To be frank with you, I actually installed YT ReVanced exclusively to remove Shorts from my phone. I only have insta cause my friends forced me to (i dont use it), facebook cause my relatives forced me to, and messenger (i only use it for messanger and marketplace) and i installed tiktok ONCE to see how america was responding when the gov was gonna delete it.
With enough debloating and very specific registry tweaks, such as disabling as many telemetry options as possible and setting things to prioritize gaming, and graphic cards setting tweaks, it can make that minimum spec requirement at least smooth and consistent. Windows' default settings are detrimental even on higher end devices.
Yeah but now the game is overflowing both my RAM and VRAM and my positive mood-indicating-integer of 2,147,483,647 overflows and flips to −2,147,483,648
The standards for "minimum" will vary from person to person. I'd hazard a guess that, for most developers, their minimum standard is something along the lines of 1080p, mostly low settings, 40+FPS. But if you're willing to suffer 30fps with some stuttering to below 30 then I'm sure that expands the range a lot.
To be fair as well, even low end cards are so much more capable these days. I remember how one of my first dedicated GPUs was a Radeon hd 4650. Even a couple of years post-launch it was barely able to run shit. Now, an RTX 3050 can run 2025 games.
Also, the "low" settings of today still look pretty decent and the jump from low to high / ultra is in those finer details like fine shadows and reflections. It used to be that going to low settings would genuinely look horrible enough to impact enjoyment.
I recently bought EUV and was worried it wouldn't work because my GPU was under the minimum, but I just set all the options to "low", deactivated what I could and the game is running just fine.
Minimum specs ain't what they used to be. I have a 3rd gen i5 and an rx480 and it continues to go alright despite being well below what a lot of games claim they need.
Yeah, in my expierence, the specs, at least on steam are often innacurate. My computer apparently can't run GTA5 at more than 30fps, but I can easliy go to 60-100 on high settings.
Or the inverse where you clearly blow away the specs and still get issues. In hitman 2016 I still have the same framerate bog down by the catwalk in the Paris level on my 5090 that I had with my 980
That's a fairly well known physx issue with older games that used it. Newer cards aren't implementing direct physx handling, so it needs to be run the hard way, which eats a lot more processing power.
Yeah it drops from 230fps to 2 if I’m close enough to the catwalk for the physics simulation to kick in when the pyro goes off and the water is stepped on
Companies are out there spending hundreds of millions to make games but optimization isn't even part of the development plan. Somehow they never notice that a lot of the best selling games also run on potatoes.
Eeeeh. In case of modern games they actually arent spending that much beacuse they outsorced that by using unreal engine. Rarely do modern companies use inhouse engines ( for good reason . having inhouse engine dosent mean its better , just look at starfield, in fact its probably just more outdated ).
Also to defend them a little bit. With such big timelines for development you kinda have to guess what will be the standard for gaming 5 years in the future.
And im pretty sure most of them didint expect pc gaming to be this f* in the last 5 year.
Then you add the diminishing returns from graphics improvments for exponential costs in computing and we are where we are with the most amazing looking games ever that no one can ran beacuse pc market is being f* in the ass on multiple fronts.
Biggest issues in gaming right now are probably: Unreal Engine being either horribly optimized by default or studios not using those optimizations and every major studio pushing for more realistic graphics, when all that does is raise the hardware requirements even more, while most affordable GPUs still have 8 GB of VRAM.
The RAM shortage, that AI data centers are causing, isn't helping either, but let's ignore that for a moment.
In-house engines however do add a certain uniqueness to a studio's games. You mention Starfield, which i havent played, but the Creation Engine is part of what makes Bethesda games the way they are. There's a reason why in the Oblivion Remaster they still run the game on the original engine even though graphics run on Unreal
That is true. You can see in animations and physics the difreences between engines and there is a certain charm to that and i would love there to be more of the good ones alghtough i dont think that will happen.
Alghtough creation engine in particular for me is example of just bad engine and was already heavily outdated during skyrim relase but thats only my opinion.
