Wolfenstein: The New Order Requires 50GB HD Space, Core i7 CPU - Update

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Wolfenstein: The New Order Requires 50GB HD Space, Core i7 CPU - Update

Wolfenstein 17

Wolfenstein: The New Order may have some of the heftiest system requirements we've seen yet.

Update: Bethesda has updated the official system requirements page on its blog, stating that requirements "are based on the game being a next-gen experience running at 60fps. These are the system requirements to deliver the PC game as it was intended to be experienced." So, it looks like these are more recommended specs rather than minimum specs, and you'll probably be able to run the game with something less powerful than an i7.

Original Story: Planning on sinking your teeth into Wolfenstein: The New Order when it launches this month? Well, if you're a PC gamer, you had better have a beefy machine and an excess of hard disk space, as the official system requirements have the game have just been announced, and they are rather hefty. Gamers will need a minimum Core i7 CPU, and a whopping 50GB of free space. What you are now hearing is the sounds of millions of SSD users crying out in agony.

The rest of the required PC specs are a little more forgiving, asking for just a GeForce 460/Radeon 6850, 4GB RAM, and a 64-bit installation of Windows 7 or 8. "If your PC matches these requirements, then you're good to go!" says Bethesda.

As for console gamers, well, I'm afraid you guys had also best prepare your hard drives for Wolfenstein: The New Order. The PS4 and Xbox One versions will require a minimum of 8GB of hard drive space, and 47GB for a total install. The PS3 version, meanwhile, takes up 17GB as a download and 8GB for the disc version, whereas the Xbox 360 version will require an 8GB install and will ship on four discs.

While the massive install size is annoying, it seems to fast be coming the standard these days. What's really inexplicable is the Core i7 requirement - this is a game that runs on the PS3 and Xbox 360, which certainly have much slower processors than that.

Wolfenstein: The New Order will be released on May 20.

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

Well, that makes things simple. I just won't buy it.

I get that developers are trying to make bigger and better games, don't get me wrong. But their demands for hard drive space per game are getting ridiculously over-sized and grossly unreasonable. Hell, I remember thinking that the 25 GB demanded from me for Guild Wars 2 was arguably too much, and that was only 2 years ago (and it still doesn't actually take up 25 GB of space, either).

And why a Core i7? Didn't they optimize the game so that most of the graphics processing would take place on the GPU? That's the only reason I can think of, offhand, for needing more CPU power....and if that's the case, the devs aren't doing their jobs properly. >_>

Four disks!? I'm assuming nobody has gotten their hands on it yet to give a rough estimate on play time, right? Because when I hear "ship on four disks", I immediately think of 100+ hour JRPGs from the PS1.

Okay guys, *puts on programmer hat*. This is called resource bloat. When machines are capable of running the bloated version of the software, less and less time is spent on optimization.

In the case of this headline: broadband is expanding, and machines ship with TB drives like it's nothing. And because the game is primarily console, there's only a small slice of a small slice that are actually driven away. So nobody cares to get those file sizes down.

And *puts on project management hat* it's the right decision. It's very unlikely in the cost/benefit analysis that the extra effort is worth it.

Now, for the req specs: those numbers are just a catch-all C-Y-A. Put it up there so all complaints about it running slowly on low settings are "but you're running below minimum." Besides, someone is going to make a properly minimum-spec .ini / system analysis for you soon anyway. PC gamers love doing that.

MCerberus:
Besides, someone is going to make a properly minimum-spec .ini / system analysis for you soon anyway. PC gamers love doing that.

And that right there is why they continue to get away with it. I swear if it weren't for the rather amazing and impressive mod communities I've come across I'd not be able to be a gamer this gen, can't stand the Xbone and Playstation has decided us Canadians need a Rambone up the ass and pay an extra fee for the consoles AND for the new games, so fuck them too. But, that's grossly off topic.

