PC game system requirements are off the chain

Another week, another AAA PC game release with nutzo system requirements.  As has been widely reported, suspected not-so-Xbox One-exclusive "Quantum Break" is going to be released on Windows 10 (yay!) and will even have cross-purchase and save sync capability across both platforms.  Basically this means that (higher-end) gaming laptops can now effectively function as cloud-save enabled portable Xbones.  Or so the hype suggests at this point, as it remains to be seen how it will work in practice.  But I digress....

Quantum Break's PC system requirements are high.  Like, overall, the highest I've seen, and sits among other offenders such as the Wolfenstein reboot, etc.  Check them out at the bottom of the page right here.  This example highlights a lot of issues I've had with PC game system requirements lately.

(Image from Remedy's Quantum Break website)

1. Numero uno, there's no way to know what each spec level is targeting, detail-setting and resolution wise.  What can you expect with an i5 4660 and an R7 260x?  720p and low?  720p and high?  1080p medium?  Not a clue.  What does the "ultra" level get you?  I mean, it basically requires you have bleeding-edge top of the line kit.  Is this for 4K and high?  It would be nice if system requirements would start specifying what the "minimum" and "recommended" specs are going to net you in real terms.

2. Next, let's just state the obvious here:  An i5 4660 is not equivalent to an FX 6300.  In no plane of existence.  Yes, an FX 6300 is a fantastic mid-range processor, especially when OC'ed.  It's quite the value.  I even recommend it.  But it's not equivalent to a newer i5.  Just look at Tom's Hardware's CPU hierarchy.  I keep seeing this.  System requirements will say that you need a "Core i7" (which is deceptively vague) and then go on to say an FX 8350 is just fine also.  Sure, if you're talking an older i7, maybe.  We've seen a few games now that really put a load on CPUs and benefit greatly from newer Intel architecture (Fallout 4), even if you really can't say why, but seeing this sort of lopsided "equivalency" statements in sys reqs make me think the Intel CPU listings are often over-inflated or so vague they're difficult to interpret (such as "Core i5" which could mean a whole swath of processors over the last five years, some of which are very equivalent to newer i3s and AMD FX and APU chips).

3. Volumetric lighting and other "next gen" lighting effects (not to mention Nvidia's performance-killing and crash-inducing Gameworks tech) are putting huge (say it "yuje" if you like Trump or Sanders) and uneven loads on video cards.  Take a look at any newer (next gen) AAA release and you'll certainly see complaints from many users about "poor optimization" and other performance issues.  Such as "I have a GTX 770 and my frame rate dips to 30fps at 1080p high, there's no excuse for this!!!" and so on.  Granted, there have been some releases that have had poor optimization, no doubt (Batman, I'm looking at you).  But much of this can be chalked up to lighting effects and other next-gen visual wizardry.  Swing the camera toward a light shaft (or seven) and doink!  There goes your 60fps into the toilet.  Look away, and things get better.  This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but it does cover a gamut of the reasons we're seeing performance that fluctuates wildly during gameplay on decent hardware.  The fact that these effects are, by their nature, unevenly applied to environments means that as the player moves through the game world, their effects will cause dips and spikes in performance.  Developers should be looking for a way to even out these (and not through straight FPS caps!) so that we can get experiences that don't seem like somebody is pressing a fast-forward (or slo-mo) button sometimes (Crysis 3 on Very High is an example of this done right).  In closing, if you turn off these effects in games that offer it, you'll immediately see more even performance.  Of course, everything will look more "last gen".  Thus, we're seeing increasingly onerous hardware "requirements" in what I believe to be an attempt to head off calls of "poor performance" by those with mid-range hardware. Anyone with mid-range gear (or especially mid-range gear that's a few years old) should look no further than the spotty performance seen on the consoles on these games to feel better.

Until devs and publishers decide to implement some changes, we're all going to be waiting around until reviews and benchmarks surface on new releases so we can see what kind of rig you actually need to play at the quality level you want.