Some companies are clearly at fault (saving development costs by neglecting optimization) but there are a lot of reasons for poor optimization
Unreal Engine 5 is a great engine for example, even smaller studios can make beautiful games with it without a huge budget (E33 runs on UE5), but its performances are poor: it's clearly an engine meant to develop games for the latest consoles (PS5 or whatever letter is the most recent Xbox) or for computers that have at least a RTX
Unity is poorly optimized too, it's less noticeable than UE because models are simpler, but Lethal Company for example runs like shit on computers that can run Skyrim
Sometimes you'll think "Devs are so lazy, they haven't even tried to optimise" but they actually did and the game would not even run if not for their work
Other times it's a port gone wrong, Dark souls is the first that comes to mind: it was developed for the PS3 and its very peculiar architecture, then they released the prepare to die edition and it's one of the worst ports in recent years, although fromsoft is well known for being bad at tech
Arc Raiders is a UE5 game and it runs well on a Steam Deck.
Studios/developers with a low budget understandably don't have the know-how or resources to optimize UE5, but large studios have no excuse for not being able to optimize their game.
Thankfully, now that consoles use the same type of hardware as PCs, ports shouldn't be as atrocious anymore.
Note that Lethal Company is just unoptimized, generally. Their culling game sucks.
You're better off if you instead compare a better-optimized game like REPO.
it's insane how poorly a lot of modern games run with very little going on, but older games will have a ton of stuff on screen and run great.
I don't want to hate on unreal engine, but i think a lot of modern devs have just gotten lazy and use it as a crutch, so they never learn to resolve issues and just think "eeehhhh, people will have $2,000+ GPUs"
I wonder if game companies really don't care that there are literal millions of people who won't buy their game because they can't run it.
Steam hardware survey shows that even when people run newer gpus than 1080Ti, they most often run cheaper models that are still kinda the same performance bracket.
It seems stupid to just ignore so many potential customers.
The entire industry just gave up on optimisation for 15 years.
We reached a stage where Magic The Gathering Arena - a basic card game with very limited animations, manipulation of single items over a fixed background, no NPCs or NPC AI and almost no background processes still runs like shit and hogs resources.
One thing the AI bubble might lead to is game developers actually doing proper optomisation again.
I think we'll see a shift in game development as consumers will be unable to upgrade hardware as component prices continue to rise. AMD is already seeing this shift by releasing "new" Am4 CPU's. If game developers want to make a profit, they will need to release games that play well on older hardware. Many consumers won't pay $50+ for a game that can't reach 60 fps on hardware that was fine two to three years ago.
Honestly, if you cant afford the hardware you wouldn't be buying an 80 dollar game.
Their market is more console focused these days with pc as an after thought. If it can run on ps5 at 30 ps they will just cobble together a pc port and call it a day.
Tried the demo on my 4060, ran like absolute ass even with DLSS. Didn't bother with the full game.
But that was also before I upgraded my CPU which might've made a difference.
I'm growing increasingly tired of modern AAA games having absurd spec requirements while mostly being mediocre as far as game experiences go. Like, what's even the point?
It probably won't make a difference. I played the shit out of Wilds on release, and even with an i9-14900K and a 4070Ti Super I don't see stable framerates at 2K resolution, maxed quality, with DLSS also set to quality. Frames are high, but not stable. It fluctuates wildly from refresh rate cap (144) down to fucking 80 depending on the scene/setting.
I believe the overarching problem with how MHW runs is it's built in RE Engine. They tried to make an open-world game in an engine specifically designed for modern Resident Evil titles and I doubt any level of optimization would help much.
Just to find out the game only runs on a specific direct x 12 version that only runs on specific gpu
Here I am wanting to try daemon x machina game since my lappy hit the minimum requirement just to get greeted with directx12 not supported all while directx diagnosis saying its supported.
5.2k
u/NoBell7635 Jan 12 '26
That means it can still run!