Your Computer Isn’t Good Enough 

Path of Exile for example, barely runs on their recommended and isn't playable at all without a SSD. With a HDD you load so slowly that the game disconnects you midway trough loading into a town.

others are worse so what they do is good. bruh no

@@theplayerofus319 Since it went so far over your head that you couldn't even fathom understanding the core message, here it is explicitly: Transparency is good, even if you don't necessarily like the message contained.

Fun fact: Starfield's minimum requirements also requires an SSD.

recommended system requirements for team fortress 2 does not run anymore

When I found this out I immediately had no issues with it. Sucks if you get cut off, but you paid for the product as-is, and you are not only able to not update, but you are actively able to downgrade.

considering that 1440p is nearly 80% more pixels and 120fps is twice the fps, I don't see how it's crazy to need a more than twice as good GPU for that increase in resolution and framerate

@@damplamp My bad. I wasn't clear. 1080p60hz is what I meant to say, since I was describing the setup I had. I used to get over 120fps using the GTX 1080 on that setup. Also, the difference is bigger than the raw performance difference between the cards, which can be seen from the many videos on youtube trying to run the next-gen Witcher 3 on GTX 1080 (ti) and getting miserable fps. I have made the edit in the OP. Hope that clarifies

@@RishalRaj ahh i see. that makes more sense

This. It's good of linus to be critical of moves like this, but complaining about drm and other toxic game companies issues without knowing that alternatives exist is not a good look. GOG does what no other distribution company does to respect their customers, we should put our money where our mouths are and promote gog more frequently.

Exactly what I've been saying. This feels much more like honest requirements where the previous ones weren't (likely to soften backlash for their initially broken game). Attacking devs for being truthful won't make ur game run if they go back to lying again, I really doubt this new dlc is much harder to run. A 3200g as a recommended requirement was almost definitely a straight up lie from what I've seen.

Funny, I did not even meet the minimum requirements and it still played better than on PS4 at the time. So I thought the Minimum requirements might have been a little high.

Ray tracing LOW 1080p 30 fps 12900 (650 dollars) 3080 (700 dollars) and the rest. Hey guys have a 2-3k dollar pc ready to play our game at 1080p 30 fps. Some day people will stop kissing the ass of trash developers who refuse to make a playable game.... One day :) As for the bare minimum settings it's about a 1k dollar pc to play at lowest settings 20 fps which will look like a ps3 game. There is nothing here good or respectable. This is another 2023 release. Cyberpunk about to make gollum look like a next gen game 😆

@@thepatrikperspective Given the state of the industry, continuous Optimization will not magically make a game work on whatever desired specs you target. The Specs (as a concept) were never really meant to be the kind of hardline expectation modern gamers use it for. This has only been made worse by gamers thinking 60FPS is the new bare minimum standard for "acceptable". Same with higher resolution. Compounding this is that game content is no longer static; which is the opposite of what you want when trying to optimize something. I've seen countless games through public testing phases gain and lose ground on performance, while also steadily multiplying assets, expanding and adding new system mechanics, and having to somehow do all of that while supposedly still fitting into a "recommended spec". Frankly there is limit of how far you can push a given recommended spec. And now that some online games are so old, that players are DEMANDING engine overhauls to overcome known limitations, it should not shock anyone that the recommended/min specs might justify reassessment. Which leads to the real question that your statement should raising..... Should they bother giving Specs, if its going to be treated like a "fixed space" the whole game will forever be beholden to? Or perhaps having to change release models for games that forces them to Fork at major system changes, so that a previously stated spec can be supported forever. If I was being spiteful, I would say we go with lowest common denominator of the lowest spec'd, reasonably popular game console. That way, all games can be trusted to work for the largest number of people. If your system is overspec'd and doesn't get utilized.... well that your fault for over-specing.

I played in min settings with a 1050Ti. got between 12 and 23 FPS stuttery mess xD Now I can get 25 FPS in Ultra + RT Overdrive with my 6950XT

You can roll back any games on steam. Unfortunately you do have to run command lines.

With that said, CDPR to the best of my knowledge never actually publicly stated that rollback to the old Witcher's version is possible. Most of the users stumbled upon that option by happenstance, originally.

