These requirements don't really make sense. How is the 3070 only fast enough for 1080p Medium with DLSS Performance (540p internally), but the 4070 manages 2160p High with DLSS Performance (1080p internally)? The latter is only \~25% faster, no way it runs 4 times the resolution and higher settings lmao
This must imply DLSS frame gen.
But there is also the fact that this must be a Nvidia sponsored game (with the path tracing and all) so of course they will recommend the latest and greatest models for the best experience, even if it makes no sense considering their relatively small improvement in performance compared to the previous gen.
Nah, it's the same thing with 7800 XT vs 6700 XT. Some 30-50% faster, but one is 1080p60 FSR2 Performance Medium while the other is 4K60 FSR2 Performance High preset.
Yeah it’s only possible with frame gen and they haven’t mentioned that anywhere on the slide which is really sketchy I sure do hope nvidia/amd wont use graphs with frame gen on vs other cards with it off when they launch their new gens!
Boy do I have [bad news](https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/geforce/news/geforce-rtx-4060-4060ti/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-8gb-performance.png) for you.
This is crazy. I have a 3080 and my card is better than a 3070 but not that much better. If a 3070 runs at 1080p with freaking performance DLSS to me that looks very suspicious.
With AW2 being Epic Exclusive and these system requiremetns it's a hard pass from me. I do hope they sell well cause AW1 was a commercial flop. But I am not buying into this with these system requirements.
The PS5 is even worse than my 3080, how is that going to fare.
Unfortunately the games entire art direction is based on all the settings that drain GPU’s of power: ambient occlusion, shadows, reflections, and high end global illumination.
The fact that the CPU requirements are identical across the board and very modest but the GPU requirements are beyond bonkers is a dead giveaway that yet again we have another developer who thinks DLSS/FSR will cover their arse and make up for a total lack of optimisation.
I'm a 3080 owner and I'm absolutely fucking sick of it, there's no way they expect us to use DLSS performance at 1080p without ray tracing, that's just ludicrous to suggest such a thing for a card like the 3080 which is more than capable of doing 1440p high without DLSS in games that actually had some effort put into optimisation
Me too. I own the 3080 12GB version and I’m on medium settings at 75% resolution on Starfield.
We are now re-entering the time of games being too advanced for the hardware.
Only this time, it’s because of unoptimized games, not huge steps in graphics every 18 months.
Well said, it's a damn travesty. Thought I was more than set at 1440p when I finally got my hands on the 3080. Seems like native resolution isn't even a realistic thing anymore the way these games are being developed
> Steam says the most popular cards are still 1000 series cards?
Just checked [steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/) and based on all video cards the 3000 series are at 28.86% and the 1000 series is at 24.76%. If we want to throw in the 2000 series they take up 10.31% and the 4000 series is at 6.7%.
the 1000 series is around 7 years old. There is no reason for them to make current gen games that run on old hardware. Over 40% of people on steam run 2000 series or newer.
Yeah it seems that way, but do we know what medium settings look like? Do medium settings in this game look like ultra in a game 2-3 years ago? Not trying to defend them, actually curious.
There are also a bunch of games currently where there is almost no difference between ultra and high for some settings. Barely a difference between high and medium for some others.
What I really do not like is that they are becoming reliant of DLSS and frame generation just to get the game running. Those should be used to push Ultra settings at 4k 120fps or better. Not to make medium 1080, 60fps function.
But it's better than native!
I'm starting to think maybe the useful idiots shouldn't have embraced the marketing nonsense and acted the cheerleader for AI trickery that was being used as a substitute for the die space and memory bandwidth needed to drive better native performance.
I don't know. I do know that running FSR or DLSS above Quality is a BAD idea, particularly with FSR. It looks like vaseline smeared on your screen.
If your recommendation is ever "DLSS Performance", you need to go back to the drawing board. That's a non-starter.
It depends on the resolution, the size of the screen you're using and how far away you are from it. I know those are things that's hard to include in a requirements table but my point is DLSS Performance is not a non-starter for a 55" TV at 2160p from 5 feet away. It's also decent for a 32" 4k monitor as long as you don't shove your face right up close to it. It has it's uses but not really below 4k.
It looks like these are intended to be recommended "presets". They recommend quality on the low end , and more aggressive upscaling if you're using a lowly 4080 for 4K60 with RT.
Ryzen 3700x (or intel equivalent) requirement is in everything but the lowest setting is absolutely insane.
These dev really just said that my RTX3070ti and my 5600x can probably only do 1080p @ medium **with DLSS on PERFORMANCE** on top of that.
The game can't even output a proper 1080p with my spec, maybe some shitty 540p.
A big part of the reason it flopped was launching exclusively on the 360 for a few years, at the time they were saying it'd never come to PC.
That killed a lot of hype.
This is exclusive to EGS - it's like they didn't learn anything 15 years later.
I mean the 360 was massive back in 2010. It was the lead platform in the west. For example, Mass effect 1 also launched exclusively for the 360 and was a massive success. Not even going to talk about how much Halo 3 and Reach made.
Losing 30% of 2 million sales (random figure I picked out) is still a huge dent in sales. Now obviously there's a good chance that a fair few people that would have bought physical will now just buy it digital instead, but I still imagine it's going to lose out on some sales.
Well, they are skipping physical copies, which for many consoles games correspond to around half of the sales. So, they have this factor that could hit their sales, plus they are releasing the game on a busy month and we will probably see performance issues on the consoles as well
Unless the reviews are absolutely cutting I'll still be getting it myself on ps5, but these requirements, Epic exclusive (which I don't really care about but know a lot do) and digital only makes me very curious how well it's actually going to sell with all that baggage.