OT; I recall another game recently announcing those specs, it was quickly argued that they're just poorly optimizing, just like was pointed out here, already. So, I'm just going to wait this one out, might not even bother with it because of its sheer size =/

It.Will.Not.Require.An.i7 CPU.
It WONT.It will run 1080p Ultra settings with AA on an i5 and it wont even need the full power of an i5.
Yes, I am 100% certain of that. No game ever made so far actually validated an i7. And Wolfenstein WONT be that game. Hell... I barely know games that validate the i5...
As for the rest of the requirements: They said that is for 1080p 60 fps. So yeah, those are pretty much above recommended. It will work just fine on lesser hardware.
Source:
http://www.bethblog.com/2014/05/01/system-requirements-for-wolfenstein/

The 50GB space though, no idea.

My reaction when they told me that COD Ghosts was 50 GB was that those in charge of storage management and compression were clearly on drugs. Apparently someone has sent over those drugs to Machine Games because 50 GB for a game like this seems absolutely ridiculous.

How does a game that looks this blotchy with muddy textures need so much space? Did they splurge on their animation budget instead? (because I'd actually be okay with a well animated game. Killzone 2 has muddy textures but the character animations are incredible)

What you are now hearing is the sounds of millions of SSD users crying out in agony.

Who installs games on an SSD? I thought the point was to get the smallest one possible and use it as a boot drive. Getting one large enough to hold more than a few games would cost about half as much as my entire PC and really wouldn't provide performance boost to justify the cost.

OT: yeaaaa I don't believe it. My i5 may be horrendously outdated but there is no way in hell it won't be enough for this game. Might not play it maxed out, but then again I only spent ~$1000 on my PC so I don't expect to play most games maxed out anyway.

As for the HDD space requirement, that seems to be the standard now. Either invest in a several terabyte drive or go indie because 25GB+ seems to be the standard for mainstream games now.

major_chaos:

What you are now hearing is the sounds of millions of SSD users crying out in agony.

Who installs games on an SSD? I thought the point was to get the smallest one possible and use it as a boot drive. Getting one large enough to hold more than a few games would cost about half as much as my entire PC and really wouldn't provide performance boost to justify the cost.

OT: yeaaaa I don't believe it. My i5 may be horrendously outdated but there is no way in hell it won't be enough for this game. Might not play it maxed out, but then again I only spent ~$1000 on my PC so I don't expect to play most games maxed out anyway.

As for the HDD space requirement, that seems to be the standard now. Either invest in a several terabyte drive or go indie because 25GB+ seems to be the standard for mainstream games now.

100% correct on the SSD
Also do NOT worry, the game will run maxed on your i5 provided the GPU is decent. No game released so far really had a reason to gor for an i7... and Wolfenstein WILL NOT be the one that gives us a reason.

major_chaos:

Who installs games on an SSD? I thought the point was to get the smallest one possible and use it as a boot drive. Getting one large enough to hold more than a few games would cost about half as much as my entire PC and really wouldn't provide performance boost to justify the cost.

I do :p I like the shorter loading speed it provides in games that require a lot of loading, or long loads. Like people complaining about Duke Nuken Forever (Yes yes I know not the best example, don't judge!) take forevert to load, it took nada time for me.

Charcharo:
It.Will.Not.Require.An.i7 CPU.
It WONT.It will run 1080p Ultra settings with AA on an i5 and it wont even need the full power of an i5.
Yes, I am 100% certain of that. No game ever made so far actually validated an i7. And Wolfenstein WONT be that game. Hell... I barely know games that validate the i5...
As for the rest of the requirements: They said that is for 1080p 60 fps. So yeah, those are pretty much above recommended. It will work just fine on lesser hardware.
Source:
http://www.bethblog.com/2014/05/01/system-requirements-for-wolfenstein/

The 50GB space though, no idea.

I bet it's just an advertisement from intel to move i7's. The same thing was with TW: Shogun 2.

For the last couple of years games listed i5's and quadcore Phenom II's as minimum, yet they all ran just fine @ 60+ fps on old Core 2 duo's.

