Yes, that’s why it outsold everything ever made on PC. Oh wait!!! It didn’t.
And actually, Crysis 2 specs are lower and I doubt SD team would make Brink run as smooth as Crysis, no offense, but even if Crytech suck at making games, they know their tech and they’ve spent years doing nothing but tech engines and optimizations.
I think you are contradicting to your self, saying that crysis 2 didn’t sell greatly on pc becayse it was so undemaning hardware wise 
And IMO, it would have sold better on pc if it was more graphicaly challenging…since most people were waiting for a new bench mark sandbox fps /offtopic
Back to Brink, I am sure that atleast 80% of all pc gamers, who will buy it, will run it fine.
I have a feeling this game will run better than people think.
I’m not upgrading at all, and i fully expect to run at med/high settings.
i7-920 overclocked to about 3.2 ghz
GTX 295 (1ghz)
6gb DDR3 ram.
I sincerely doubt anyone will need more than that to make the game look and run very well.
Most system requirements are padded (legal issue?), so don’t worry if your computer is a few Mhz under the requirement.
[QUOTE=Etek;277951]What part of the CPU is the problem don’t you people get?
Really? when most people are below minimum, you say it will run fine?[/QUOTE]
Seriously, go look at the SteamHW survey again. If you look closely you’ll see that you’ve misunderstood it.
Firstly, its only intel CPU speeds as a portion of total. So if its not an intel CPU, it doesn’t report a result. Secondly, 50% of survey participants had an Intel CPU above min spec. Only 17% of all participants had an Intel CPU slower than minspec.That leaves a big mystery number of 33% of all participants with non-Intel CPUs which may or may not be above minspec.
So how are you so sure that “most” people are below minimum?
Haven’t you noticed yet Senethro? Etek does nothing but whine.
And back to the discussion 3 pages ago: I love Steam and Dedicated server browers. I even add my non-Steam games to my Steam list so that I get the Steam ingame Overlay when playing so I can still talk to friends and web browse when in queues/lobbies etc. I set up a bookmarks list in iGoogle and so I have all my fav sites at a single click away from me in game.
Dedicated Server browsers are excellent for me, since almost every time I play a MP game I do it with my GF and usually with other friends too… so it’s nice to see if the server has enough slots left for all of us to join otherwise people miss out.
As has been stated many times in here too… the min specs aren’t that ridiculous. Those specs have become beyond average for gamers for a long time now. Perhaps don’t be tight and upgrade if your pc is beyond that level since it means you haven’t upgraded in 3 or so years.
Hey badman can you tell me how the Fire-team squad feature works on the PC version?
On consoles you and your friends can join in a group of max 8 and you join a match together being in the same team. So what are the differences between the console version since the PC version has dedicated servers?
I advice SD to make a PC forum only, for all the complaints that’s would be
about performance.
Sry guys it’s a ditrect console port. Also glad didn’t pre ordered.
Why do you think we didn’t see any PC footage at all ???
tl;dr Brink requirements are pretty tame and what was expected.
[QUOTE=Auzner;242193]Why are minimum requirements always asked for PC games? Stop gaming on the bare minimum and spend the $250/year to keep a current system. It’s a lot more enjoyable and less effort than hunting for console tweaks to disable hidden stuff.
If you don’t have at least:
>Core 2 Duo or Athlon II X2
>HD3800/4600 or 8800GT/GTS 250
>2GB XP/4GB 7
…then you don’t have an appropriate gaming PC.
Also requirements like dual hexcores and SLI GTX 480 aren’t going to pop out of nowhere. Industry knows better.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
85% of steam users have at least dual core.
40% appear to have a decent gaming card. I’m guessing “other” means all the Geforce 7 and X1000 crap. Those will game just fine with older titles, but it’s unrealistic to assume they will keep up today.
73% have at least 4GB of ram[/QUOTE]
Hey guess what? I know what I’m talking about! I accurately predicted a half a year ago what the requirements of the game would be. It wasn’t difficult, I’m just into the hobby enough to know better.
I’m saying those are the minimum parts you can have to not be laughed out of a computer forum. If you can’t meet Brink’s minimum req, forums would tell you it’s over and now start from scratch. A forum of PC gamers who actually care about the hobby know better keep updated. Anyone complaining hasn’t reasoned what the hobby implies:
[QUOTE=Auzner;276286]Troubleshooting and upgrading a PC is the reality of the hobby. If you have $4000 you can pay Alienware to solve your list of issues and continue gaming without having to learn anything. Most prefer to learn because it is worth their time to save that money.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=CVIChEK;277710]God focken damnit, I can’t even launch the menu of Brink, let alone play it.
