Warp wrote:
>   Perhaps the idea is simply "yes, it will run on an older CPU, but in
> that case you will need a much faster GPU to compensate", and what they
> are listing is some kind of "average minimum" hardware settings to get
> the game running ok. However, it would still be nice if they were a bit
> more specific, especially about whether the game is 32-bit or not. And
> maybe give a few example "minimum" hardware assemblies which will run
> the game.

	My guess is that they're listing the minimum specs that they
_guarantee_. In other words, they didn't bother testing it with anything
lower.

	It's really the only explanation I can come up with - otherwise they're
needlessly limiting their market (unless they're in bed with the
hardware manufacturers).

-- 
Don't take life so seriously.  It won't last.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

news:4a2acc3f@news.povray.org...
>  I have noticed a curious pattern in many of the newest (and not even so
> new) games: They will often list as "minimum requirements" specs which are
> much higher than what would be sufficient to run the game. Especially this
> seems to be the case with the CPU.

I don't know about game makers, but I do list "higher than necessary minimum 
requirements specs" to customers because lots of Windows machines are filled 
with CPU-hogging, RAM-eating crapware (installed by the
computer maker or by the user) that completely nullify the actual minimum 
requirements. Machines that are well cared for would be fine with those 
specs, but that's not the case for the general population. After seeing some 
of my stuff crawl on other people's machines (where it should have run 
smoothly), raising the requirements a little bit was definitely a good 
practice, and I'm not even talking about games or CPU-intensive software, 
just simple office applications.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	My guess is that they're listing the minimum specs that they
> _guarantee_. In other words, they didn't bother testing it with anything
> lower.

I would imagine this is what it is too.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   As I understand it, "minimum system requirements" should mean "if you
> want this game to run and be playable at a decent frame rate, you should
> have at least this kind of system".

No, it basically translates to "this is the slowest thing on which we promise
this game to run anywhere close to playable - if you have a slower system and
experience problems, our support team will tell you to go fly a kite".

The reason for choosing a certain system as the minimum requirement may be
manifold: The game may actually have been observed to not run properly on
slower systems; or the game developer isn't expecting any member of the target
group to be running a slower system, and so didn't bother to do extensive
testing on any slower system.

Or, the game distributor may want to deliberately exaggerate the game's minimum
requirements, to reassure high-end gamers that the game is indeed laden with
cutting-edge graphics and effects, and not just lame old standard stuff.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Or, the game distributor may want to deliberately exaggerate the game's minimum
> requirements, to reassure high-end gamers that the game is indeed laden with
> cutting-edge graphics and effects, and not just lame old standard stuff.

Once upon a time, this seemed to be Microsoft's strategy. Every new 
product they realised required more and more hardware to run. Because if 
it requires more hardware to run, that's "better". Right?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> I don't know about game makers, but I do list "higher than necessary 
> minimum requirements specs" to customers because lots of Windows 
> machines are filled with CPU-hogging, RAM-eating crapware (installed by the
> computer maker or by the user) that completely nullify the actual 
> minimum requirements.

In a similar vein, I get a (nauseating) kick whenever a game manual 
suggest, "If you have problems, try turning off your antivirus!"

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> In a similar vein, I get a (nauseating) kick whenever a game manual 
> suggest, "If you have problems, try turning off your antivirus!"

Have you ever seen an AV program actually cause a problem with 
something? I've yet to see that one personally...

(With the possible exception of Norton Antivirus, which is annoying to 
the point of almost being adware itself.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Have you ever seen an AV program actually cause a problem with 
> something?

  Yes. I had some kind of problem between F-Secure and AQtime, which
made the latter sometimes behave erratically.

  After discussing about it with the AQtime developers, they fixed the
problem on their side.

  Besides, I suppose resident scanners can sometimes slow things down,
especially if they decide to scan the files the game is trying to read...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Have you ever seen an AV program actually cause a problem with 
> something? I've yet to see that one personally...

I once had an AV program pop up a box asking if I really wanted to install 
something, and by the time I answered the program had decided something had 
timed out and failed out.

I also had Avast get false positives on a couple of things, including 
Quickbooks, forcing a reinstall.

I haven't had it screw with a game, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Besides, I suppose resident scanners can sometimes slow things down,
> especially if they decide to scan the files the game is trying to read...

Real-time virus scanning: the attempt to improve the perceived 
responsiveness of virus scanning by waiting for the user to request access 
to a file before blocking access until it has been scanned.  :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message