Monday, October 30th 2017

Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition Coming Early 2018; PC Requirements Listed

Final Fantasy XV has been exceedingly well-received by both critics, consumers, and fans alike, but left out one particular gaming crowd: PC gamers. The original release of November 2016 for XBOX One and PS4 (with PS4 Pro improvements having been baked in the game as well), the game still stands as a showcase for graphics on consoles. However, a true PC, Windows Version of the game is under development in close partnership with NVIDIA, which will see a re-release of the game on PC with many added graphical features, including HDR and 4K resolution support.

Due to its close collaboration with NVIDIA, Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition is expected to be a showcase for NVIDIA GameWorks technologies, such as NVIDIA Flow, NVIDIA HairWorks, NVIDIA Hybrid Frustum Traced Shadows, NVIDIA Turf Effects, NVIDIA Voxel Ambient Occlusion, and more. With all of that NVIDIA technology being built-in, it's somewhat expected that the game will only run the way the developers envisioned on a green team graphics card. However, the system requirements seem to be reasonable - though we expect these to reflect only 1080p gaming, as a 4K presentation fo this game will most likely be a resource hog. As it is, Minimum System Requirements are being listed with DX 11, 8 GB RAM, an Intel Core i5 2400 (3.1GHz) or AMD FX-6100 (3.3GHz) CPU, and GeForce GTX 760 graphics. Recommended System Requirements bring those up: DX 11, 16 GB RAM, Intel Core i7 3770 (3.4GHz) or AMD FX-8350 (4.0GHz) CPU, and GeForce GTX 1060 graphics.
Sources: Microsoft Windows Store, via ETeknix
Add your own comment

33 Comments on Final Fantasy XV Windows Edition Coming Early 2018; PC Requirements Listed

#1
Melvis
16GB is a far amount I must say but the rest is kinda......yeah so what?
Posted on Reply
#2
The Quim Reaper
4K screenshots..probably running at 10fps on their 1080Ti SLI setup as well..:rolleyes:

Publisher system specs are such horseshit.
Posted on Reply
#3
StrayKAT
The Quim Reaper
4K screenshots..probably running at 10fps on their 1080Ti SLI setup as well..:rolleyes:

Publisher system specs are such horseshit.
Those recommended ones seem pretty good for 1080p at least.

Not so sure about minimum (760). I mean, that's roughly equivalent to an XOne. I'm just not sure it'll run as well.
Posted on Reply
#4
Ferrum Master
StrayKAT
Those recommended ones seem pretty good for 1080p at least.

Not so sure about minimum (760). I mean, that's roughly equivalent to an XOne. I'm just not sure it'll run as well.
Nippon Banzai... Fox Engine also did really well...

But it's way to fast to tell, so much time till it gets released.
Posted on Reply
#5
Nuckles56
Yeah and for the AMD team it will be a Vega 56 as the minimum requirement no doubt
Posted on Reply
#6
bug
I don't know what this series is about, but why is everyone riding hens?
Posted on Reply
#7
metalfiber
bug
I don't know what this series is about, but why is everyone riding hens?
Those are chocobos. They've been in the series since 1988 and the game is a JRPG.
Posted on Reply
#8
nemesis.ie
Nuckles56
Yeah and for the AMD team it will be a Vega 56 as the minimum requirement no doubt
Indeed, It seems a bit dodgy not to mention any AMD graphics card in the specs of the PR ....
Posted on Reply
#9
Ferrum Master
nemesis.ie
Indeed, It seems a bit dodgy not to mention any AMD graphics card in the specs of the PR ....
The article says nvidia 9 times... what did you expect? :D
Posted on Reply
#10
Parn
I used to be a fan of the FF series, but haven't touched any new ones after FF XII. Squaresoft being a Japansese game company focus more on the console market than PC gaming because console gaming is much more popular in Japan. The last FF game I played, FF XII, was played on a PS2 emulator simply because there was no PC version.

The problem with the console centric approach is that most of those games when released to PC are a direct port with poor optimisation and lots of bugs. Maybe that explains why it needs 16GB RAM and 1060 just for 1080p.

Anyway it might be too early to judge how the game would perform on a PC. If it turns out to be good (ie not a direct port with some green team graphical features thrown on top of it), I'll give it a try.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
metalfiber
Those are chocobos. They've been in the series since 1988 and the game is a JRPG.
Ah, ok. Then it's not weird or childish at all :D
Posted on Reply
#13
Vya Domus
Nuckles56
Yeah and for the AMD team it will be a Vega 56 as the minimum requirement no doubt
Good ol' GameWorks.
Posted on Reply
#14
bug
Vya Domus
Good ol' GameWorks.
I'm not sure why people in the red camp think GameWorks is some plot to make games unplayable on AMD hardware. Newsflash: GameWorks make games unplayable on high end Nvidia hardware as well. It's all about enabling extra effects on games that are already demanding.
Just turn off effects that your video card can't handle (which in my case would be all of them) and then enjoy the game. It's not that hard.
Posted on Reply
#15
nemesis.ie
But maybe we could/can get as good/better effects using open methods that are also more efficient. GW tends to pull AMD hardware down more than it does NV (no surprise there either).
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
nemesis.ie
But maybe we could/can get as good/better effects using open methods that are also more efficient.
Nodoby's stopping us, except that such a library does not exist. There's GameWorks and there's GPUOpen, and game developers get to chose or or the other.
nemesis.ie
GW tends to pull AMD hardware down more than it does NV (no surprise there either).
Blanket statement, carefully guarded with "tends to". I'd much rather talk real numbers instead.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vya Domus
bug
Newsflash: GameWorks make games unplayable on high end Nvidia hardware as well.
You are answering your own question buddy. When a piece of software is massively detrimental in terms of performance on any hardware but provides minimal visual improvement then that means it is poorly implemented and it should have no place in any half decent game engine. And thankfully , in most , it doesn't.