It's Bethesda. They have had PC optimization woes since, well, since they started making PC games. So yeah the game will require more than what it should, even money says it will have the same stability issues as all of their games.

major_chaos:

What you are now hearing is the sounds of millions of SSD users crying out in agony.

Who installs games on an SSD? I thought the point was to get the smallest one possible and use it as a boot drive. Getting one large enough to hold more than a few games would cost about half as much as my entire PC and really wouldn't provide performance boost to justify the cost.

OT: yeaaaa I don't believe it. My i5 may be horrendously outdated but there is no way in hell it won't be enough for this game. Might not play it maxed out, but then again I only spent ~$1000 on my PC so I don't expect to play most games maxed out anyway.

As for the HDD space requirement, that seems to be the standard now. Either invest in a several terabyte drive or go indie because 25GB+ seems to be the standard for mainstream games now.

You're not serious, are you? Loading games off an SSD is considerably faster than loading them off a disk drive...

If you haven't tried loading games off your SSD you really should. It will change your life.

50gigs for a Single Player only game? Hopefully that means it's a long game, not just a pretty one.

getting real tired of all these new games requiring 50 GB of space, thats up to 5 times what a game last gen needed, sure technology advanced, but didnt so any kind of compression?

anyways i cant run it so theres no point arguing, gotta upgrade my machine soon

Well there goes any chance of me grabbing the game when it releases, I know I've still got to buy more and new RAM, an HDD that isn't energy saving (thanks ex roomie) and an SSD because I'm tired of having a newish slug of a desktop along with a new CPU because a 5-6 year old i7 isn't cutting it any more.

This means more saving and more having to wait just to meet a requirement of one friggin game, this is why I can't always be assed with current PC gaming, I don't like having to upgrade parts or playing forced catch up.

I'm not liking that the new generation is making developers lazy as shit when it comes to compression and optimization. Just look at CoD Ghosts and Titanfall for the prime examples of "It's Next-gen, therefore it's allowed even if it looks like a last-gen game!"

CriticKitten:
And why a Core i7? Didn't they optimize the game so that most of the graphics processing would take place on the GPU? That's the only reason I can think of, offhand, for needing more CPU power....and if that's the case, the devs aren't doing their jobs properly. >_>

Charcharo:
It.Will.Not.Require.An.i7 CPU.
It WONT.It will run 1080p Ultra settings with AA on an i5 and it wont even need the full power of an i5.
Yes, I am 100% certain of that. No game ever made so far actually validated an i7. And Wolfenstein WONT be that game. Hell... I barely know games that validate the i5...

there haven't been real processor type dependant games since MMX instructions first arrived on the early Pentiums...

to say suggest any game requires a specific type of processor...is load of crap nowadays really...

that said we should all kinda know that by now and should admit that basically its just a kind of shorthand that suggests "something as powerful as these ones in the news are...roughly...ish..." even if it is a fucking stupid way of putting it.

CriticKitten:
Didn't they optimize the game so that most of the graphics processing would take place on the GPU? That's the only reason I can think of, offhand, for needing more CPU power....and if that's the case, the devs aren't doing their jobs properly. >_>

Well besides bloat as others have stated before, there is could be AI, physics, and other simulations that could require more firepower in that department that isn't taken care of the GPU normally.

Bethesda also claimed that you needed a minmum of a GTX 460 to run Dishonoured. Numerous people have had that game running spiffingly on 8800GTX cards.

So, yeah, I'm willing to bet my PC (GTX 550 Ti, i5 2500k, 8GB RAM) would be able to run it fine on low settings. Though I'll probably be upgrading this year anyway.

Are there any AAA developers that give a shit about good code anymore?

Its getting beyond a joke.

Given the difference in size between the console and PC versions, presumably the only reason for the increase in drive space is higher resolution textures. I really don't see why anyone would consider this such a problem. Given how cheap storage space is (you can get 4TB for not much over 100, and probably $100 in the US considering how screwed we tend to get over here), storing them uncompressed usually makes much more sense than having to use the processing power to process them every time they're loaded. Far from being bloat or bad programming, it's pretty much the exact opposite.

