Seems high: Tabula Rasa specs

[Arthur_Parker]

I'm not buying a new pc to play this.

[Telemediocrity]

What does Vista offer, again, that is going to make me want Vista?  Every time Microsoft releases a new OS the system reqs go up dramatically, but I fail to see what I'm doing with Windows XP that's so much different than what I did with Windows 95.

[Jayce]

Beats the hell out of me. Mind you, it is a beta, and there's bound to be a bunch of code bloat.

As a MS cheerleader, I nevertheless feel justified correcting this to:

Mind you, it is a MS product, so there's bound to be a bunch of code bloat.

[Merusk]

What does Vista offer, again, that is going to make me want Vista?

Tech Support (Not much of an issue for the tech-inclined around here, but globally a big deal with all the clueless users) and driver updates along with the ability to play new games/ run new software as MS once-again uses their monopoly to strong-arm a new OS and new system upgrades on everyone.  Direct X's newest version won't be offered on 98/xp/whatever other variants are out there, unless MS changed that stance from when I last heard.  So if you want to play new games in a year or two you'll be buying a new machine or plugging Vista on your current 'Vista Capable' one.

Vista seems a plausible reason for the specs, but seemed to be discarded as a viable reason earlier in the thread.  Makes sense to me, however, particularly after thinking again on what a clusterfuck EQ had to deal with when MS dropped support of Win95, and then SOE followed suit.  I don't recall much sympathy from folks on this boards predecessors at the time, however.

[ZariusZer0]

These aren't the final system reqs either guys. The games' not even into a beta phase, and those are the required specs for it's current setup. there's still a lot of time to change them, or implement lower level graphics, to drop the bottom on the reqs. The NCSoft Knowledge Base says they "should be close", but i wouldn't be surprised if they got tweaked before release.

[Venkman]

We're not the only ones talking about this, so I'm hoping the collective voice will result in them rethinking it.

Makes sense to me, however, particularly after thinking again on what a clusterfuck EQ had to deal with when MS dropped support of Win95, and then SOE followed suit. I don't recall much sympathy from folks on this boards predecessors at the time, however.

Because that happened well into the life of EQ, not before it launched.

And again, it's not a question of whether you or the semi-hardcore techs out there build a new rig to play TR. It's whether they're going to want to for TR.

The vast majority of gamers out there are do not have rigs like this. Look just at the specs for World of Warcraft. That's a machine you could get in 1999. And having played on a rig like that (hey, I had to know...), I can say that, yea, the game is playable (though no way I'd try a Garr fight on it).

The average gamer is not sitting on the edge of their seat awaiting Bioshock. They're playing MMOs or casual online games or whatever, all of which don't push the envelope because part of their success factor is casting as wide a net as possible. The PC is still a tool, something built for what most people use it for. The rest tweak themselves or pay premium to Falcon.

TR is already racked with challenges:

• It's by someone most gamers don't know, so there's no cache there to ease the messagin.
• The publisher not doing all that well of late. That matters to NC soft, maybe some vets.
• Has a traditionally under-performing theme (generic sci-fi).
• Had it's original design literally and quite publicly tossed, which matters to the veterans.

So take all that and add oppressive system specs? Doesn't seem right.

Unless they're planning a $50mil advertising campaign and some sort of Coca Cola tie-in, this game has a very good chance of falling below even the niche radar. And that'd be a shame, because it does seem like a good game experience from what I played.

But then, given all the above factors, I also feel there's still a fair chance this doesn't come out at all.

[Soln]

this doesn't need a lot of words -- this is dumb

how many times have we raised and re-raised our hopes for TR?  I'm not buying a new PC for this either

[Signe]

My computer is new and I'm still a wee bit under the spec for the reccommended processor and about spot on with the rest.  I'll be able to play this one with a decent return, but I'm sure there will be a game coming out soon that'll give me grief.  I'm so pissed off at games, anyway, I might read a book!  Not one about games.

[Merusk]

My computer is new and I'm still a wee bit under the spec for the reccommended processor and about spot on with the rest.  I'll be able to play this one with a decent return, but I'm sure there will be a game coming out soon that'll give me grief.  I'm so pissed off at games, anyway, I might read a book!  Not one about games.