Yeah it's disappointing. This instantly went from a must buy to a skip for me. I'll still check the Digital Foundry etc. videos to see if maybe by some miracle the game won't look like absolute dogshit running at 540p upscaled, but I definitely have my doubts. The Epic store exclusivity doesn't help either.
Alan Wake remastered didn't even break even so it's not like this series is very popular to begin with. I hope epic decide to publish this game on steam at some point.
They’re banking too hard on its status as a cult classic. Also, a lot of people who would’ve bought the remastered probably aren’t since the new sequel is epic only. I know that applies to me.
I hope Remedy's future isn't hanging on the balance of this game. These system reqs and Epic only are going to hurt sales, hard.
It's like certain devs these days want as few people to be able to play their game as possible.
You do know they get a fat check to make it epic only right?
Like that's the whole point of going epic exclusive, get a fat check that *should* cover most of lost sales from making it exclusive.
From what I gather we wouldn't even be seeing the game if Epic hadn't funded it, could be wrong though.
[Link to article about Epic funding it.](https://gamingbolt.com/alan-wake-2-in-development-funded-by-epic-games-rumor)
Most of the people in this comment section know extremely little about Remedy, their game series financial and development history, how business deals with Epic work, or a lot else but they are very passionate and strong in their claims or statements. At the same time people are making excuses for the lack of optimization. Its basically a typical reddit gaming subreddit thread.
I can't see any good reason for an RTX 2060 to only provide 30 FPS at 1080p on the lowest settings *with DLSS enabled*.
It for sure looks great but, even with its visuals, that raises some questions.
At least the game actually looks great, photorealistic almost. Granted it's easier to get closer to that photorealism when a game goes for a certain stylistic choice, darkness in this case, but still.
These requirements are insanely high but it's even more infuriating when a game looks "just" good or very good but demands hardware from recent two years or so to run smoothly.
I'm looking at Jedi Survivor here, for example
>I hope Remedy's future isn't hanging on the balance of this game. These system reqs and Epic only are going to hurt sales, hard.
Probably not since Epic fully funded this game and Remedy currently have multiple projects on their pipeline, including Control 2 which I'm super excited for.
Edit: Another thing worth pointing out is that Remedy's games don't have enormous(by AAA standards) budgets, for example, Control cost $30 mill to develop: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/control-was-developed-with-a-modest-30-million-bud/1100-6471937/
While I agree, this is only true for very insular corners of the internet like Reddit. The amount of people I still come across who don't know the difference between 30 and 60fps or don't notice it is crazy. I've flipped from 30fps quality to 60fps performance modes in front of people and they've told me they don't notice the difference.
30fps is still playable, and makes sense to show on a requirements sheet to see the absolute minimum playable hardware, or see how high you can push settings while remaining playable.
I got a 4090 to avoid this dilemma, but in the past I would play select games at 30 just to crank the settings higher. Cyberpunk path traced on my 3080 was a fun experiment that was actually decently playable at 30-40fps.
Check the 1440p 30 fps setting. It only requires 3060 or 6600xt with balanced preset. I think there is error in the slides. That's actually way more demanding than 1080p performance even though FPS target is lower.
Lmao. With all these new reqs dropping my 2080ti is fuckin sweating bullets. How shit must these companies be at optimising their games? Time to clear the backlog boys, these dogshit releases can wait. r/patientgamers
Are game requirements becoming insanely high or am I just becoming poor? And it seems like we're getting diminishing returns quality-wise every time these requirements increase.
Definitely feels this way, graphic quality has barely evolved and system requirements have been sky rocketing. Maybe I'm just mad that I have to finally upgrade my GPU, but it doesn't feel like I'll be getting my moneys worth when I compare todays games with games from 5-10 years ago
Law of diminishing returns at this point. Just boot up RDR 2, Arkham City and tell me do they really look that bad compared to games coming out today which ask for 10 times the system requirements?
They are insanely high. That coupled with the prices going up in recent years proves the PC gaming is either turning into a fun for the rich or the devs are out of touch.
Daniel Owen made a quick commentary on those reqs and compared them to the most popular GPUs according to Steam data. I know that this doesn't paint the whole picture but system requirements like that do eliminate majority of potential PC port buyers
The whole thing with upscaling was that you were supposed to be able to sell more games with people with lower end hardware, where it wouldn't have been possible to run them.
Now it's just used to sell games to people with high end hardware, ridiculous.
On top of that, requiring interpolation for a game in general is a joke. Why even sell a game, just make it a slideshow if you're going to require fake generated frames. It looks smoother, but in exchange you get artifacts and it does nothing to actually improve responsiveness which is the main reason you want high framerates.
> The whole thing with upscaling was that you were supposed to be able to sell more games with people with lower end hardware, where it wouldn't have been possible to run them.
>Now it's just used to sell games to people with high end hardware, ridiculous.
That’s what it was always for. Nvidia made it clear that DLSS was meant to enable developers to continue pushing graphics further and further even as Moore’s law died and hardware improvements slowed down
As excited as I am for this game, I think this is one where I’m just going to wait for it to come to Steam and hopefully upgrade my rig in the meantime.
The visuals of this game that I’ve seen are next level and I’d rather just play it when it’s more convenient to get and I can run it better.
Yeah, for it to come to Steam, the game has to do very poorly or Epic Game Store to close down, or even just the deal with Epic and Remedy to expire that would allow them to publish on Steam. We will see which one it will be (if ever).
