Titanfall 2 PC reqs

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/48836/20160924/titanfall-2-latest-news-update-pc-system-requirements-unveiled-4k-options-and-other-criteria-for-smooth-gameplay.htm

 

Quote

Now for the specs that "Titanfall 2" wants from the gamers, 64-bit Windows 7 to 10 are good to go. Rig processor should be Intel Core i5-6000 or any of its equivalent, according to PC Gamer. Gamers will then need Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB or AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB although 2GB versions of these can run at noticeable lag. Also,16GB memory is needed although reports said that half of this capacity will accommodate as well.

 

...

 

Meanwhile, here is another tip for those who wants better graphics. "Titanfall 2" is 4K capable at 60 FPS to maximum of 144 FPS. Sounds good, right? Gamers needs Inter Core i7-6700k processor for this option to work though. All other requirements remain the same for 4K gameplay so no need to worry about the rest.

What segment of the gaming population can meet those specs at time of launch? My rig is decent - even a 1080 - but does it really need that much processor power?

[dafox]

Either these required specs are sponsored by intel or the games actual performance is still all over the shop and they don't know how it really will go yet.

[joker999]

Wow, so hungry power!  

[trag3dy]

Not even a gtx 970 or gtx 980 but a 1060? Well I had very little interest in this game anyways.

[+virtorio MVC]

The 970 seems to keep up with the 1060 fairly well. There's nothing about the game that's so remarkable that a 970 shouldn't be able to handle it (especially since it's on the PS4/XB1) unless it's a lousy port.

[spaceelf]

2 hours ago, Zagadka said:

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/48836/20160924/titanfall-2-latest-news-update-pc-system-requirements-unveiled-4k-options-and-other-criteria-for-smooth-gameplay.htm

 

What segment of the gaming population can meet those specs at time of launch? My rig is decent - even a 1080 - but does it really need that much processor power?

Good thing those are recommended and not minimum, heh.

 

Pretty damn easy to meet the minimum -

Quote

OS - Win 7/8/8.1/10 64bit

CPU - Intel Core i3-3600t or equivalent

RAM - 8GB

HDD Free Space - 45GB

GPU - NVIDIA Geforce GTX 660 2GB, AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB

DirectX - 11

Internet Connection - 512Kbps or faster

 

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Just going by min reqs has proven to be questionable with many games in the past... as in "technically, it runs"

[spaceelf]

39 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

Just going by min reqs has proven to be questionable with many games in the past... as in "technically, it runs"

Not here

http://www.pcgamer.com/titanfall-2s-very-detailed-system-requirements-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know/

Quote

Interestingly, producer Drew McCoy said you'll probably be able to run Titanfall 2 on an even lower-spec rig if you want to, although it may not play very well. “In the past minimum specs were literally the minimum bar to launch the game—your experience once in the game was probably not going to be ideal. Our goal for minimum PC specs on Titanfall 2 is that you can play at a 1600x900 resolution with most details turned on and average around 60fps,” he wrote. “We strongly believe that if you at least match the posted requirements you should have an excellent visual and gameplay experience playing the game, so don’t be alarmed if you boot it up and don’t need to turn all the settings to Low for playable framerates—our artists would actually like if you could see their work!"

 

[trag3dy]

Still doesn't really make me interested in the game. I might check it out after reviews and even then it will be a month or two after release to see if it actually manages to retain it's player base for longer than a month.

[spaceelf]

Considering the original still has a solid playerbase I don't think there's anything to worry about there, but whatever works for ya.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

2 hours ago, LostCat said:

Considering the original still has a solid playerbase I don't think there's anything to worry about there, but whatever works for ya.

In which universe? There is like 600 players world wide today, which puts it on par with Battleborn

 

Titanfall player numbers jumped off a cliff after the first month like trag3dy said.

[JustGeorge]

I think the hardware people are in cahoots with the software people!

 

[spaceelf]

3 hours ago, Andrew said:

In which universe? There is like 600 players world wide today, which puts it on par with Battleborn

 

Titanfall player numbers jumped off a cliff after the first month like trag3dy said.

In the universe that I can still jump in and load up a full game instantly without any screwing around.  I don't particularly care if there aren't a billion players.

[PGHammer]

On 9/25/2016 at 0:28 AM, Zagadka said:

http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/48836/20160924/titanfall-2-latest-news-update-pc-system-requirements-unveiled-4k-options-and-other-criteria-for-smooth-gameplay.htm

 

What segment of the gaming population can meet those specs at time of launch? My rig is decent - even a 1080 - but does it really need that much processor power?

Actually, I think it's a semi-deliberate overestimation, as the original Titanfall used the Valve Source engine - tweaked.  Do we know what engine T2 is using?

 

Not even the current version of the Frostbite engine (used by most EA studios) is that CPU-hungry; in fact, I have been able to play *every* Frostbite engine game out there on an Intel G3258 clocked dead-stock.  (No - I neither stuttered OR typoed.)

 

I can see where I would need more GPU (if the game requires DX12); however, that hasn't been made plain either.

[episode]

7 hours ago, trag3dy said:

Still doesn't really make me interested in the game. I might check it out after reviews and even then it will be a month or two after release to see if it actually manages to retain it's player base for longer than a month.