Meta Quest: *sips* "... interesting"

I distintly remember, back in the day that happening with counter strike source, after an update my core2duo couldn't cut it anymore, so I stopped playing

@@X862go didn't buy it on steam....

Yeah but at the same time the game runs considerably worse after each update for no good reason

also minecraft minimum or recommended specs are complete bullshit anyways i have quiete a decent pc but on a renderdistance that i find apealing it can dip below 60fps with a lot of big farms and entities floating around with the specs that are "recommended" i guess you would have a slide show with at most 10 fps in a late game world in a busy area

Important to note this is exclusive to minecraft java, minecraft bedrock edition did legitimate permanemt damage to my nintendo switches hardware

@@Fripplingakarhano How did bedrock damage a switch?

@@nitram1737 That just means you're playing beyond the recommended specs. Recommended does not mean you can just put every settings into ultra and expect it to run smoothly.

when ts4 shifted from opengl to metal on macos, they did the same thing

Doesn't 32 bit have limited ram? Might make sense that with all the dlcs and stuff that the limit would get reached

@@rileyneyman9789 32-bit applications can only address 4GB of RAM, so, yeah, that was likely a factor.

​@@monkeywithocdMy GF has all the DLCs and could understand how they needed to up the specs. EA just bloated that game's content, kinda surprised how stable it runs despite all those DLCs runninf into one another.

@@monkeywithocd Not that hard to get around that, for example using subprocesses. So the real factor here is not wanting to pay developers to support something virtually nobody uses.

I think you can play older versions of games but it's alot more complicated from what I know.

@@assemblmancer on steam you have to jump through many hoops just to get the same result

It's easy on Steam as well, but it depends if the publisher allows older updates. Open your Library → Select Game →Settings → Properties →Game Version (or Beta smth) and select allowed versions.

​@@dairiskuznecovs7233Clicking 4 times isn't hoops

@@FosFate Not every game supports that. Basically the developer actually needs to enable it and select what versions they want you to be able to download manually... ...and needless to say, not all of them do it (nor even want you to play older versions in the first place... 'Cause why should you be able to use a product you paid for without unsolicited and forced modifications from the seller? )

That happened literally one day after I started playing CS:GO, I downloaded it one day, played it, then the next day it updated and just would not run above 20 fps

@@abdullah-_-. I feel you. Most frustrating thing in years

I can imagine how much old computers could ended up in e-waste bin after this, because the majority of CSGO players are still using 5-6 year old hardware

CS:GO is a game as service, just like an MMO

I mean… you were due a helluva an upgrade by now.

Anything beyond min-spec is almost always completely unrepresentative of the actual experience.

@@SolidSt8Dj I mean sure somewhat but the jump from "Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD Ryzen 3 3200G" to "Core i7-12700 or Ryzen 7 7800X3D" is so massive and if they are of by a little bit it still would be a huge difference. I would love to see what they did to justify this big of a jump.

@@DelgaDude I think you're still underestimating it, but we'll know when it comes out.

@@DelgaDude The 4790K struggles on the base game anyways. The game destroys old quad cores.

I doubt you actually need anything that insane. This is probably CDPR over-correcting for their questionable "recommended" launch requirements

Exactly, the game hasn't released yet and everything in it was subject to change always

Witcher 3 ran decently on my sisters Q9500, 8GB DDR3, GTX 1050 system back in 2017. I'm not sure if the next gen patch would even start on that anymore

@@LeisureDrawer Don't lie like that bro. TW3 launched in a very poor state and got much better after updates. We were there to see the bad performance that it had at launch.

Sounds like BS anyways, CPU requirement should lessen as you further up resolution lol

@@sack8439 Not if you do software rendering

​​​​@@sack8439codebases nowadays are so bloated that programmers singlehandedly gaslight manufacturers into making faster and faster hardware, unknowingly producing so much e-waste because consumers are clueless to this highly vicious cycle and not question it all. and if you're going to say oh well these games are so advanced that there's no way they can optimize it any further, well they clearly haven't seen terry a. davis' work named templeOS, where he made his own programming language, bootloader, kernel, window manager, 3d graphics library and a handful of games, bundled into one OS, that has its source clocking in at a 100k lines of code in 1.4mb of space without any external help from multiples or even hundreds of co-programmers all whilst suffering schizophrenia.

