You'll need some serious hardware to play Serious Sam 4

[ScottSoapbox]

All accurate, but also pretty much non-responsive to what I said. While Steam's measurement of ~9.2% may not be exact for every PC that has played a game in August, there's also no reason to believe the exact answer is materially different. IF the actual answer was double --- an incredibly unlikely proposition, the error is more likely a couple points at most -- would it still change the fact the publisher is aiming at a tiny fraction of existing PCs and therefore likely blowing it financially?

And yes, everyone knows you can try to play below recommended specs, just like everyone knows that is code for you will experience stutter, bugs, and an overall unfun experience. The only likely mainstream response is to choose another game.

And further yes, I expect the Steam surveys from next year and the year after to look different. That will not help Serious Sam's publisher with this title, it will be on the deep discount rack by then.

Still, like I said, if their business plan was entirely focused on the consoles they could still be fine. They may even clear some small additional profit on the PC port. It's just they are certainly not going to sustain a development budget on a title that works well on only 10% or less of existing PCs at time of launch.

By your logic, games would only target 1080p as that is the lion's share of steam users.

It also overlooks the fact that people with more money for hardware also have more money for software.

 

[brucek]

By your logic, games would only target 1080p as that is the lion's share of steam users.

It also overlooks the fact that people with more money for hardware also have more money for software.

#1: Yes, and my logic is correct. I challenge you to name a single AAA title (or even any title period?) that requires greater than 1080p to play (or even, is not recommended on 1080p even if it is minmally supported.) The fact that titles do take advantage of greater resolutions is not a problem and not what we're discussing here. The problem is when you exclude customers who do not meet overly exclusive requirements ("recommendations").

#2: True, but Serious Sam is not charging a premium so there is no obvious business justification for excluding 90% of the existing customer base. Now if they were positioning as some ultra premium experience and charging 10x = $600 for it, that'd be another story.

 

[Lionvibez]

#2: True, but Serious Sam is not charging a premium so there is no obvious business justification for excluding 90% of the existing customer base. Now if they were positioning as some ultra premium experience and charging 10x = $600 for it, that'd be another story.

They are not excluding 90% of the existing customer base. They just can't play at recommended settings and will be do so at minimum settings.

If the recommended setting was the only option to play the game sure but its not.

 

[brucek]

They are not excluding 90% of the existing customer base. They just can't play at recommended settings and will be do so at minimum settings.

I guess this is the core of our disagreement. I understand that there are some GPU options, particularly post-processing ones, that you can just dial down and still expect the game to work fine. But personally, when I see a game that recommends more CPU (vs GPU) than is available, I expect problems. Turning up the eye candy is not typically what is maxxing out your CPU. It is a more fundamental problem with managing the game state. If, as stated in the article, the horsepower is for managing thousands of enemies on screen, turning down the settings is not going to help unless it makes some of those enemies go away.

 

[godrilla]

My 8700k is no go now :’(

6 cores 12 threads at stock vs 8 cores at 3.3 ghz what's the issue here?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

My i5 3570K just shat itself metaphorically. It's time will soon be up, roll on Zen3. I'm thinking 12 core or if they have one as per rumors, 10 core.

 

[orbital]

If you are not interested in the game why bother to comment?

Because stated requirements allude to like another Crysis, Metro or Cyberpunk 2077, all of which are masterpieces and for millions of users will make sense in terms of upgrading or considering raw power/resources they currently have. This game will make no difference for the vast majority.

But everyone is free to choose, in which case I presume you need to respect my own choice, don't you?

 

[Lionvibez]

Because stated requirements allude to like another Crysis, Metro or Cyberpunk 2077, all of which are masterpieces and for millions of users will make sense in terms of upgrading or considering raw power/resources they currently have. This game will make no difference for the vast majority.

But everyone is free to choose, in which case I presume you need to respect my own choice, don't you?

If you say so.

 

[davkdavk]

Not always.

If the game likes more cores than faster cores the 8 core cpu will be faster.

And there is nothing click bait about it if those requirements come directly from the Dev.

I've haven't played SS since #2 so I may grab this.

I already have the 8 core covered since I'm on a 3800X however my gpu is a RX580 which will be slower than the required ones for now until I upgrade to RDNA2

an RX580 munches the minimum 1050 requirement