So if you installed both Titanfall and New Order, and lets just say Ghosts as well, you basically used up 150GB for what is just three games (probably even more if you count in any huge updates). Pretty hectic if you think about it.

Thank goodness physical copies are still a thing if this is the direction PC gaming is heading into, my tiny 4 meg line isn't equipped to download such gargantuan sizes yet.

Charcharo:

The 50GB space though, no idea.

It's either going to be excessive cutscenes with someone speaking endless drivel [Max Payne 3], uncompress audio {titan falls] or high res textures for 4K gaming [COD:ghosts].

Sleekit:
there haven't been real processor type dependant games since MMX instructions first arrived on the early Pentiums...

Missing my point. The rest of the specs are much more tame, yet for some reason the game "demands" a processor that is rather high-leveled. Which, to me, says that someone did a shitty job optimizing and balancing the computer's workload across all of its components.

Boris Goodenough:
Well besides bloat as others have stated before, there is could be AI, physics, and other simulations that could require more firepower in that department that isn't taken care of the GPU normally.

But do you honestly believe that it's any of those things? Do keep in mind the company in question is Bethesda.

CriticKitten:
But do you honestly believe that it's any of those things? Do keep in mind the company in question is Bethesda.

Seeing as it requires a 64 bit OS, I would say the chances of them loading a lot into the RAM is very likely there will happen some more CPU bound stuff.
Although this might just be inflated beyond reason, or well Bethesda programming :p

No I don't need an i7 Bethesda..my i5 2500k at 4.5Ghz will do just fine thank you.

Also...is the game so big that they require 50gigs? Because I've been having some space issues. Guess I'll have to delete a few games to be able to install this game.

Another adorable attempt at trying to build graphics hype with imaginary system specs. It's Ghosts all over again, awwww Bethesda thinks they can just artificially inflate their requirements isn't that cute? If you game NEEDS an i7 then you've made your game wrong and you should have your toys taken away. Once again if they have released a bloated shit-on-deck port like Ghosts was there will be a community fix calling their 'requirements' bullshit by the end of the release week.

Adam Jensen:
50gigs for a Single Player only game? Hopefully that means it's a long game, not just a pretty one.

Prepare to be disappointed. It's a first person shooter, at best you're looking at 8-10 hours of gameplay.

wow. just like titanfall that also required 50gb. and i even downloaded it from origin but thank god the connection from origin is good and it was downloaded in 2 days. well, to me thats fast.
well, im still not 100% i will get this game. have to see how i feel about it once its out.

this reminds me.....*digs out wolfenstine 2009* mmm double enemy hit points make head shots more lethal and turn heavy troopers into big daddys HP wise at 150 HP a weak spot they take forever to kill, while tweaking the weapons and upgrades a bit. *evil grin* A shame the SDK did not come out for it but at least you can edit the script some.

To think I was actually excited for this game; 50GB is total bullshit. Especially since it's 8GB on last-gen, meaning that that's 42GB of extra-HD graphics (that a lot of low-end PC gamers aren't going to use anyway) and MAYBE some slightly more advanced AI.
I'm not one of those people who complains about length in relation to cost (hell, I got The Stanley Parable for 15 bucks and it's one of the best purchases I've ever made), but based on the fact that it's going to take up 50 gigs, this had better be a damn long game.

The 50Gig probably means that something somewhere has been left uncompressed al la, titanfalls sound.

Which most likely will be flaunted as "extra quality" but really means "We CBA to compress anything"

Hell, I would place money on the Witcher 3 not needing 50 gbs and that's going to be better graphically and in scope.

You know, with these increasingly ridiculous requirements for next-gen games, I think I will just stick to indie games on the PC.

Even if my i5 could run it no problem, the internet where I live sucks, and there's no way I will download 50GB on Steam. It would probably take a week.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here