Your comp is new and you got a plain ol' P4 chip, or you got one of the P4 hyper-threading dual core dohickeys? They're completly different chips, if I understand things rightly. So far as I know, a P4 2.5ghz dual-core should be more powerful than a P4 3.5ghz.

We're not the only ones talking about this, so I'm hoping the collective voice will result in them rethinking it.

And do what? If those truly are the system specs recommended, what're they going to do.. recode the engine again? Hack some downgrade ability into it?

Makes sense to me, however, particularly after thinking again on what a clusterfuck EQ had to deal with when MS dropped support of Win95, and then SOE followed suit. I don't recall much sympathy from folks on this boards predecessors at the time, however.

Because that happened well into the life of EQ, not before it launched.

MS is taking a very aggressive stance with Vista. They want people to upgrade, and do so faster than they did for 95-98 and 98 for XP.  That's why they're not offering DX10 on lower OSes.  I'd be surprised of they were supporting XP much longer than a year or so after Vista's release.  That's within the first year or two of TR going live, and something they need to plan for.  (And something I wonder about on WOW and other low-end games that can't ever move from DX9 without forcing out tons of players.)

And again, it's not a question of whether you or the semi-hardcore techs out there build a new rig to play TR. It's whether they're going to want to for TR.

I don't think anyone wants to play TR at all, for more than just the reasons you're listing later. That's not what I'm taking issue with. It's the stance that these specs are 'unfair' or 'unacceptable' for a game coming out in 2007.  They're not.  Technology is unfair to some, and always has been.  You upgrade or you watch it pass you by.  That's nothing new. I'm not a semi-hardcore tech, just someone who keeps a light interest in it. If I were anywhere near hardcore I'd have upgraded my system from 512mb a long time ago. 

The vast majority of [pc] gamers out there are do not have rigs like this. Look just at the specs for World of Warcraft. That's a machine you could get in 1999. And having played on a rig like that (hey, I had to know...), I can say that, yea, the game is playable (though no way I'd try a Garr fight on it).

I don't deny that. The vast majority of PC gamers are also trending older, yes?  Those of us in our 30s are folks who have better things to spend money on these days like houses and kids and vacations.  I can drop $2k+ on a new PC or I can go on vacation wtih my family.. guess which I'm doing now as opposed to my 20s where a tent and a campsite with beer was good enough for a week.  That means I'm behind the times.  I'm not

The average gamer is not sitting on the edge of their seat awaiting Bioshock. They're playing MMOs or casual online games or whatever, all of which don't push the envelope because part of their success factor is casting as wide a net as possible. The PC is still a tool, something built for what most people use it for. The rest tweak themselves or pay premium to Falcon.

You're assuming they're going after the average [PC] gamer. I'm not. I also think they're out of touch with reality and the game wouldn't sell if it ran on my 486.  My argument is not about THIS PARTICULAR game, but the specs of a gaming rig to run something in late 2006/2007 (TR's release date).

[Xanthippe]

I haven't bought a new machine for a few years.  It's about time to do so.  I can tell my machine is out of date when new game specs require it.

I agree with previous posters - If TR ships on time, these specs seem high.  If, however, they don't ship for 6-9 months, then maybe not.  Although for an MMO, it does seem odd to cut out that large a playerbase. 

Are people upgrading pcs at the same rate they have been? (For me, every 3-4 years).  That's key to know whether that curve has flattened.

[Venkman]

And do what? If those truly are the system specs recommended, what're they going to do.. recode the engine again?

We don't know how much the spec ties to what the engine does. There could be any number of things they could adjust to lower it, including choosing to load some files instead of others (as is the case with the very-scalable EQ2 engine... which however does look dull and dingy no matter the settings anyway ;) ).

MS is taking a very aggressive stance with Vista. They want people to upgrade, and do so faster than they did for 95-98 and 98 for XP.  That's why they're not offering DX10 on lower OSes.  I'd be surprised of they were supporting XP much longer than a year or so after Vista's release. 

