Former Xbox One Exclusive 'Quantum Break' announced for PC. Requirements are STEEP....

[Ascalaphus]

While the announcement that this game is coming to PC isn't a surprise, the recommended requirements are going to shock some folks.
You pretty much need top of the line.

Quantum Break developer Remedy has released the system requirements for playing the game when it hits Windows 10 PCs on April 5. Here's what you'll need to get the most out of this Windows 10 PC title.
Quantum Break Minimum Requirements:

• OS: Windows 10 (64-bit)
  
• DirectX: DirectX 12
  
• CPU: Intel Core i5-4460, 2.70GHz or AMD FX-6300
  
• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 or AMD Radeon R7 260x
  
• VRAM: 2GB
  
• RAM: 8GB
  
• HDD: 55GB available space

Quantum Break Recommended Specs:

• OS: Windows 10 (64-bit)
  
• DirectX: DirectX 12 CPU: Intel Core i7 4790, 4GHz or AMD equivalent
  
• GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 980 Ti or AMD Radeon R9 Fury X
  
• VRAM: 6GB
  
• RAM: 16GB
  
• HDD: 55GB available space

Original article is here.

 

[RejZoR]

Never heard of it. Probably because Remedy stopped doing PC games and gone to bed with Xboner. I mean Xbone. I mean Xbox...

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Game better be amazing graphically and actually fun lol.

Granted I wont be buying it since its tied to the Windows Store so fuck that.

 

[Toothless]

"DirectX: DirectX 12 CPU"

lolwut

 

[horik]

Gameplay video looks great.

 

[dorsetknob]

If it runs on an XBOX1 then it should run on any half Decent Gaming Pc from the last 2 years
Just goes to show they are inflating the Spec's needed to Run it
The Fact is Microsoft are using this Game as leverage to still get people on win 10

 

[neatfeatguy]

If it runs on an XBOX1 then it should run on any half Decent Gaming Pc from the last 2 years
Just goes to show they are inflating the Spec's needed to Run it
The Fact is Microsoft are using this Game as leverage to still get people on win 10

Reminds me when they pushed Halo 2 on PC - saying you need Vista to run it and all it ended up being was a crappy port with some DX10 slapped on a few things.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Gameplay video looks great.

Which one did you watch? I've yet to be able to find one that doesn't look horribly blurry, with animations that don't look all that polished. Plus the gameplay looks like just a lot of repeat freeze action spamming enabling the player to effectively use slow mo a lot for combat.

 

[Ascalaphus]

Going to go out on a limb here and say those recommended requirements must be for 1440p and 4k. I'd even say just 4k.

If that is what is needed to max the game out at JUST 1080p then dear lord I don't even want to know what you need at higher resolutions.

16gigs of RAM for 1080p. GTFO.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Um, how are those requirements steep? I have an R7 360 for my secondary display. 2.7 GHz quad-core isn't very fast and the listed AMD tri-core is cheap. 2 GB VRAM has been the norm for a while, so has 8 GiB of RAM. The only thing that stands out is the DirectX 12 requirement but...as long as your card isn't older than the hills and not a budget card, it should work.

Recommended requirements are always silly.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Um, how are those requirements steep? I have an R7 360 for my secondary display. 2.7 GHz quad-core isn't very fast and the listed AMD tri-core is cheap. 2 GB VRAM has been the norm for a while, so has 8 GiB of RAM. The only thing that stands out is the DirectX 12 requirement but...as long as your card isn't older than the hills and not a budget card, it should work.

Recommended requirements are always silly.

True the recommended could just be were covering our ass cause its a broken port as well. But lets face facts. It is a Windows Store exclusive and will never go on sale = game wont sell for shit on PC

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Windows Store exclusive? Games for Windows Live, much?

If I had interest in the game before, I don't now.

 

[remixedcat]

microsoft gaming really doesnt know what they doin..

 

[Frick]

If it runs on an XBOX1 then it should run on any half Decent Gaming Pc from the last 2 years
Just goes to show they are inflating the Spec's needed to Run it
The Fact is Microsoft are using this Game as leverage to still get people on win 10

Or it means there's more candy for the PC version.

 

[Easo]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem with game being available from Store?
Sure, there is no real need for even more steam alternatives, but using Store is as simple as it can be.
Requirements are steep, but at the same time, they are not.
It will take time for the game to come out anyway, even more people will have better PC's by then.

 

[RCoon]

True the recommended could just be were covering our ass cause its a broken port as well. But lets face facts. It is a Windows Store exclusive and will never go on sale = game wont sell for shit on PC

Then they'll blame pirates, or claim that PC gamers are self entitled. I'm calling it now, the only people that will be playing Quantum Break will be pirates.

