Xenonauts 2 - System Requirements

GamePressure speculates on what Xenonauts 2s system requirements might mean, as stated on the Steam page.

The game card of the Xenonauts 2 strategy by the independent studio Goldhawk Interactive appeared on the Steam. The game should run on computers that have their days of glory long past, but there's also one surprise.

Xenonauts 2 - minimum system requirements:

1. Processor: i5-4690 (or similar)
2. RAM: 4 GB
3. GPU: GTX 770 (or similar)
4. DirectX: 12
5. Disk space: 20 GB
6. OS: Windows 10

Xenonauts 2 - recommended system requirements:

1. Processor: i5-7600 (or similar)
2. RAM: 8 GB
3. GPU: GTX 970 (or similar)
4. DirectX: 12
5. Disk space: 20 GB
6. OS: Windows 10

[…]

Thanks porcozaur!

More information.

Those requirements are either a list some retard made or the game is optimized like AC Black Flag (read: not optimized at all).

Based on those requirements, Xenonauts 3 will require i9 and only a RTX capable card.

Really Win 10 and DX12 for game that looks like a slight visual upgrade from the first game? Have to say I'm with Joxer and think these are still just placeholders.

Otherwise the optimization is terrible.

If this actually does require windows ten, then I guess I won't be buying or playing it anytime soon. Haven't made that jump yet myself, still clinging desperately to my long time friend windows seven!

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Really Win 10 and DX12 for game that looks like a slight visual upgrade from the first game? Have to say I'm with Joxer and think these are still just placeholders.

Otherwise the optimization is terrible.

I was complaining about it on Kickstarter during the Summer, but another supporter said it is probably because of alpha. NOW .. but now WTH is happening? With the engine speed?

I have not played this during the alpha or anything but based on screenshots it looks quite a lot better than the first one in terms of graphics.

However, there is something definitely wrong with these requirements. The witcher 3 has less than those. Hopefully these are not real.

This is a general comment not particularly related to this game or developer, but system requirements by indie developers are more becoming over the top.

Is this a reflection of their incompetence (as others have said in this case, Witcher 3 requirements are lower than this and it is not a looker!)?

Or is it deliberate and the game size is blown out of proportion by increasing graphic resolution (so that they can cram hundreds of confusing buttons on the UI), unnecessary animations .. etc.?

Or is it the plague that is called Unity?

It is also very funny when sometimes seeing a game only few hundreds of MBs in size requiring 6 - 8GB of RAM minimum?

I think you have to make a clear distinction here.

Windows 10 and DX12 are just something which makes it easier to ensure that the game is actually compatible. Maybe they could have gone a little bit below that, but from my understanding 32 bit and 64 bit aren't really interchangable. If you make a game for 64 bit machines, it will not run on 32 bit machines as it has a different thread handling.

The CPU and GPU requirements? Well…yeah…pretty much over the top.

I have to agree with others here, if it's win 10 then it will be a long time before I play.

Originally Posted by Carnifex
If this actually does require windows ten, then I guess I won't be buying or playing it anytime soon. Haven't made that jump yet myself, still clinging desperately to my long time friend windows seven!

why ?

what is keeping you from going to 10, i just dont understand why people are sticking to 7.

I get it, windows 7 was nice. But it's time to move along. Patches are not going to be around much longer.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Windows 10 and DX12 are just something which makes it easier to ensure that the game is actually compatible. Maybe they could have gone a little bit below that, but from my understanding 32 bit and 64 bit aren't really interchangable. If you make a game for 64 bit machines, it will not run on 32 bit machines as it has a different thread handling.

The limitation that makes games move towards requiring 64-bit is that a 32-bit Windows process can only use a maximum of 2GB RAM. (Or 3GB if you adjust some kernel settings, but no game dev would ask users to do that…)

But I'm wondering why you brought up 32-bit vs 64-bit to begin with, since the system requirements here didn't say 64-bit? Although with a "recommended" RAM size of 8GB, I guess it may be safe to assume it will be 64-bit only.

Originally Posted by Cacheperl
I get it, windows 7 was nice. But it's time to move along. Patches are not going to be around much longer.

Yeah, Windows 7 is done. Technically it's supported until the end of this year, but if you're a gamer you should have moved over already - for DX12 support, if nothing else.

While the requirements don't mention 64 bit specifically, there is practically no Win 10 with 32 bit used (<0.5%)

And you are right about the memory being the reason for 64 bit.
The multiple threads thing is actually the reason for not supporting DX9.
Why they went up to DX12 however - no idea.

32-bit OSes are dead for gaming regardless, as NVIDIA and AMD both dropped support for 32-bit Windows last year in their drivers.

btw, some steam stats from december 2018:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

88.28% of GPUs supporting DX12
66.54% of PCs using Win 10 (64 bit) (and 27.21% using win 7, which as you might remember will be stopped being supported by MS by January 2020, so assuming Xenonauts is being released later this year or even next year, there isn't much of a point)
93.74% have 4 Gig of RAM

But yea…about the CPU and GPU power….that doesnt make much sense to me.

For once I don't see why it needs to use that kind of hardware, and on the other side, you are cutting off a lot of players doing so. I didn't add up the percentages though due to being lazy.

For the CPUs: 30% of all windows users use less than 4 cores.
So they are all cut off by default. And there is a whopping 57% of people using just 4 cores. Having a somewhat strong 4 core CPU as requirement, will also cut out a big chunk of that (like all the 2500k CPUs which are probably still around).
Not to mention all the CPUs with more cores which are older as well.

I just think windows ten looks ugly as all heck, and I'm also concerned with having problems with the actual installation. I've really never been a huge fan of change, but I know I'll have to get it done soonish.

Originally Posted by Cacheperl
I get it, windows 7 was nice. But it's time to move along. Patches are not going to be around much longer.

I would but Win 10 eventually crashes or becomes corrupt easily.

Not kidding as I had to re-install over 10 times in the last few years.

So I went with a WIN 7 backup no crashes or corruption in over six months.

Originally Posted by Carnifex
I just think windows ten looks ugly as all heck, and I'm also concerned with having problems with the actual installation. I've really never been a huge fan of change, but I know I'll have to get it done soonish.

For the most part you can make it look exactly like Windows 7 or even Windows 95.
I mean first thing I do on every PC is actually unpin everything on the taskbar, remove cortana and the friends stuff and add a new good old quickstart menu, including a link to get to the Workplace. I also remove these effects for resizing Windows as thats just annoying.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I would but Win 10 eventually crashes or becomes corrupt easily.

Not kidding as I had to re-install over 10 times in the last few years.

So I went with a WIN 7 backup no crashes or corruption in over six months.

I never had that and I am using it almost from the start on 2 PCs. However I think I came across some issues with the initial installs in a few cases.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
I never had that and I am using it almost from the start on 2 PCs. However I think I came across some issues with the initial installs in a few cases.

The automatic patching fails to complete sometimes & the system wont load up. You get the blue repair screen and if you bypass it the corrupt missing file message.

Happened once or twice a year since I first got my copy of Win 10. Lately though I'm enjoying the LTSB version without the bloatware. It lacks the App store though.

I switched to windows 10 this summer and have not had a blue screen once. However, my mom test windows 10 machine lost boot image 5th time she tried to use it. No clue what she did or if it was a bad patch update; but she made me restore windows 7