I can see that. However, they can't ignore market forces either. If the Vista specs are a joke as implied on page 1, then people won't be getting Vista on $300 computers next year. If that's the case, the Microsoft is going to be lengthening their projections for rollout of the OS to the masses. People by and large get their new OS with a new computer. Unless Microsoft creates some magical system that requires no consumer involvement during installation yet has that mythical 99.99% probability of maintaining all files, programs and user settings, resulting in the average user only seeing a pretty new 3D-based desktop, there is no way in the world they'll stop supporting XP by the end of 2007.

At the same time though, there could be a corrolation drawn between those consumers likely to upgrade, those who are gamers and those who have systems that match the minimum spec. However, the question is (as it has been for the duration of this thread): are those gamers the TR gamer?

I don't think anyone wants to play TR at all, for more than just the reasons you're listing later. That's not what I'm taking issue with. It's the stance that these specs are 'unfair' or 'unacceptable' for a game coming out in 2007...My argument is not about THIS PARTICULAR game, but the specs of a gaming rig to run something in late 2006/2007 

Oh I get it, you thought I was lamenting the specs in general?

Nah. I would find those specs fine for Prey or Bioshock, which is why I referenced those two titles in this thread. FPS games have always pushed the envelope on tech, and that's fine given their marketshare and the secondary industries tied directly to them (and the Stanley Cup nVidia and ATI have to pass back and forth every few years). Those are not designed for the broadest swath of the mass market.

For TR though, no. For the reasons I stated and the ones you haven't yet :)

[damijin]

I really want to love NCSoft as a company, but I can't help but think that they're just pissing dumptrucks full of money into a tar pit with this project.

I've heard Lord British say that this game is for a casual audience, pick up and play. But then the setting is for the least casual of players (guns in space! casual!), and then they go ahead and make it so that only relatively high end machines can play it.

This thing is going to crash and burn on Auto Assault x 1000 proportions.

[Margalis]

Again, Vista is a total hog.

What does Vista offer you? Nothing really.

[geldonyetich]

What does Vista offer you? Nothing really.

Well, there is Direct-X 10.  It's got some nifty features... which is good, considering its very existance will ultimately be what forces PC gamers to buy it.

[Trippy]

My computer is new and I'm still a wee bit under the spec for the reccommended processor and about spot on with the rest.  I'll be able to play this one with a decent return, but I'm sure there will be a game coming out soon that'll give me grief.  I'm so pissed off at games, anyway, I might read a book!  Not one about games.

Your comp is new and you got a plain ol' P4 chip, or you got one of the P4 hyper-threading dual core dohickeys?

The dual core Pentium Ds don't have hyper-threading.

They're completly different chips, if I understand things rightly. So far as I know, a P4 2.5ghz dual-core should be more powerful than a P4 3.5ghz.

More likely than not, no. Unless the program is an extremely well-balanced multi-threaded app the GHz advantage of the single core (and hyper-threaded) processor will out-weigh the much slower but dual core processor.

[Miscreant]

The beauty vs install-base sweet spot for Fall 2006 is 2.5GHz / GeForce 6600 / 512 RAM.  And there are many GeForce 5200s out there.  Better run on them.

That's assuming you are targeting existing PC gamers.  If you really want to reach out, you need a fallback to 1.6GHz / GeForce4MX / 256 RAM. It can look like shit, but it must run at a decent framerate.  

TR is taking a big risk.

[Strazos]

Asking a new game to run on 256mb of RAM is quite a stretch.

[Miscreant]

Asking a new game to run on 256mb of RAM is quite a stretch.

You're right.  As is asking it to run on a GeForce4MX, which is a GeForce2 with lipstick.  But both remain a significant percentage of the install base, even for gamers. 

Two years ago the most popular Dell PCs came 256 standard, and GeForce4MX was a strong selling gaming card.  If you want the mild-core gamers who bought an OK rig two years ago -- or laptop gamers who bought a year and a half ago, you need to run at that spec in some capacity.

Hell, ~40% of Steam users had less than 512mb this year.   http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html. 