@@sack8439 Only if your fps is getting hard bottlenecked by gpu. CPU requirement for the same FPS will not drop. Even then though, I'm not sure why we're bringing up resolution, because they never said they were doing it because they were adding more high resolution stuff.

@@Junebug89 Do you even hear yourself? Its a pretty common knowledge that the higher resolution you go, the less impact it has on the CPU and more on the GPU. Only in RT with higher res you should see these requirements, but not in raster. Ask these youtubers themselves, and they will agree.

Considering a save file is like almost 500mb from what I remember, yea - An SSD was required before if you didn't have hours to sit around and load after dying haha

Yeah, it honestly reminds me of World of Tanks "back in the day" (funny they mentioned it), because early on the game was optimized to run on the absolute potatoes that the average Russian citizen had in their living room, worse than the potatoes of most other countries. Problem is that they did it at the expense of more modern systems, so one thing the game did back then was load effects from the disk as needed. This after SSDs hit the market, but they were still overpriced and far from mainstream, so anyone with an HDD would have a sudden split-second freeze when the effect played, as the drive struggled to read the data. For ultra-low-spec machines this was good as it freed up RAM and VRAM, and the effect wasnt as big anyway. But the fact it would do this on high-end machines, too, was infuriating, the RAM was there, the VRAM, too, but the HDD put a big stop sign in the way of rendering every time something exploded. Only people with SSDs were safe from these stutters until they patched in some better optimization....after a few years.

Games don't update specs because they are meant to improve performance through patches not make it so unless you have a 6k dollar pc you won't get 60 fps at 1080p with rt on lol. They are a fucking embarrassment. 4090 soft requirement for 60 fps gaming cool story you must be big fans of the devs who made the star wars game

@@slayerr4365 90% of the time patches add features. More features means more computing power is needed. Plain and simple. The only times performance is on a devs radar is if there are driver issues causing actual problems.

​@@thepatrikperspectivethey literally spent years optimising the game before this change . There's a point you need more to do more like in Fortnite using ue5

In this case i dont think its the same, cp2077 already ran like a dumpster fire at their stated minimums, this is likely just bringing the min specs more in line with reality. Min specs should be whats needed for a playable game at 30fps on low settings and it wasn't adequate for that.

and it must run on 1050ti

afaik they also mentioned that people who could play before should still be able to do so on the new engine even if they no longer reach the new specs.

Yeah, the autosave system was on a 5 min interval and caused HUGE lag spikes on spinning rust installs... not to mention all the streaming asset issues with HDDs.

I'm not sure if this was an HDD issue, but if I drove too fast, the city would empty out because my laptop couldn't load the crowds and cars fast enough. I had to stop and wait for the city to load around me. I'm playing on the bare minimum requirements.

I had Tposes and textures not loading when i played on HDD and the moment i switched to SSD the game feels much smoother

or minecraft, which has gone from "run in a browser" to ray tracing

That is why I was a little annoyed about someone pointing out satisfactory. It is an early access game that literally migrated to unreal engine 5 and implemented a ton of features that need slightly newer hardware to support. A big source of it was because they are deprecating directx 11 support because they're already supporting 12 and vulkan and 11 only cards are a very small minority, so dedicating extra dev time to it is pointless. Furthermore, their previous minimum specs were laughably low for what is a very cpu intensive game

​@@zzzzzzzzzzzspaf Ray Tracing doesn't exist in the original game, it was brought up by mods. But anyway, all of this is very dishonest, and it's certainly the same for Cyberpunk 2077 here, because Minecraft looked and was garbage compare to what it is now. Wanna come back on the beta or even alpha where pistons didn't exist? The cave update for example brought terrains and caves so big in the game, something old players would've dreamed of, that it's only but logic that the game would be even slightly more hungry. But again, if you don't want your minimum specs to go up at any cost, don't upgrade and have the latest versions and features. You can't have everything at the same time: either you upgrade but have to give more resources, like when you install any mod, or you don't upgrade and you can have the same minimum specs.