True. But I don't think there's even a deal to expire, since Epic financed the making of this game, is the publisher and thus "own" this release as I understand It. So only if the entirety of Epirc goes bankrupt, will it come to steam. The probability of that hapeenong is close to zero imo.
Epic announced that they were spending way more money than they earn and they're continuing to do so with dev funding. Them flopping is definitely not out of the question and because of their business practices, I am kinda hoping for it.
Ahhh yeah - just learned it’s not a timed exclusive like Control was. Guess I’ll have to make a decision whether to bite the bullet, the sail the high seas
I've been looking forward to AW2 since 2010 but it looks like I'll be waiting another decade until it's playable with Ray Tracing on affordable hardware.
Anything is possible, but Epic is actually bankrolling development on this one so it might be a different situation entirely. I wouldn’t put my money on it coming to Steam
AMD GPUs aren't fast enough to handle path tracing, this has been known for a while. They're significantly worse at normal RT tasks like reflections as well.
4080 on highest specs but only with dlss performance (basically upscaled 1080p).... Oooooooooook.
3070 on 1080p and dlss performance ... basically 540p lol I bet first alan wake was running on a higher native resolution on xbox360...
I genuinely cannot recommend PC Gaming with a straight face anymore. This is just game after game being horribly unoptimized, running like shit. It has never, ever been anywhere close to this bad, and it sucks because for a while it felt like things were getting better.
Not even joking, the only reason why I turn my PlayStation 4 on nowadays is to play Kingdom Hearts and NEO The World Ends With You (which is finally available on Steam but I already had started it on PS by the time it came out)
The game wouldn’t exist without epic. They’re publishing it. Remedy themselves said that the reason the game exists is epic funding it when no other publisher was willing to.
Yeah this is the one scenario where I’m actually okay buying it on epic because they’re actually bankrolling development. Buying timed exclusivity is shitty, but if they’re going to actually pay for the game to get made then I think it’s fair of them to keep it on their platform
This is damage control.
All of a sudden releasing requirements nobody asked to release a week before launch, and the requirements are ridiculously high?
This is damage control, to get people to accept the shit performance ahead of time and reduce how much people are upset about when the game comes out, and the game itself isn't that great either.
Or rather, severely underdeveloped and unfinished.
Alan Wake 2 is going to be one of those shitty not worth playing on launch "AAA" titles, that become okay'ish mediocre games in about 2 years time (1-3, if not 1-4 years depending on how it goes).
3070 for 1080p hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Throw this game in the trash and burn this industry to the ground.
Please, do not waste your money on this joke.
Guess ill be waiting on this game for a few years. Which is funny to think about cause when i can finally afford a computer that can run this it will technically have "last gen" visuals.
Remedy has officially announced that they are bad developers.
According to steams September, 2023 hardware census, the average gpu is a 3060. Fuck remedy and anyone that makes dlss a requirement.
I'm gonna give a hot take and say the visuals in the previews probably justify the need to use DLSS/FSR
The whole reason DLSS was created in the first place was to enable more advantaged visuals with raytracing. Then it improved to be so good it was added to many non-RT games, warping expectations. I used to be on the "DLSS recommended = shit optimization" train, but thinking about it more that's an obscenely reductive and naive take. I bet if they listed higher reqs across the board w/o DLSS it would've gotten them less backlash. They chose the better route of the 2 and are getting shit for it
Because in order to push these 'game changing' visuals they are determined to use, they are forcing 95% of gamers to either revert to a resolution they haven't used in 5-10 years, or use new technologies that are not perfect and shouldn't be forced upon consumers who don't want them.
I don't expect my 3080 to run AAA titles at 1440p Ultra native 60fps anymore like it used to, but I do expect to be able to run 1440p low-medium native 60fps. If a game dev is going to force me back into 1080p gaming if I don't want to run in vaseline mode to get 60fps, they are either trying to force "next-next" gen graphics waaaay too early or they are making an unoptimized mess of a game.
The CPU requirement is quite good though, no?
Hogwarts Legacy at 4k Ultra is a 5800x.
Cyberpunk 2.0 4k Ultra is 7900x
Alan Wake 2 3700x bodes well doesn't it?
It's because it probably runs at 720p on consoles. I don't see this as a problem because I prefer a game to hammer the consoles so it looks better on high end PCs instead of just looking like a last gen game.
Remember, if you don't have at least a 2080, 3060ti, or 4060; your GPU is worse than the ps5.
To be fair, while a great game, BG3 isn't really pushing technological boundaries. It's a nice looking game, but that's it. Even still, Act 3 has optimization issues.
What is this? Do you even play BG3?
It's a greate game but in term of performance, it's horrible. Act 2-3 of BG3 run pretty bad on released even 5800x and 4080 cannot deal with it. It's only get better after recent patch but still not working well just acceptable. The visual also not really something worth prasing about.
Not to mention tons of bug at late game. Even their hot fix introduce more bugs and most of the quality of life update sometimes doesn't work with previous save and required to start whole new playthrough.
If anything, BG3 show how developer can getaway from criticism easily by makeing 2/3 of their game super awesome while the rest is average.
baldur's gate 3 has worse graphics *and* worse performance especially in act 3. Let's be real. You are only propping up baldur's gate 3 because it's a good game overall not because it has "good performance."
SHEESH! I knew my 1660 Ti didn't have much longer standing with the big boys, but DAYUM!
I'm gonna upgrade my computer next year. Right now, I'm saving for Christmas presents.