[Alkiera]

Asking a new game to run on 256mb of RAM is quite a stretch.

Heck, asking WinXP SP2 to run on 256MB of RAM is a bit much.  By the time you've gotten logged in, you've already started swapping OS to disk to free up RAM.

--
Alkiera

[Strazos]

I would hesitate to call them gamers if they haven't even upgraded their RAM beyond 256mb. I struggle to remember if I have ever owned a PC with that paltry amount of system memory, even when I was a neophyte gamer.

I find that Steam stat astounding...I can't even imagine what they're actually running with only 256mb.

[tazelbain]

I am still unclear what the selling points of Tabby is?  Semi-FPS in a sci-fantacy world? Mostly PvE?

[Engels]

I am still unclear what the selling points of Tabby is?  Semi-FPS in a sci-fantacy world? Mostly PvE?

Worse. Cartoonish FPS PVE. Think Wow with lasers.

[geldonyetich]

Actually, there are some interesting looking features in Tabula Rasa, such as:

• The overall combat isn't entirely RPG and isn't entirely twitch, it's geared to appeal to those whose reflexes aren't quite up to the job.  Put your reticle over something will guarentee you'll hit it, but skills determine how much damage you'll do.  There is some auto-aiming involved.  Ideally, play executes differently enough that it won't feel like the typical auto-attack grind we've all grown sick of.
• There's dozens of classes with a branching advancement system to ease you into choosing one you like.  Don't like the class you ended up as?  Apparently you can make clones from earlier stages of your development and swap between them to try other classes.  Alt-friendliness is good for the indecisive.
• Level-range friendly, lowbies can play with their higher up friends.  (Yes, it does run on a level-based system.)
• Casual friendly, good for short bursts of play if you don't have much time.
• Big battles where teams of players with NPC support attempt to take maps back from enemy forces, "Starship troopers" style.  (I get the feeling the majority of the game will take place on wartorn battlefields.)
• Fully integrated voice chat.  (From the start, rather than tacked on like in Dungeons and Dragons Online or Planetside)

...
Or so I've gathered from GameSpot coverage and other various snatches of reporting about the net.  Overall, I'm getting the feeling it's going to take your standard six-member EQ hunting group slowly farming experience and turn it into a six-member infantry squad rapidly fighting their way across enemy battlefields to achieve various goals.  With NPC and other group player group support, maybe.  It's a coop game, which is a turnoff for PvP players, since it's all the players versus the evil aliens.  (I woudn't be surprised if they add some kind of PvP element before or after release, however.)

So I've pieced together from hype, anyway.  What I actually get when I get my hands on a beta copy is yet to be determined.  Assuming it doesn't end up in a catastrophic Ultima Online 2-style vaporware (which NCSoft has yet to do) I think that Tabula Rasa will definately be a game to watch for some innovation on the massively multiplayer field.  It's just innovative enough that I suspect we're going to see more delays past its Q4 2006 release date, but it's something to look forward to for 2007.

[Righ]

I think that this pretty much explains where all the money in NCsoft is going. They're getting close to 100 people on the Tabula Rasa team. Most of them will test the thing internally, so they need at least one PC that can run it. Most of the developers will need another one for cutting code on. The graphics folks probably need honking great Macs, and refreshed them all on Monday. When NCsoft dotbombs itself, there's going to be some fabulous gear on eBay.

[damijin]

Actually, there are some interesting looking features in Tabula Rasa, such as:

• The overall combat isn't entirely RPG and isn't entirely twitch, it's geared to appeal to those whose reflexes aren't quite up to the job.  Put your reticle over something will guarentee you'll hit it, but skills determine how much damage you'll do.  There is some auto-aiming involved.  Ideally, play executes differently enough that it won't feel like the typical auto-attack grind we've all grown sick of.
• There's dozens of classes with a branching advancement system to ease you into choosing one you like.  Don't like the class you ended up as?  Apparently you can make clones from earlier stages of your development and swap between them to try other classes.  Alt-friendliness is good for the indecisive.
• Level-range friendly, lowbies can play with their higher up friends.  (Yes, it does run on a level-based system.)
• Casual friendly, good for short bursts of play if you don't have much time.
• Big battles where teams of players with NPC support attempt to take maps back from enemy forces, "Starship troopers" style.  (I get the feeling the majority of the game will take place on wartorn battlefields.)
• Fully integrated voice chat.  (From the start, rather than tacked on like in Dungeons and Dragons Online or Planetside)

...
+words

all of your points make it sound like TR was designed for me, but I just somehow don't care. The original trippy music instrument wielding version sounded a lot cooler than this PvE Planetside 2 (minus the cool stuff).