This is what “older PCs will be able to run it” means today :([/QUOTE]
Your perception of computers for video games is very off.
The Radeon HD 2900 came out 4 years ago.
The GeForce 8800GS came out 3 years ago.
The Core 2 Duo E6600 came out 5 years ago.
2 x 1GB DDR2-800 was <$30 4 years ago.
So yes, if you had a top of the line computer from four years ago you’d be able to run Brink. In that period prices only been dropping and getting replaced by superior designs. You’ve had four years to catch up. If that is outrageous or a hardship then you should consider that PC gaming is not a suitable hobby for you. If I spent a lot of time I could probably scrounge together pieces that would run Brink for less than $200, with a majority of the cost being the video card.
This has ALWAYS been the reality of PC gaming. And because of current generation consoles there’s actually been a huge break. Saying a new major game will run with a 4 year old computer has not happened since the 1990’s. The trend has always been that a card/system over 2 years old will barely meet minimum requirements. Either you guys don’t remember this or haven’t been PC gaming for very long.
[QUOTE=Etek;277937]What part of ‘you’re game WILL NOT SELL, if your minimum requirements are higher than what most people have at home’ don’t developers get?
Nice going SplashDamage. And in case you are betting on people buying your game two years from now when they’ll meet your recommended specs, what the hell are you guys smoking?[/QUOTE]
Being short-sighted and enraged is not going to change anything. All this tells us is that your mother isn’t willing to get you a new computer. You’ve made it obvious you don’t have much experience or involvement. On computer forums a majority of the active members would run circles around this. Video cards are more important and you didn’t even attempt to look at that. Your conclusions of the processor survey was also self-serving and wrong.
[QUOTE=Etek;277951]What part of the CPU is the problem don’t you people get?
Really? when most people are below minimum, you say it will run fine?[/QUOTE]
I don’t weigh too much on the steam survey. But since you do, and you couldn’t even interpret it correctly, I’ll discuss it.
I add up 91.74% have at least dual core. The rest are probably people loading steam on their netbook and completing the survey. Not all games on there are new you know.
73.64% have at least 2.3 GHz. But I don’t think the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 GHz will matter much if you have quad core, and 38.59% do. So that expands frequency to 88.86%. The clear correlation of these statistics are not revealed so some may be single core. But in both categories a clear majority meet the requirements (89% and 92%). So would it be so unreasonable to say that 3/4ths of the people who took the Steam Survey meet the requirement? Also I thought I’d mention that the E6600 was one of the most popular processors ever and that they’re EVERYWHERE. Everyone on forums were getting those. Every other system was E6600 when Conroe came out. If you weren’t around experiencing this then what makes you think you know better?
Well too bad, what do you care? People complaining their laptop won’t run a game is nothing new. It’s posted by someone new every day on all computer forums. People see games as just another piece of software like Firefox, Microsoft Word, Quicktime, etc. PC games are actually a killerapp and require dedication to a hobby to appropriately play.
It’s usually non-usa residents and teenagers. Both cannot get parts. Foreigners will interact with each other a lot more and evolve on that their neighbor with the pentium 4 has the best rig. Teenagers rarely read reviews and lurk forums and just want laptops.
You’re from the Bay Area, of course you know what’s going on.
How much would it cost aproxemetly to buy a pc that could play Brink on minimum?
@Auzner
My pc is 6+ years old, it was outdated at that time and everything stock
I have a ****ing Nvidia 6200
In the Wild West here I could goto many different stores, fleamarkets, used parts forums and probably do it for $200-300. Once the base system is in place a majority of the money would be spent on a used video card. Computer forums for sale sections are always priced reasonable for what is the newest. So if I wanted to do 4850 CFX again I’d probably spend $80.
Even when that card was brand new technology it still was terrible. Do you know about 6/7/8 levels? The 2nd digit from the highest should be 6, 7, or 8 for gaming.
You’re not a target market then, but also you shouldn’t be surprised. Your computer hasn’t ran a new game since 2004.
[QUOTE=Auzner;278172][SIZE=“4”]
73.64% have at least 2.3 GHz. But I don’t think the difference between 2.0 and 2.4 GHz will matter much if you have quad core, and 38.59% do. So that expands frequency to 88.86%. The clear correlation of these statistics are not revealed so some may be single core. But in both categories a clear majority meet the requirements (89% and 92%). So would it be so unreasonable to say that 3/4ths of the people who took the Steam Survey meet the requirement? Also I thought I’d mention that the E6600 was one of the most popular processors ever and that they’re EVERYWHERE. Everyone on forums were getting those. Every other system was E6600 when Conroe came out. If you weren’t around experiencing this then what makes you think you know better?