 

[Aquinus]

"DirectX: DirectX 12 CPU"

lolwut

Try adding a line break.

DirectX: DirectX 12 CPU: Intel Core i7 4790, 4GHz or AMD equivalent

DirectX: DirectX 12
CPU: Intel Core i7 4790, 4GHz or AMD equivalent

 

[ZeppMan217]

Then they'll blame pirates, or claim that PC gamers are self entitled. I'm calling it now, the only people that will be playing Quantum Break will be pirates.

With Steam around and as big as it is, I don't think they can use that card anymore.

 

[silentbogo]

For some reason it reminds me of Timeshift.

But there are lots of obscure warning signs, that tell me that this is not going to be as good as expected, or maybe even worse than Timeshift.
Firstly, there is a tie-in with a 5-episode TV short, which we've already seen in other places (khm-khm... Defiance)
Secondly, it is a third person shooter about time manipulation. It has real actors, it has crazy graphics accompanied by equally moderate system requirements, so I can tell you for sure that Quantum Break is going to be all about cinematic experience.
Why is it bad? Because things like useability of controls, gameplay and replay value are going to be put on a backburner. This usually leads to a single-playthrough title, too frustrating to be played without gamepad, and too linear to be enjoyed more than once.

 

[Ascalaphus]

BTW there has been an update. Apparently the 'Recommended' is actually for playing the game on Ultra Settings:
The ACTUAL recommended specs are:

Quantum Break Recommended System Requirements

• OS: Windows 10 64-bit
• CPU: Intel Core i5-4690 3.9 GHz or AMD equivalent
• RAM: 16 GB System Memory
• GPU RAM: 4 GB Video Memory
• GPU: GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 390
• HDD: 55 GB Available Space
• DX: DirectX

Source

Not horrible for the recommended. Still the Ultra settings at 1080p is pretty damn high. I would expect at least just a 980 for Ultra @ 1080p and a 980ti/Titanx for 1440p-4k. [/FONT]

 

[AsRock]

If it runs on an XBOX1 then it should run on any half Decent Gaming Pc from the last 2 years
Just goes to show they are inflating the Spec's needed to Run it
The Fact is Microsoft are using this Game as leverage to still get people on win 10

Missing some thing, maybe just a real crappy port over. And if it's MS store only totally not interested in it.

 

[Frick]

For some reason it reminds me of Timeshift.

But there are lots of obscure warning signs, that tell me that this is not going to be as good as expected, or maybe even worse than Timeshift.
Firstly, there is a tie-in with a 5-episode TV short, which we've already seen in other places (khm-khm... Defiance)
Secondly, it is a third person shooter about time manipulation. It has real actors, it has crazy graphics accompanied by equally moderate system requirements, so I can tell you for sure that Quantum Break is going to be all about cinematic experience.
Why is it bad? Because things like useability of controls, gameplay and replay value are going to be put on a backburner. This usually leads to a single-playthrough title, too frustrating to be played without gamepad, and too linear to be enjoyed more than once.

Using real actors in games rarely works ... unless they are Tim Curry obviously.

And Timeshift was better than I thought it would be. I even liked it.

 

[PP Mguire]

Um, how are those requirements steep? I have an R7 360 for my secondary display. 2.7 GHz quad-core isn't very fast and the listed AMD tri-core is cheap. 2 GB VRAM has been the norm for a while, so has 8 GiB of RAM. The only thing that stands out is the DirectX 12 requirement but...as long as your card isn't older than the hills and not a budget card, it should work.

Recommended requirements are always silly.

This. Minimum on the list these days is typically what most are getting to play games and is easily attainable give or take maybe an i3 instead.

 

[silentbogo]

Using real actors in games rarely works ... unless they are Tim Curry obviously.

And Timeshift was better than I thought it would be. I even liked it.

Time shift was pretty good. The only problem was the initial price and a little rushed final production.
The project itself started with a small team of devs from Russia making a proof of concept on a quake3 engine back in 2003 or something like that (around the same time, or a little after as S.T.A.L.K.E.R.).
Then Atari picked it up for publishing, but in '06 gave it to Sierra. The development was relatively slow, as it always is with completely new projects, but Sierra rushed the developers to do a complete overhaul of the game engine: to make it look and feel better than anything on the market. Graphics was excellent, gameplay was better than anything I've ever seen, but it was short and had a forced abrupt ending.

The best part was the zeppelin, though turret skirmish was obligatory for any AAA single-player shooter of that time.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

For some reason it reminds me of Timeshift.

With a dash of Singularity and even Remember Me in the parts where time stoppage is intervened with.

Point being it doesn't look original, and the gameplay seems very simple and repetitive. I feel like the PC community are going to heavily scrutinize over it.