And Cyberpunk is Early Access

Or buy multiple super cheap ssds for less than the price of the base game. In this case, the price argument really isn't there.

@@SolidSt8Dj yeah you’re right there too

Just buy new storage for the game you already bought and could play. Also, the game is gonna take up half, so buy another 100 of them.

Actually just bought a 2TB 980Pro for like $80 at Best Buy. They are super inexpensive nowadays. I can't even imagine playing a modern game on a HDD

@@TNTspaz Most games run fine off hard drive. Their "slowness" is exaggerated.

Also cyberpunk devs (3080 rec gpu... 1 line down 12gb rec vram) But the 3080 has 10gb vram chief.... Makes me think a 12 year old looking at pc parts on amazon just picked random stats and put them on a page... 12900 650 dollar cpu for 1080p 30 fps rt gaming btw 😆😆😆Oh god I love 2023 for gaming sooo much

@@slayerr4365The 3080 has both a 10GB and 12GB version.

One Dev that was interviewed on Moores law is Dead said NVIDIA used to talk to games Devs about VRAM requirements etc.. He said that they haven't heard from NVidia for close to 3 years.

@@thehopperhopes6365 if this continues il ditch nvidia for my next GPU upgrade

Me too... but back then you had the CD release and then one, maybe two downloadable updates, mainly bug fixes. Nowadays popular games get years of support and updates tuned more into small expansions. And yea, after 3-5 years a visual update and higher system specs is nothing special.

I mean. At a certain point. The only way to improve performance is to just get better hardware

@@TNTspaz Yup. You can only optimize 100+ peoples' code so much. Eventually you just need more juice.

Bro what do you really expect? They game is literally being reworked from the inside out along with a massive expansion, plus path tracing. Do you really expect this to run on a potato PC? at some point just upgrade your damn PC.

And most important of all: fix bugs.

Old Minecraft versions run fine even on hardware from 2002

At least for the big engine version change, they added a beta channel, where you can stay on the version before it,so that the mod tools can be updated without to mich stress.

Considering they managed to support hard drives for as long as they did, I highly highly doubt it would be necessary. And arguably, with how new the tech is, it might actually cause more issues than problems it solves.

Honestly the loading times for cyberpunk are so optimised they are practically non existant anyways, to load a game or fast travel in its 3 seconds average with my 970 Pro SSD. And there are no loading screens for walking indoors

would be neat if directstorage was on fucking windows 10

@@genericscottishchannel1603it is

@@CameronAB122 windows gamebar tells me otherwise

I mean. That's why most people play with Fabric nowadays. It was literally designed to enchance vanilla Minecraft and allows you to get some of that multiple core benefit. Realistically though. The game will never have full multicore functionality unless they redesigned it from the ground up. Which was the point of bedrock and why there are so many differences between bedrock and java Minecraft. Bedrock is built fundamentally differently than Java.

I have both an i7-4700MQ laptop and i7-12700K. The game can stutter anyways when loading chunks for both chips. Crysis 1 from 2007 runs better.

Noice. Do they add more romanceable characters in the game too?

Recommended cpu for 1080p 60 rt settings is a i9 12900k and it's going to run on any console? 😆This isn't about building the game up or nothing this is an optimisation skip by setting the bar so high for what is needed they can try to negate all backlash about bad performance from their optimisation skipping. Just another scum dog lazy developer who doesn't want to do his job but release full price content. Yep it's 2023 alright.

@@slayerr4365 The best games need the best hardware.

@@basshead. A ssd has absolutely no performance difference on a game. If you can't make a game run on a hard drive you have no business making games lol. Then again the second I read 12900k for 1080p 30 fps low rt I already had my answer that these people can't make a game. Then again in 2023 I am really struggling to find a developer who can make a game anymore.. Dark days for gamers.

@@slayerr4365 Starfield requires an SSD too and It will be a GOTY.

you can choose older versions of games on steam too, its just a LOT less user friendly, kind of hidden even, and you can only choose from versions that devs allow you to choose from, which means for most games it is the latest version and nothing else

I expect for steam, they'll add the current patch as a "classic" version under betas.