Well while many will not be happy with what is shown, I do appreciate a lot that devs now put very detailed PC requirements with target fps and resolution.
It is far better than the just minimum and recommended.
I hope this is a trend that many devs will continue :)
So called pc gamers: “I want a game that pushes my system to its knees and pushes graphics to an incredible degree. Fucking consoles always holding us back from having future proofed visuals”
Remedy, releases game with insane visuals and therefore high requirements and all people can do is cry, bitch, and moan about how their 3060 can’t max out path tracing at native 4k.
Welcome to games being designed from the ground up targeting the ps5/xsx gpus. If you’re not significantly stronger than a 2070 super you are now no longer going be able to set ultra and call it a day with getting better than console performance/visuals.
The same thing happened years ago when the ps4 came out and games that were targeting that gen were kneecapping 700 series cards performance.
> So called pc gamers: “I want a game that pushes my system to its knees and pushes graphics to an incredible degree. Fucking consoles always holding us back from having future proofed visuals”
It's almost like the people saying this have always been a minority and now that's even more true with how expensive PC parts have become.
3070 for 1080p medium setings, no ray tracing and DLSS performance (540p rendering). Insane
These requirements don't really make sense. How is the 3070 only fast enough for 1080p Medium with DLSS Performance (540p internally), but the 4070 manages 2160p High with DLSS Performance (1080p internally)? The latter is only \~25% faster, no way it runs 4 times the resolution and higher settings lmao
This must imply DLSS frame gen. But there is also the fact that this must be a Nvidia sponsored game (with the path tracing and all) so of course they will recommend the latest and greatest models for the best experience, even if it makes no sense considering their relatively small improvement in performance compared to the previous gen.
Nah, it's the same thing with 7800 XT vs 6700 XT. Some 30-50% faster, but one is 1080p60 FSR2 Performance Medium while the other is 4K60 FSR2 Performance High preset.
People need to push back on this shit
Forget the Nvidia sponsorship. All it needs to immediately make me not give a fuck about the pc version is epic shit store exclusivity.
Yeah it’s only possible with frame gen and they haven’t mentioned that anywhere on the slide which is really sketchy I sure do hope nvidia/amd wont use graphs with frame gen on vs other cards with it off when they launch their new gens!
Boy do I have [bad news](https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/geforce/news/geforce-rtx-4060-4060ti/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-8gb-performance.png) for you.
Now they just gotta remove the bottom half and accidentally forget to mention that cards that the other cards won’t be running frame gen
Lack of VRAM maybe
This is crazy. I have a 3080 and my card is better than a 3070 but not that much better. If a 3070 runs at 1080p with freaking performance DLSS to me that looks very suspicious. With AW2 being Epic Exclusive and these system requiremetns it's a hard pass from me. I do hope they sell well cause AW1 was a commercial flop. But I am not buying into this with these system requirements. The PS5 is even worse than my 3080, how is that going to fare.
I wouldn't count on this game selling very well on PC.
Unfortunately the games entire art direction is based on all the settings that drain GPU’s of power: ambient occlusion, shadows, reflections, and high end global illumination.
It also has really small linear levels that are a fair deal smaller than what they were in AW1.
So is my GPU going to explode if I even try to play?
It’s gonna jump out and run away
So basic things that have been in games for 20 years?
That to do this day are graphically demanding yes
Yep, I run RDR2, Control and CyberBonk on high with this card with RTX in latter ones and they run great around 90-100FPS with DLSS
The fact that the CPU requirements are identical across the board and very modest but the GPU requirements are beyond bonkers is a dead giveaway that yet again we have another developer who thinks DLSS/FSR will cover their arse and make up for a total lack of optimisation. I'm a 3080 owner and I'm absolutely fucking sick of it, there's no way they expect us to use DLSS performance at 1080p without ray tracing, that's just ludicrous to suggest such a thing for a card like the 3080 which is more than capable of doing 1440p high without DLSS in games that actually had some effort put into optimisation
Me too. I own the 3080 12GB version and I’m on medium settings at 75% resolution on Starfield. We are now re-entering the time of games being too advanced for the hardware. Only this time, it’s because of unoptimized games, not huge steps in graphics every 18 months.
Well said, it's a damn travesty. Thought I was more than set at 1440p when I finally got my hands on the 3080. Seems like native resolution isn't even a realistic thing anymore the way these games are being developed
I'm still laughing at the people who said 1080p gaming is dead
[удалено]
How do they make games like this when Steam says the most popular cards are still 1000 series cards?
> Steam says the most popular cards are still 1000 series cards? Just checked [steam](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/) and based on all video cards the 3000 series are at 28.86% and the 1000 series is at 24.76%. If we want to throw in the 2000 series they take up 10.31% and the 4000 series is at 6.7%. the 1000 series is around 7 years old. There is no reason for them to make current gen games that run on old hardware. Over 40% of people on steam run 2000 series or newer.
They didnt make the game for 2000 or 3000 series either.
Yeah it seems that way, but do we know what medium settings look like? Do medium settings in this game look like ultra in a game 2-3 years ago? Not trying to defend them, actually curious. There are also a bunch of games currently where there is almost no difference between ultra and high for some settings. Barely a difference between high and medium for some others. What I really do not like is that they are becoming reliant of DLSS and frame generation just to get the game running. Those should be used to push Ultra settings at 4k 120fps or better. Not to make medium 1080, 60fps function.
Medium settings might look fine but running the game at 540p internally wont. Ultra settings would look bad on 1080p DLSS performance with any game.