When you see the GameWorks logo , it doesn't mean : "Hey we are using this because it is great and it helps us make better games !" , but rather it says : "Hey Nvidia is sponsoring us , otherwise we would have never touched this !"

It's that simple and quite frankly I have no idea how anyone would embrace it. I have never once heard someone go like : "Fuck yeah ! GameWorks ! ". Instead I heard that when people talk , for example , about Id Tech because it lacks GameWorks/Physx and other crap and use better, in house technologies, meant to achieve the same thing with a minimal performance hit and that are also hardware agnostic.
Posted on Reply
#18
Prince Valiant
Those screenshots look bad. What's up with random close textures being so lame and the distance rendering :eek:? The second screenshot looks like AF isn't on o_O.
Posted on Reply
#19
bug
Vya Domus
You are answering your own question buddy. When a piece of software is massively detrimental in terms of performance on any hardware but provides minimal visual improvement then that means it is poorly implemented and it should have no place in any half decent game engine. And thankfully , in most , it doesn't.

When you see the GameWorks logo , it doesn't mean : "Hey we are using this because it is great and it helps us make better games !" , instead it says : "Hey Nvidia is sponsoring us , otherwise we would have never touched this !"

It's that simple and quite frankly I have no idea how anyone would embrace it. I have never once heard someone go like : "Fuck yeah ! GameWorks ! ". Instead I heard that when people talk , for example , about Id Tech because it lacks GameWorks/Physx and other crap and use better, in house technologies, meant to achieve the same thing with a minimal performance hit and that are also hardware agnostic.
Well, it's not "massively detrimental" if you have SLIs GTX 1080s and play at 1080p (not sure who does that, but that's another discussion). In this scenario it enables you to run some effects no one else can. And sure, those are taxing today, but if you put them in developer's hands, they'll eventually figure out a way to make then more efficient tomorrow. That's what happened with PS2.0, PS3.0, tesselation, AA, AF and every single gfx you can think of.

Also, to kill performance of a video game, you don't need GameWorks. You can easily do it with simple geometry if you set the polygon count high enough. You can do it with shadows, too.
Ok, GameWorks closed source and we don't like that. I get it. But everything else that gets posted on various forums about GameWorks is just crap.
Posted on Reply
#20
Vya Domus
bug
But everything else that gets posted on various forums about GameWorks is just crap.
Nope , as far as I am concerned ( and I made my points pretty clear ) , GameWorks is undoubtedly the thing which is crap. If however you still think that all these people which are complaining about it ( from both sides ) are just speaking crap and we are all imagining things ..... then I suppose carry on with your belief....
Posted on Reply
#21
bug
Vya Domus
Nope , as far as I am concerned ( and I made my points pretty clear ) , GameWorks is undoubtedly the thing which is crap. If however you still think that all these people which are complaining about it ( from both sides ) are just speaking crap and we are all imagining things ..... then I suppose carry on with your belief....
My (only) point is: you've done nothing but call GameWorks crap. You've produced no arguments to back that up, other than "If however you still think that all these people which are complaining about it ( from both sides ) are just speaking crap and we are all imagining things"...
Show me one benchmark where a game looks worse on AMD hardware with GameWorks on and better with it off (compared to Nvidia) and I will accept that GameWorks is crap. Till then: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/12/far_cry_4_graphics_features_performance_review/1
Posted on Reply
#22
Vya Domus
bug
You've produced no arguments to back that up
I did , you didn't read them , not my problem. I also have no incentive to argue with you , after all you started this by replying to my comment.

bug
Show me one benchmark where a game looks worse on AMD hardware with GameWorks on and better with it off (compared to Nvidia) and I will accept that GameWorks is crap.
No idea what you are talking about. A game where it looks worse on AMD hardware ? When did I even mention something like that ? We get it , you love GameWorks , but it's time to stop.
Posted on Reply
#23
Lionheart
Nvidia Scamworks implemented in big time & a emasculating Japanese boy band RPG, will have to think about this one :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#24
StrayKAT
Parn
I used to be a fan of the FF series, but haven't touched any new ones after FF XII. Squaresoft being a Japansese game company focus more on the console market than PC gaming because console gaming is much more popular in Japan. The last FF game I played, FF XII, was played on a PS2 emulator simply because there was no PC version.

The problem with the console centric approach is that most of those games when released to PC are a direct port with poor optimisation and lots of bugs. Maybe that explains why it needs 16GB RAM and 1060 just for 1080p.

Anyway it might be too early to judge how the game would perform on a PC. If it turns out to be good (ie not a direct port with some green team graphical features thrown on top of it), I'll give it a try.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. There's far more convergence with consoles than there ever was.
Posted on Reply
#25
dyonoctis
so far hairworks (and sometimes HBAO+) is the only part of gameworks that give a big performance drop for a result that isn't better than tressFx.
But I really doubt that stuff like real subsurface scatering, and global illumination are ever gonna come without performance drop. If it's doesn't it must be faked.
But then i wonder if it's not several decade too early to not faking those effects. I doubt that current games actually got sss on every vegetation, but i think they are doing a decent job at making them look translucent.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment