Bioshock - System Specs Released

I forgot to post this one yesterday…the system reqs for Bioshock have been released:

Operating Systems:

• Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista

Minimum System Requirements:

• CPU: Pentium 4 2.4GHz Single Core processor
• System RAM: 1GB
• Video Card: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300 or better, excluding ATI X1550).
• Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
• Hard disc space: 8GB free space

Recommended System Requirements:

• CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo processor
• System RAM: 2GB
• Video card: DX9: Direct X 9.0c compliant video card with 512MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better). DX10: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 or better
• Sound Card: Sound Blaster¿ X-Fi™ series (Optimized for use with Creative Labs EAX ADVANCED HD 4.0 or EAX ADVANCED HD 5.0 compatible sound cards)

Important Note: Game requires Internet connection for activation.

More information.

Wow, games are just getting ridiculous. A gigabyte of RAM minimum?!

At least they are admitting it. Gothic 3 anyone?

Originally Posted by JDR13
Wow, games are just getting ridiculous. A gigabyte of RAM minimum?!

Or maybe your system is getting old I've had a GB of ram in my machines for a looong time - and in my current PC I have 2GB, which I consider standard today. You can get 2GB of ram for about $120 these days, so it's not really *that* insane to require it anymore..

- Kasper

Originally Posted by KasperFauerby
Or maybe your system is getting old I've had a GB of ram in my machines for a looong time - and in my current PC I have 2GB, which I consider standard today. You can get 2GB of ram for about $120 these days, so it's not really *that* insane to require it anymore..

- Kasper

Not hardly. I'm packin 2 gig's of PC6400 to go along with my Core 2 E6700 and Radeon X1950XTX.

It's not really the average requirements of games right now that's insane, it's how fast they're ramping up.

DEAR GOD!!! look at the reccomended requirements

Yep, about the same as Gothic 3!!

yep, that's why I'm trying not to get too excited about all these new titles off in the distance, because chances are I'll have to pretty much buy at the bare minimum a new state of the art card and at the most a new rig to enjoy them!

Christ on a bike. It's system specs like that and of pretty much all major release games these days that just kill any interest I have in playing them. I'd love to have a high end computer but realistically it's just not a priority. It's not even a matter of being able to afford it or not, it's that right now I find it absurd to spend $1500 to get a new computer to play video games, that in all likelihood, will disappoint me.
The other matter too, is that I firmly believe you don't *need* system requirements like those to make a good game.

Bah!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Yep, about the same as Gothic 3!!

eh, no…

G3's systems specs are these (recommended)

Intel Pentium 4 3 Ghz or equivalent, 256 MB Nvidia 6800 card or better.

The recommended system specs for Bioshock are Intel Core Duo,
512 MB 1700 GT Nvidia (or better card).

If PC games continue to do this, raise the bar every 2-2½ years, then pc gaming will be dead in 5-10 years, since people will play games on the consoles, because a console's life is about 5-6 years, while a pc's life is about 2-3 years.

And not all people can afford to upgrade their every year…

I don't like this horror-like game (despite it's precessors and its outlook), and I don't like games that need 8 GB on my HD. And I furthermore don't like games that need Internet Activation.

I don't think I'll buy it.

The point why I don't like Internet Activation (IA) most, is, that a company might gone in 10 years - with the result that I can't play my game anymore.
(And don't tell me 10 years are impossible - I'm still using Win98SE, and I'm still buying older games !)

Originally Posted by aries100
If PC games continue to do this, raise the bar every 2-2½ years, then pc gaming will be dead in 5-10 years, since people will play games on the consoles, because a console's life is about 5-6 years, while a pc's life is about 2-3 years.

And not all people can afford to upgrade their every year…

I'm thinking of taking whatever upgrade money I decide to make available and buying a console instead. Then in a few years I'll get a "new" computer, something that would be top of the line now but in 2-3 years will be quite cheap.

The life span of a PC is much longer than 2-3 years, but not if you use it only for playing the latest games. My machine is about 4 years old now and for the most part serves me perfectly well. And yes, if people are spending the money on PCs just to game, they will be better off buying consoles which are cheaper than a new PC.

well, I find comfort in knowing that there is a backlog of more pc titles than I could ever realistically play, and that I own prolly more than I could probably play anyway.

Unless I was txa or jemy or something ='.'=

i built my computer almost exactly 4 years ago and although i'm on my 3rd video card which i bought a few months ago (has a lousy 5200 for the first 2 years) theres not a game i can't play with at least medium settings and most games high. even games that list the required processor slightly higher than my p4 2.4. but thankfully i meet the minimum in this case i'd like to hit the 5 year or even 6 year mark if possible.

what's with the activation requirement?

First thought:

Yeah! The new system I had custom built 6 months ago (just barely) meets the recommended specs.

Second thought:

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Important Note: Game requires Internet connection for activation.

They better put a big, fat sticker on the box that says that. One that glows brighter than a little sister's eyes.

I think complaining about needing network connections is a bit silly, but I'm a hypocrit and complain all the same. My home dev/gaming systems are all secure — no network connections allowed. Part of the joy of doing security work. If a network connection is required, I'll be skipping this one.

Now I'm kinda happy that Ken keeps chanting, "It's not an RPG! It's an FPS! It's an FPS!" and otherwise trying to convince me that the only thing I'll be able to do in the game is shoot stuff. "Dialog? Story? Who cares! We have flaming teddy bears! Ooh, look at that nurse's head explode in a fountain of blood!"

Lets see, Internet activation, high system specs, and it's not an RPG.

Welp, job well done, they've completely UNSOLD me . . . Next

apparently we should start a complain about bioshock thread since the complaint level is reaching the levels of oblivion…and that game was at least released!

A dedicated complaint thread? That seems redundant. The only response we have to new RPGs anymore is that of complaining. I've noticed that a lot recently — that we're all becoming overwhelmingly cynical towards new releases… Or at least I am, and I love to overgeneralize and make sweeping statements, so everyone else must be as well.

It's only a shooter
I think i'll pass and co for something a bit more absorbing and not quite as hardware demanding such as… The Witcher.