[Miasma]

I thought the people who got to play a bit of it at E3 liked what they saw.  Or am I getting that confused with another MMO?  I'm going to be unreasonably hopeful about Tabula Rasa.  I like the fact that they have already scrapped the whole game at least once and tried again.  If that had happened with SWG it might have fulfilled its potential.

I'm also going to assume that there is some sort of oversight at NCsoft and that they wouldn't piss away so much time, money and reputation on a lost cause.  Heh, ok, even I didn't believe that one.

[Margalis]

Yeah people who have played it seem to like it, which is far more important to me than any feature list.

[WayAbvPar]

Yeah people who have played it seem to like it, which is far more important to me than any feature list.

Remember- people liked the E3 version of Auto Assault once upon a time too.

[HaemishM]

Yeah, I've heard people say it was fun, but the idea of massively multiplayer co-op shooter appeals to me a great deal less than even Car Wars Online did. Every successive screenshot and movie I've seen of the game makes me even less interested.

[Nija]

TR is just a bunch of rehashed Neocron ideas mixed with cheap azn/russian bulk graphics design.

F U RGarriot.

[geldonyetich]

I knew Auto-Assault was a lost cause when I saw only three weapon slots and the protracted grind.

The jury is still out on Tabula Rasa pending further details about the gameplay coming to light... and I've played Neocron.

Richard Garriott helped make AutoDuel for the PC, we'll see if he can make a MMORPG (since Ultima Online went through mutations at about the time of his departure it's hard to tell how much of that he's responsible for).  That's an interesting point, Tabula Rasa isn't another clone, it's gaming history - Garriott's first game since Ultima IX, which again I'm having a hard time figuring out how much he was responsible for due to EA kluginess.

[Krakrok]

I'm with Merusk. You can come close to the recommended specs for the price of a PS3 with a brand new system and the minimum specs from Dell are a no brainer. A one gig stick of ram is only $60 and 6600 GTs can be had for $60 as well.

[Righ]

Then you're missing the point the same way that Merusk is. That's fine for a bleeding edge FPS. This is an MMORPG - one of those D&D persistant world thingies that are typically played by smelly middle aged people who harbor elf fantasies. A part of the reason WoW was so much more successful was that it can be played on any reasonably current system, Macs included. People don't tend to buy new computers to play MMORPGs. Maybe Tabula Rasa will be the first to encourage large numbers to upgrade, but it doesn't seem likely based on what we've heard, does it? Having this sort of system spec for an MMORPG is like asking people to invest in a dual-headed Itanium system to do word processing.

[Signe]

I predict it won't even be published.  I get bad vibes from this game. 

[geldonyetich]

This is an MMORPG - one of those D&D persistant world thingies that are typically played by smelly middle aged people who harbor elf fantasies.

I'm not so sure they're shooting for the fantasy loving MMORPG audience.  Tabula Rasa won't play anything like EverQuest... probably more like Call of Duty but with an RPG overlay.  Considering it's in a futuristic instead of fantasy backdrop, and it seals that they're shooting for another audience entirely.  Probably a new audience, considering there's not another game quite like TR.

But maybe I'm wrong about that.  While I'm piecing together this image of a big quasi FPS with an RPG overlay whose overall underriding action has to do with fighting across alien battlefields, I'm still lacking certain details.

I predict it won't even be published.  I get bad vibes from this game.

Me too.  Feels kinda like UO2... all that built up optimism about a Garriot enspired game, multiple delays, far too much innovation on the table to be seen to fruition.