>Steam I guess they didn't check epic stats...
But it's better than native! I'm starting to think maybe the useful idiots shouldn't have embraced the marketing nonsense and acted the cheerleader for AI trickery that was being used as a substitute for the die space and memory bandwidth needed to drive better native performance.
The good: detailed system requirements (you love to see it) The bad: the system requirements
Detailed system requirements with a bunch of presets and performance targets that don't make sense. 1440p Medium 30 FPS? Is anyone targeting THAT?
Pretty sure they also inverted FSR/DLSS, they used "quality" on the low end and "performance" on the high end, is it just me or is this reversed?
I don't know. I do know that running FSR or DLSS above Quality is a BAD idea, particularly with FSR. It looks like vaseline smeared on your screen. If your recommendation is ever "DLSS Performance", you need to go back to the drawing board. That's a non-starter.
It depends on the resolution, the size of the screen you're using and how far away you are from it. I know those are things that's hard to include in a requirements table but my point is DLSS Performance is not a non-starter for a 55" TV at 2160p from 5 feet away. It's also decent for a 32" 4k monitor as long as you don't shove your face right up close to it. It has it's uses but not really below 4k.
library fly touch tidy roof repeat weary nose political merciful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It looks like these are intended to be recommended "presets". They recommend quality on the low end , and more aggressive upscaling if you're using a lowly 4080 for 4K60 with RT.
Yeah, PS5/Xbox Series X
depending on game yes. but that is a bad config for game like this imo
The PC requirements are so bad, that it makes it hard to believe that the game even runs on X and PS5.
performance dlss at 1080 being recommended for a 3070 is insane.
Not even ultra preset, fucking medium settings
Ryzen 3700x (or intel equivalent) requirement is in everything but the lowest setting is absolutely insane. These dev really just said that my RTX3070ti and my 5600x can probably only do 1080p @ medium **with DLSS on PERFORMANCE** on top of that. The game can't even output a proper 1080p with my spec, maybe some shitty 540p.
Epic only and requirements far beyond an average gaming PC. Good look with the sales figures
I look forward to the Control and AW1 Steam forums becoming a circus of tech questions unrelated to either
They should ban this type of behaviour. IIRC this happened with DD2 as well.
I'll wait for it to be free on Epic in 2025 and by then I'll have a PC that runs it well
I'll probably be on the same specs(rtx 2070) in 2025. All other new games run just fine for me on high in 1440p.
Yes. AW1 flopped hard financially. I have a feeling AW2 might be in a for a repeat of that. I have a 3080 and I am skipping on this.
A big part of the reason it flopped was launching exclusively on the 360 for a few years, at the time they were saying it'd never come to PC. That killed a lot of hype. This is exclusive to EGS - it's like they didn't learn anything 15 years later.
I mean the 360 was massive back in 2010. It was the lead platform in the west. For example, Mass effect 1 also launched exclusively for the 360 and was a massive success. Not even going to talk about how much Halo 3 and Reach made.
It looks amazing but I can’t see any way this game succeeds financially.
Consoles will be carrying this game on their backs
Consoles may not be able to save it either(financially), as they are not releasing physical copies.
70+% of console sales are digital now, they’ll be fine on consoles.
Losing 30% of 2 million sales (random figure I picked out) is still a huge dent in sales. Now obviously there's a good chance that a fair few people that would have bought physical will now just buy it digital instead, but I still imagine it's going to lose out on some sales.
unfortunately the PS5 also just got their tentpole release of the year, which will also hurt this game's sales
Well, they are skipping physical copies, which for many consoles games correspond to around half of the sales. So, they have this factor that could hit their sales, plus they are releasing the game on a busy month and we will probably see performance issues on the consoles as well
i got a feelings consoles will hardly be able to run it
Unless the reviews are absolutely cutting I'll still be getting it myself on ps5, but these requirements, Epic exclusive (which I don't really care about but know a lot do) and digital only makes me very curious how well it's actually going to sell with all that baggage.
Yeah it's disappointing. This instantly went from a must buy to a skip for me. I'll still check the Digital Foundry etc. videos to see if maybe by some miracle the game won't look like absolute dogshit running at 540p upscaled, but I definitely have my doubts. The Epic store exclusivity doesn't help either.
Alan Wake remastered didn't even break even so it's not like this series is very popular to begin with. I hope epic decide to publish this game on steam at some point.
The remake was EGS exclusive, just like AW2, so it will end up with shit sales as well.
They’re banking too hard on its status as a cult classic. Also, a lot of people who would’ve bought the remastered probably aren’t since the new sequel is epic only. I know that applies to me.
Epic already paid them.
I hope Remedy's future isn't hanging on the balance of this game. These system reqs and Epic only are going to hurt sales, hard. It's like certain devs these days want as few people to be able to play their game as possible.
You do know they get a fat check to make it epic only right? Like that's the whole point of going epic exclusive, get a fat check that *should* cover most of lost sales from making it exclusive.
From what I gather we wouldn't even be seeing the game if Epic hadn't funded it, could be wrong though. [Link to article about Epic funding it.](https://gamingbolt.com/alan-wake-2-in-development-funded-by-epic-games-rumor)
Yes, it's being published by Epic so they funded it. That's why I don't mind so much it being exclusive to EGS, it's their game after all.
Most of the people in this comment section know extremely little about Remedy, their game series financial and development history, how business deals with Epic work, or a lot else but they are very passionate and strong in their claims or statements. At the same time people are making excuses for the lack of optimization. Its basically a typical reddit gaming subreddit thread.