Pretty sure GoG Galaxy lets you hook your Steam stuff in, so games *they* support can be downpatched.

Witcher 3 has a classic option, so I guess this might have too

On Steam it's possible too, just a bit more work. I know that, because i had to downgrade to an older Skyrim version for my mods and there was a special downgrade tool, which i assume will be available for CP2077 too

I can get a WD Black 5TB for $10 cheaper than a 1TB m.2 (WD Black as well at $130). The issue has nothing to do with price, it has to do with how big games are getting and the read write speeds of the drives themselves. Yeah, you "can" get a cheap drive, but you'll likely need more than one or worse you'll have to replace it rather soon. I'm only using WD Black as an example because they are readily available and usually brand new (rather than refurbished or some other trash, happened to me with Seagate, they claimed it was "new" but the packaging clearly wasn't).

​@@mitrikgaduk347you obviously don't understand how fast a m.2 is lol. So your opinion is irrelevant

@@mitrikgaduk347 lmao you sound like you never used an SSD before. I would rather get a Chinese 256GB without DRAM than that 5TB brick. Also if you are paying 130usd for a 1TB ssds you are getting ripped off. You can get almost 3 TB for that money. DRAM-less SSDs are excellent as game drives and they are cheap. Oh and BTW you reek as a WD shill (no offense). Just so you know, WD in the SSD space is kinda meh. They rarely stand out in price and their high end is outperformed by everyone else. So I suggest trying something new.

@Neoand12 A very painful choice at that.

In case of latest Witcher 3 update. Developers added old 1.32 version as public steam beta, so anyone can switch to it if they don't like next-gen edition. I think, it will be the same with Cyberpunk.

Steam kinda has this, but the devs need to do it on their own.

@@ninele7 Hopefully

True, I can still play old versions of Minecraft just fine even on an Athlon XP 2400+ with a GeForce4 MX440

I have a 4 tb and 8 tb hdd for bulk game storage...

And this comes with them porting the game over to Unreal 5

Eh running a game at minimum spec isn't enjoyable anyway.

@@ravenovatechnologies6554 exactly, that's my point, before this update I was above the minimum requirements after the update I'm below them.

Grow a beard then shave it

Cocaine jk

Weight lose

I think he shaved.

@@robert4445let’s go!!! 😊

I think technically No Man's Sky did it first and better. NMS was a single player game at first with "multi-player" features. It got updated to have multi-player later on.

@@LeOneToyota True

Terraria, unless we are looking at the short time frame

A devlopment build of Terraria was fully leaked to the public in 2011. ReLogic was forced to release the game earlier than they wanted because they were worried about the potential consequences of the leaked version (people copying their game, losing sales, drama with private testers, etc.) The game wasn't bad at launch at all, but the devs openly stated they did not like releasing Terraria in the state they did and that the 1.1 update would have been the launch version of the game, had things not gone south.

AC Unity, Marvels Avengers, Fallout 76, Battlefield 4, Battlefield 5, Fallout 76, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, No Mans Sky, Battlefield 2042, etc

I'm guessing it will run about the same, that is to say poorly. Raising the min specs is for reasons as you say, they are giving up on supporting that minimum threshold.

I dont think games should limit themself for the consumer, I will riot if a product I purchased stops working because the store I bought it at demands I am up to date and the devs decided to leave me behind.

Why not implement ramdisk fallback techniques for hdd users?

I think modern games available on console should require people to have a PC with at least performance similar to a console. Consoles gets new generations every couple of years, PC should be expected to be renewed on the same relative time. I hate people who complain their old computers can't run new versions of games, the world won't stop because they choose to. Get a moove on

​@feelinghealing3890 i mean that's pretty much the case for a lot of things. It's to be expected at this point. Either you buy cheap and expect to buy a newer product in the future. Or buy something expensive and expect it to last a long time, but that only works if the new cheap thing is better then your old expensive one. Depending of the product it could be decades or couple of years, it's called obsolescence... Also an other thing, if a game updates for free aren't you glad? They might as well re-release the game and make you pay again, that's what's happened with a lot of software before they all went subscription based, releasing a updated version of a software for full price.