Why would recommended specs make you interested in the game?

[PGHammer]

On 9/25/2016 at 3:07 AM, Zagadka said:

Just going by min reqs has proven to be questionable with many games in the past... as in "technically, it runs"

Titanfall was overestimated (in terms of CPU requirements) at launch due to the estimation being based on early-beta code (pre-open-beta code, in fact).  I was in that beta with a Q6600 and AMD HD5450 (notebook GPU in PCI Express clothes) - medium LOD and 720p without a problem.  Swapping in a GTX550Ti let me move to 1080p and High LOD.  Neither was new - even then.  I can see the game requiring DX12, or even a GTX960 or AMD equivalent (cost of that is $150USD new, if that).

GTX1060 3GB *new* is $235USD on Amazon and $5USD less (not more) @ MicroCenter Fairfax VA; the same location has an OB for $183.96. (OB = Open Box)

 

Could they have gotten the estimate overly wrong - again?

[trag3dy]

1 hour ago, episode said:

Why would recommended specs make you interested in the game?

It's not so much the specs as it is just waiting to see how well optimized the game is for pc. Is it going to be the typical console port or are they going to put any effort into? Is it going to retain it's player base for longer than a month or not? Does it have a wider variety of weapons and maps than the first? Dlc and expansions?

 

And then there is the fact that despite it trying something new at the end of the day it's just another fps game and I tend to get so burnt out on those so easily now.

[episode]

7 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

It's not so much the specs as it is just waiting to see how well optimized the game is for pc. Is it going to be the typical console port or are they going to put any effort into? Is it going to retain it's player base for longer than a month or not? Does it have a wider variety of weapons and maps than the first? Dlc and expansions?

 

And then there is the fact that despite it trying something new at the end of the day it's just another fps game and I tend to get so burnt out on those so easily now.

Well, this is a thread that is discussing the requirements, which is why I questioned your response. 

[trag3dy]

4 minutes ago, episode said:

Well, this is a thread that is discussing the requirements, which is why I questioned your response. 

And at the time I made the post they didn't specify if they were the minimum or for the high end. They just said requirements. 

 

Not always, but sometimes, you can tell how well a game is optimized by their system requirements. And the requirements that were listed didn't add up to what I've seen from the game so far.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

2 hours ago, LostCat said:

In the universe that I can still jump in and load up a full game instantly without any screwing around.  I don't particularly care if there aren't a billion players.

And surely you can understand why someone is hesitant to purchase something with such low numbers, even more so with a game that flopped once already. 600 is a world wide number, not peak. It is likely considerably lower throughout time zones. So even if you can eventually join a game (I doubt instantly), it may involve very long waiting times. Plus who knows what quality of players are left, which impact your enjoyment of a game too.

 

Games with lots of multiplayer focus are obviously make or break on population numbers (again see Battleborn). With lots of big names coming out this Autumn / Winter that are all MP focused, someone has to lose out. My guess is BF1 and CoD will be safe.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

So I will be able to get 60FPS at 4K for a *new* title? This is going to be awesome.

[spaceelf]

 

29 minutes ago, Andrew said:

And surely you can understand why someone is hesitant to purchase something with such low numbers, even more so with a game that flopped once already. 600 is a world wide number, not peak. It is likely considerably lower throughout time zones. So even if you can eventually join a game (I doubt instantly), it may involve very long waiting times. Plus who knows what quality of players are left, which impact your enjoyment of a game too.

 

Games with lots of multiplayer focus are obviously make or break on population numbers (again see Battleborn). With lots of big names coming out this Autumn / Winter that are all MP focused, someone has to lose out. My guess is BF1 and CoD will be safe.

And yet it was instant, around a week ago.  I loaded up the game and pressed play and joined right in.  You're not expected to wait for a match to finish before joining it.

 

I can't really care about something that doesn't impact the gameplay experience in the slightest.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

47 minutes ago, LostCat said:

And yet it was instant, around a week ago.  I loaded up the game and pressed play and joined right in.  You're not expected to wait for a match to finish before joining it.

 

I can't really care about something that doesn't impact the gameplay experience in the slightest.

Low numbers doesn't impact a game? So half empty matches, which can often result in uneven (both in number and ranks), doesn't impact a game ?

[spaceelf]

14 minutes ago, Andrew said:

Low numbers doesn't impact a game? So half empty matches, which can often result in uneven (both in number and ranks), doesn't impact a game ?

I just loaded up and played for an hour without a problem.

 

You do have to remember there's a significant AI presence in this game (and no, they aren't as bad as they were in the original version...though they're still cannon fodder.)

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Just now, LostCat said:

I just loaded up and played for an hour without a problem.

 

You do have to remember there's a significant AI presence in this game (and no, they aren't as bad as they were in the original version...though they're still cannon fodder.)

I don't believe it is impossible, but having played games with a higher pop I know how long waiting times in matchmaking can be. But to go back to the original point trag3dy made, it's a sound reason to be wary of Titanfall 2, and given the beta feedback, it's already going to be an uphill struggle for them to some degree.