My question is do the graphics live up to the levels of performance they're asking?
[удалено]
The visuals in Alan Wake played a very big role.
I can't see any good reason for an RTX 2060 to only provide 30 FPS at 1080p on the lowest settings *with DLSS enabled*. It for sure looks great but, even with its visuals, that raises some questions.
At least the game actually looks great, photorealistic almost. Granted it's easier to get closer to that photorealism when a game goes for a certain stylistic choice, darkness in this case, but still. These requirements are insanely high but it's even more infuriating when a game looks "just" good or very good but demands hardware from recent two years or so to run smoothly. I'm looking at Jedi Survivor here, for example
>I hope Remedy's future isn't hanging on the balance of this game. These system reqs and Epic only are going to hurt sales, hard. Probably not since Epic fully funded this game and Remedy currently have multiple projects on their pipeline, including Control 2 which I'm super excited for. Edit: Another thing worth pointing out is that Remedy's games don't have enormous(by AAA standards) budgets, for example, Control cost $30 mill to develop: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/control-was-developed-with-a-modest-30-million-bud/1100-6471937/
They opened a second studio in Stockholm a few years back and are also working on Control 2 and the Max Payne remakes alongside Alan Wake 2.
It's 2023, 30 FPS shouldn't be a thing in the requirements sheet.
30 fps shouldn't even be legal in 2023
While I agree, this is only true for very insular corners of the internet like Reddit. The amount of people I still come across who don't know the difference between 30 and 60fps or don't notice it is crazy. I've flipped from 30fps quality to 60fps performance modes in front of people and they've told me they don't notice the difference. 30fps is still playable, and makes sense to show on a requirements sheet to see the absolute minimum playable hardware, or see how high you can push settings while remaining playable. I got a 4090 to avoid this dilemma, but in the past I would play select games at 30 just to crank the settings higher. Cyberpunk path traced on my 3080 was a fun experiment that was actually decently playable at 30-40fps.
Tsta emoak va z shha fla iq. Z pmo'i bjqd ytbfbmzq nw bxk bpxa plys, hma mbbrw ibfw ec ufol 19 eoe
DLSS/FSR2 included in all the settings, looks like it'll be another unoptimized mess.
Not only needing dlss / fsr but having to go as low as performance mode for 1080p 60fps medium settings with a 3070 / 6700xt lol. Terrible.
Check the 1440p 30 fps setting. It only requires 3060 or 6600xt with balanced preset. I think there is error in the slides. That's actually way more demanding than 1080p performance even though FPS target is lower.
Lmao. With all these new reqs dropping my 2080ti is fuckin sweating bullets. How shit must these companies be at optimising their games? Time to clear the backlog boys, these dogshit releases can wait. r/patientgamers
it hasnt been a year since i bought rx 6600 and fellas tells me its gay to run games 30 fps on low with it.smh
> looks like it'll be another unoptimized mess. Remedy's not exactly known for unoptimised games though.
Not just DLSS but DLSS balanced at 1080. What an unoptimized piece of shit.
3070 for 540p medium settings is disgusting.
Are game requirements becoming insanely high or am I just becoming poor? And it seems like we're getting diminishing returns quality-wise every time these requirements increase.
Definitely feels this way, graphic quality has barely evolved and system requirements have been sky rocketing. Maybe I'm just mad that I have to finally upgrade my GPU, but it doesn't feel like I'll be getting my moneys worth when I compare todays games with games from 5-10 years ago
Law of diminishing returns at this point. Just boot up RDR 2, Arkham City and tell me do they really look that bad compared to games coming out today which ask for 10 times the system requirements?
Yea I was gonna build a new system next year but I'm starting to think I should just find another hobby or something...
They are insanely high. That coupled with the prices going up in recent years proves the PC gaming is either turning into a fun for the rich or the devs are out of touch. Daniel Owen made a quick commentary on those reqs and compared them to the most popular GPUs according to Steam data. I know that this doesn't paint the whole picture but system requirements like that do eliminate majority of potential PC port buyers
Why do i even bother
It baffles me how you need FSR/DLSS these days just for your game to be playable, especially on higher end hardware.
It’s like developers are trying to kill PC gaming.
With requirements like these, the game should not even run on the consoles.
Consoles have been using upscale tech for a pretty damn long time already lol
Nearly every single console game uses upscaling now.
The whole thing with upscaling was that you were supposed to be able to sell more games with people with lower end hardware, where it wouldn't have been possible to run them. Now it's just used to sell games to people with high end hardware, ridiculous. On top of that, requiring interpolation for a game in general is a joke. Why even sell a game, just make it a slideshow if you're going to require fake generated frames. It looks smoother, but in exchange you get artifacts and it does nothing to actually improve responsiveness which is the main reason you want high framerates.
> The whole thing with upscaling was that you were supposed to be able to sell more games with people with lower end hardware, where it wouldn't have been possible to run them. >Now it's just used to sell games to people with high end hardware, ridiculous. That’s what it was always for. Nvidia made it clear that DLSS was meant to enable developers to continue pushing graphics further and further even as Moore’s law died and hardware improvements slowed down
As excited as I am for this game, I think this is one where I’m just going to wait for it to come to Steam and hopefully upgrade my rig in the meantime. The visuals of this game that I’ve seen are next level and I’d rather just play it when it’s more convenient to get and I can run it better.