@@bablela26 "game updates for free aren't you glad? " I had to rebuild my entire list of mods for games that have not had a content update for 5+ years too many times to be able to be happy about ANY update at this point. Do note, no content update for 5+ years most times includes that new update that broke the mods I had, made by authors who have moved on. Games with no beta branches that allow rolling back.

While that doesn't mean you'll no longer be able to run the game at playable framerates, it might be worth seeing what kind of benchmark numbers the new dlc gets before you buy.

@@outbackshaqYT Unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick somewhere, Patch 1.7 will also be pushing the minimum requirements up, not just the Phantom Liberty DLC.

@@andrewcarter9649 That is correct, most of the content in 1.7 does NOT require the Expansion Pack and is actually free

@@andrewcarter9649 bummer, I suppose we'll see what kind of effects it has on gameplay performance

I'm a tier below you. 4690k. No hyper-threading for me! I'm used to being a gaming peasant though. I'm sure it will be fine. It will be playable and fun, just don't look at the comments. Good advise in general TBH.

What, I can barely find a 1tb sata for £90

@@A_Chocolate_Cookie I dunno what the situation is in Europe but there’s lots of SATA SSDs for 2tb under $90, provided you don’t mind the lack of dram which for a SATA drive isn’t a big loss The SSDs you’re looking at may have dram which is why they’re £90 for 1TB. Dram increases the cost a lot

i didn't have an ssd untill 2020, now i have one but it's still only 120 GB ssd for windows boot

@@cupboard_ why tho… Nowadays a 1TB stat SSD is £35 and a lesser 1TB NVMe drive is £40 I paid twice that for half the capacity in 2019

@@commanderoof4578$35 is still too much just to have faster load times (if even my pc could load games faster lol)

@@cupboard_ well the prices have gone down while inflation has gone up Here in the UK if the price changed with inflation they would be £50 and £55 not £35 and £40 for the sata vs lesser NVMe 1TB SSD’s I payed £250 a piece for my 2TB drives £500 in total and still use them today and they have been in raid 0 the whole time I will continue to use them for at least another decade as i can use then as large external drives should i upgrade my internal ones But trust me even getting a £20 500GB/512GB SSD as a side drive which you occasionally stick a game on [as long as its not Dramless] is night and day And by swap games i mean move them between spinning rust and the SSD because unless you have 1gbps or better internet its faster to move games from rust to SSD and vice versa than it is to download fresh

?

You mean aside from the cost of having to find and pay someone else to install it for you because you're not an enthusiest PC builder, you may not be confident in there own abilities to instal an SSD, and you pissed off the one PC guy you knew who happend to build you're rig in t he first place leaving you to rely on a PC repair shop to instal new hardware. I know it's super easy; I've done it myself and for my nephews computer a few months back ( 1 WD blue 2TB and WD Green 2TB both about 100 bucks). But, you'd be surprised how Lame your average layman is when it comes to even simple instructions, le alone installing new hardware. I mean, sure, rip that bandaid, but let's not dance around the fact that these games are getting Ridiculous with their requirements. You can NOT tell me that Call of Duty REQUIRING 100 GB of Space is because it's that good. No, it's the fault of poor optimization. Im not saying Cyberpunk isn't going to be worth it (Having played it myself, I expect that update to be pretty substantial which... Yeah, I could buy that coming from CDPR. But naw man, no way games like Battlefield or Call of Duty are even close to being well optimized enough.

@@dragon1130people like that typically just buy new computers. My fiancés dad literally throws entire rigs away and replaces them any time they start failing. I took one and he said it overheated and was outside warranty. The fan was just coated in dog hair. Completely working 5 year old pc

@@dragon1130 The requirements of some games are getting ridiculous, but the SSD is not part of that argument. The SSD has been standard fare for budget builds for almost a decade now. They aren't saying you need a $600 SSD, just an SSD in general. It's like complaining that they aren't optimizing for APUs and only list discrete graphics cards. It's apples and oranges.