[/QUOTE]
So, 89% barely touch the minimum requirements. Minimum requirements that mean the game runs at most 30 fps on lowest settings. Mindblowing.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Game developers need money to continue making games, if you make a game that barely runs on what the majority of the gamers have, because games are killer apps, well, how in the hell do you expect people to buy your game if they can’t play it properly? People complain about game prices being high, when you add a new pc to that price, well, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how this will end up.
[QUOTE=Auzner;278178]In the Wild West here I could goto many different stores, fleamarkets, used parts forums and probably do it for $200-300. Once the base system is in place a majority of the money would be spent on a used video card. Computer forums for sale sections are always priced reasonable for what is the newest. So if I wanted to do 4850 CFX again I’d probably spend $80.
Even when that card was brand new technology it still was terrible. Do you know about 6/7/8 levels? The 2nd digit from the highest should be 6, 7, or 8 for gaming.
You’re not a target market then, but also you shouldn’t be surprised. Your computer hasn’t ran a new game since 2004.[/QUOTE]
Actualy, somehow, it can run Wolfenstein '09, CoD MW2 multiplayer (alterIWnet) and RA 3 Uprising.
And I’ll get a new pc when I move out of my parents house lol, not sooner 
[QUOTE=Auzner;278178]The 2nd digit from the highest should be 6, 7, or 8 for gaming.
[/QUOTE]
Why not 9? QUAD SLI FTW 
Yes, and the French are hairy and unhygienic while all South African men are rapists, we all know that.
You’re still reading it wrong. The fact of just having dual, tri, quad core is enough for most games. The video card is more important than the processor. And I just explained that 75% of steam likely has the minimum processor. Minimum processor doesn’t mean worst case scenario performance. Having an HD 2900 or GF 8800 would, and those are commonly sold used on forums for ~$30, if anyone even still has them. Even so, those cards are not to be underestimated. They were top of the line when ETQW was out. At this point your complaints are rather selfish and just a lot of whining. I’m trying to explain how the system works and you’re not listening.
What is your desktop PC’s specifications? How many friends do you have with better computers? Just say you’re trolling for the consoles.
Because when I have to tell people that they’ll usually start from the top. They’ll see a 9 is $500+ and walk away from the concept. 9 is it’s own extreme category. 8 is usually more practical because for the price it will outlast a 6 much longer.
[QUOTE=CVIChEK;278184]Actualy, somehow, it can run Wolfenstein '09, CoD MW2 multiplayer (alterIWnet) and RA 3 Uprising.
And I’ll get a new pc when I move out of my parents house lol, not sooner :([/QUOTE]
Call of Duty 2 came out in 2005 and MW2 is basically the same graphics engine so I’m not too surprised. It’s still “running” them, but it’s not enjoyed at the same level as everyone else. In that situation I would just play older games suited to the system. You can still get the same game play. Like Starcraft 1 will run on any pentium 3 or later so it’s very netbook friendly. It’s the same game play as SC2 so if you can’t run SC2 you’re not totally deprived of electronic entertainment in that style. For example UT2k4 would be suited to your system at decent settings.
You’re the most dramatic person ever. Everything is the most extreme levels and everything is mindblowing. Take a chill pill. “People, people, people, people” well OBVIOUSLY you’re not the target market so sit down. I AM THE PEOPLE. There are hundreds of thousands of me. We pay $500/year for our hobby and greatly enjoy it. We appreciate the graphics and level of complexity games are getting to. You can’t speak for my people anymore. You don’t know anything and refuse to because your real motive is to promote console gaming. There’s nothing wrong with that but I see through your whining subterfuge.
You people are the minority. Whoever makes games for the minority will go out of business unless they charge 1000$ for a copy of the game.
This game has higher requirements than Crysis 2, CPU is still doing most of the work in games no matter how YOU PEOPLE look at it. GPU will help with higher resolutions, texture sizes, AA and post processing effects, IF they are done by the GPU.
The fact remains, you have to have an i5 to enjoy this game properly.
And this is my configuration:
E8500 @ 3.13 Ghz
4 GB RAM
GTX 560 Ti
Windows 7 64
I will be surprised it I’ll get more than 30-40 fps. How do I know? Well, in Bad company 2 I get 30 fps no matter what graphic settings I choose (from lowest to highest with 8x MSAA). What does that tell you? My CPU is the bottleneck and the GPU is mostly sleeping.