FPS or turn settings down to the point where the games can run that's one thing and mileage will vary. However this isn't necessarily how the devs would like you to experience their games either or be willing to guarantee a good experience because not everyone is able to make old hardware work for them. And if they keep trying to cater to the oldest of the old hardware it will hold the games back as well, the bar has to eventually be raised after all.

All this being said, devs are also getting lazy in my opinion as games do have trouble running even on the recommended hardware, mostly due to poorly optimizing them or not testing them thoroughly, this is a greater problem as a whole. I've not tried TW3 since the update, heard bad things and honestly have other games I'm already invested into at the moment, this is again a great example of devs not doing the work right or polishing their product before release.

 

[Adhmuz]

A PC I work on has 4GB of RAM with an SSD, 6th gen i3. Runs Office decently. I would never use it as my personal PC though. Peoples idea of what you need today is completely distorted.

And I would consider anyone who spends most of their free time playing PC games a PC gamer, how much money they spend is unimportant. Many of these demanding games aren't worth the time anyway, but to each their own.

If that low spec hardware can do your job, power to you, but that would not be adequate for me, let alone decent for the work I need my computer to do, or the majority of my clientele. Not sure if your idea of what a computer needs spec wise is distorted or mine, given my personal experience, I'd lean towards yours.

How much anyone spends on a gaming computer has nothing to do with them being a PC gamer, it just has the potential to limit their access to games that deem their hardware incapable. There's lots of older games that are still well worth playing, indie games, etc. More so if you're uninterested in them be your reasons as they may.

 

[loki1944]

Several of the games you listed are running older engines or esports titles designed to run on just about anything, GTA V was released 10 years ago on PC, I played it on my first gen i7 just fine too.

If you're willing to accept 30FPS or turn settings down to the point where the games can run that's one thing and mileage will vary. However this isn't necessarily how the devs would like you to experience their games either or be willing to guarantee a good experience because not everyone is able to make old hardware work for them. And if they keep trying to cater to the oldest of the old hardware it will hold the games back as well, the bar has to eventually be raised after all.

All this being said, devs are also getting lazy in my opinion as games do have trouble running even on the recommended hardware, mostly due to poorly optimizing them or not testing them thoroughly, this is a greater problem as a whole. I've not tried TW3 since the update, heard bad things and honestly have other games I'm already invested into at the moment, this is again a great example of devs not doing the work right or polishing their product before release.

Several of the Games I listed are not.

 

[loki1944]

If that low spec hardware can do your job, power to you, but that would not be adequate for me, let alone decent for the work I need my computer to do, or the majority of my clientele. Not sure if your idea of what a computer needs spec wise is distorted or mine, given my personal experience, I'd lean towards yours.

How much anyone spends on a gaming computer has nothing to do with them being a PC gamer, it just has the potential to limit their access to games that deem their hardware incapable. There's lots of older games that are still well worth playing, indie games, etc. More so if you're uninterested in them be your reasons as they may.

You have no frame of reference with the average gamer; that's the issue. The average gamer wouldn't care as they just let auto settings drive. That's why over 1/3 of the hardware survey for steam shows 4 physical cores or less.

 

[hwertz]

A) Agreed, if there are new things going on that increase GPU requirements etc., they should be put into the high/very high settings, so one can play on low, or medium, or turn the new options off or something to get the same or better performance they had already been getting. The games been out for 2 years after all.

B) I *do* hope steam, Epic Games Launcher, etc. provide some mechanism so people can play CP2077 patch 1.61 (preferably, since 1.62/1.62H1 already broke it one one of my two systems..but at least 1.62H1) versus playing Phantom Liberty. Normally, letting your games update in Steam or whatever is no problem. Not unprecedented, there's a few games that have a "regular" and "remastered" version where you buy one and get access to both (with the remastered naturally having the steeper requirements but upgraded graphics.)

 

[Blqckout]

Update post, it says imaging instead of imagine

 

[fastEddie]

While I have no problem with a game pushing boundaries the fact that they shill for NVIDIA to get people to buy a 40 series is BS. Both The Witcher 3 and 2077 had updates that pushed what Nvidia marketing wanted instead of improving gameplay and performance. I wonder how much CDPR was paid for that?