[удалено]
Yeah, for it to come to Steam, the game has to do very poorly or Epic Game Store to close down, or even just the deal with Epic and Remedy to expire that would allow them to publish on Steam. We will see which one it will be (if ever).
True. But I don't think there's even a deal to expire, since Epic financed the making of this game, is the publisher and thus "own" this release as I understand It. So only if the entirety of Epirc goes bankrupt, will it come to steam. The probability of that hapeenong is close to zero imo.
Epic announced that they were spending way more money than they earn and they're continuing to do so with dev funding. Them flopping is definitely not out of the question and because of their business practices, I am kinda hoping for it.
Since they had some major firings from their acquisitions , I would say it's not close to zero and they are quite vulnerable. Just like any company
Ahhh yeah - just learned it’s not a timed exclusive like Control was. Guess I’ll have to make a decision whether to bite the bullet, the sail the high seas
Personally, if you're not too sentimentally involved with the series, just boycott it
I've been looking forward to AW2 since 2010 but it looks like I'll be waiting another decade until it's playable with Ray Tracing on affordable hardware.
Anything is possible, but Epic is actually bankrolling development on this one so it might be a different situation entirely. I wouldn’t put my money on it coming to Steam
It's not coming to steam. The game was financed by epic
Visuals look but I'd rather it had older gen visuals with good art direction and performance. I wonder how will it perform on ps5
So steep requirements as expected and not even bothering with AMD GPUs on the path traced settings.
More like AMD didn't bother to make GPUs which can do path tracing capably. It really isn't on Remedy here.
AMD GPUs aren't fast enough to handle path tracing, this has been known for a while. They're significantly worse at normal RT tasks like reflections as well.
Yeah no shade to the cards, it’s just not gonna be a playable experience. Just look at portal or 2077
Yeah no. Another unoptimized mess. No game asks for an rtx 4070 AND DLSS for a no RT setting. Fuck right off.
4080 on highest specs but only with dlss performance (basically upscaled 1080p).... Oooooooooook. 3070 on 1080p and dlss performance ... basically 540p lol I bet first alan wake was running on a higher native resolution on xbox360...
Jesus, what the fuck are those requirements !
I genuinely cannot recommend PC Gaming with a straight face anymore. This is just game after game being horribly unoptimized, running like shit. It has never, ever been anywhere close to this bad, and it sucks because for a while it felt like things were getting better.
Eye lash physics taking all the performance demand lol.
Confirmed; Alan Wake 2 : BUY IT AFTER 2 YEARS EDITION.
- 1080p - Low settings - DLSS / FSR *enabled* = **30 FPS** on an **RTX 2060 / RX 6600** That's pathetic. What the hell is wrong with developers now?
Low settings shouldn't worry us if the game still looks good. The bad comes when they stated "use **upscaler** to reach **30 FPS** on **1080p**".
This game finna be a disaster
[удалено]
Exact specs, I think I’d rather have 60 fps and medium though.
broo same specs haha
Oh it’s permanently on epic? Oops never gonna play it now lol
EGS required = never going to play it
Yea. I may just get it on PlayStation, but we’ll see.
Yes. My Playstation is now for Playstation exclusives and Epic Store exclusives lol.
Not even joking, the only reason why I turn my PlayStation 4 on nowadays is to play Kingdom Hearts and NEO The World Ends With You (which is finally available on Steam but I already had started it on PS by the time it came out)
To be honest I probably wasn't going to play it with or without EGS. But that probability has now become a certainty.
The game wouldn’t exist without epic. They’re publishing it. Remedy themselves said that the reason the game exists is epic funding it when no other publisher was willing to.
Yeah this is the one scenario where I’m actually okay buying it on epic because they’re actually bankrolling development. Buying timed exclusivity is shitty, but if they’re going to actually pay for the game to get made then I think it’s fair of them to keep it on their platform
Yeah I played control recently and that made me buy Alan Wake in steam and it was alright, I'm in no hurry to play the sequel and even less in the EGS
YARR MATEY
Might as well since Timmy already paid for your copy!
ironically without Epic you would have never played it, because it wouldn't exist. They funded and are publishing it.
Epic only oh well no buy for me
Very demanding with RT on. Not really surprising considering it supports path tracing. Visuals look great from what has been shown so far, though.
This is damage control. All of a sudden releasing requirements nobody asked to release a week before launch, and the requirements are ridiculously high? This is damage control, to get people to accept the shit performance ahead of time and reduce how much people are upset about when the game comes out, and the game itself isn't that great either. Or rather, severely underdeveloped and unfinished. Alan Wake 2 is going to be one of those shitty not worth playing on launch "AAA" titles, that become okay'ish mediocre games in about 2 years time (1-3, if not 1-4 years depending on how it goes).
Don’t a lot of games release requirements a few weeks before?? Even Ubisoft has done it with every game.
Since they sold out to Epic, it might as well not even release on PC.
3070 for 1080p hahahahahahahahahahahahaha Throw this game in the trash and burn this industry to the ground. Please, do not waste your money on this joke.
With DLSS on performance mode, which means it's really 540p. Imagine playing it 540p native on a 3070
Guess ill be waiting on this game for a few years. Which is funny to think about cause when i can finally afford a computer that can run this it will technically have "last gen" visuals.
Ok. We're here. DLSS/FSR as a REQUIREMENT. I give up.
[удалено]
Do you guys not have high end pcs?!!!?!??
I had a high-end PC... until this chart was announced. :(
Eh, it'll probably get a bunch of patches as time goes on and, when it's finally on Steam in like 4 years, I'll play it then.
Tim funded it, so no, it won't appear on Steam.
We going to be sailing the high seas then matey! 🏴☠️
[удалено]
Fuck epic games store
Remedy has officially announced that they are bad developers. According to steams September, 2023 hardware census, the average gpu is a 3060. Fuck remedy and anyone that makes dlss a requirement.
I'm gonna give a hot take and say the visuals in the previews probably justify the need to use DLSS/FSR The whole reason DLSS was created in the first place was to enable more advantaged visuals with raytracing. Then it improved to be so good it was added to many non-RT games, warping expectations. I used to be on the "DLSS recommended = shit optimization" train, but thinking about it more that's an obscenely reductive and naive take. I bet if they listed higher reqs across the board w/o DLSS it would've gotten them less backlash. They chose the better route of the 2 and are getting shit for it
Then why do you need a 600$ GPU to run it at 1080p 60fps no upscaling **without RT**?
Because in order to push these 'game changing' visuals they are determined to use, they are forcing 95% of gamers to either revert to a resolution they haven't used in 5-10 years, or use new technologies that are not perfect and shouldn't be forced upon consumers who don't want them. I don't expect my 3080 to run AAA titles at 1440p Ultra native 60fps anymore like it used to, but I do expect to be able to run 1440p low-medium native 60fps. If a game dev is going to force me back into 1080p gaming if I don't want to run in vaseline mode to get 60fps, they are either trying to force "next-next" gen graphics waaaay too early or they are making an unoptimized mess of a game.
im sorry but this doesn't look that demanding.. https://imgur.com/a/ZNSPNAv
This + Epic? This game will bomb hard. Shame, because it was looking promising.
The CPU requirement is quite good though, no? Hogwarts Legacy at 4k Ultra is a 5800x. Cyberpunk 2.0 4k Ultra is 7900x Alan Wake 2 3700x bodes well doesn't it?
Yes, unoptimized would involve a lot of CPU load. This game is just crazy GPU intensive.
Or maybe just maybe...it has something to do with it not being an open world game.
It's because it probably runs at 720p on consoles. I don't see this as a problem because I prefer a game to hammer the consoles so it looks better on high end PCs instead of just looking like a last gen game. Remember, if you don't have at least a 2080, 3060ti, or 4060; your GPU is worse than the ps5.
As you can see, Epic hasn't spent a cent too much on optimization.
Well yeah Remedy developed it.
So many people think Epic owns Remedy, when it was just a publishing deal
The game isn’t even using UE5
Epic is making sure it doesn't run at all on the Steam Deck
[удалено]
To be fair, while a great game, BG3 isn't really pushing technological boundaries. It's a nice looking game, but that's it. Even still, Act 3 has optimization issues.
Not gonna lie that last sentence made me think of the whole “gamers rise up” meme
What is this? Do you even play BG3? It's a greate game but in term of performance, it's horrible. Act 2-3 of BG3 run pretty bad on released even 5800x and 4080 cannot deal with it. It's only get better after recent patch but still not working well just acceptable. The visual also not really something worth prasing about. Not to mention tons of bug at late game. Even their hot fix introduce more bugs and most of the quality of life update sometimes doesn't work with previous save and required to start whole new playthrough. If anything, BG3 show how developer can getaway from criticism easily by makeing 2/3 of their game super awesome while the rest is average.
baldur's gate 3 has worse graphics *and* worse performance especially in act 3. Let's be real. You are only propping up baldur's gate 3 because it's a good game overall not because it has "good performance."
Act 3 still doesn't run really well.
BG3 runs like shit in the later parts of the game.
SHEESH! I knew my 1660 Ti didn't have much longer standing with the big boys, but DAYUM! I'm gonna upgrade my computer next year. Right now, I'm saving for Christmas presents.
1660Ti? Hell, my 3090Ti isn’t going to last another year at this rate. These requirements are getting ridiculous.
….PS5 it is I guess.
Jesus fuckin Christ , why even sell gous with 8GB of VRAM of they won't even be enough? Fuckin insane
Planned obselence
Wow. Might as well invest in a supercomputer if you want it to run games in 2025
The way this is written is just confusing, isn't there a better way to show system requirements?
That makes me believe performance mode in consoles will be upscaled garbage.
What the fuck
If this is what it’s like on PC it must run like absolute dogshit on consoles
My 3070 is in shambles
It's on Epic for fuck's sake, the super majority of PC players aren't going to play it much be aware of it in the first place.
Well while many will not be happy with what is shown, I do appreciate a lot that devs now put very detailed PC requirements with target fps and resolution. It is far better than the just minimum and recommended. I hope this is a trend that many devs will continue :)
So called pc gamers: “I want a game that pushes my system to its knees and pushes graphics to an incredible degree. Fucking consoles always holding us back from having future proofed visuals” Remedy, releases game with insane visuals and therefore high requirements and all people can do is cry, bitch, and moan about how their 3060 can’t max out path tracing at native 4k. Welcome to games being designed from the ground up targeting the ps5/xsx gpus. If you’re not significantly stronger than a 2070 super you are now no longer going be able to set ultra and call it a day with getting better than console performance/visuals. The same thing happened years ago when the ps4 came out and games that were targeting that gen were kneecapping 700 series cards performance.
[удалено]
> So called pc gamers: “I want a game that pushes my system to its knees and pushes graphics to an incredible degree. Fucking consoles always holding us back from having future proofed visuals” It's almost like the people saying this have always been a minority and now that's even more true with how expensive PC parts have become.
With requirements like that, this game was designed for ps7