Battlefield 5 minimum system requirements revealed

Axlerod

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Location
Indiana
#1
And those requirements are the following, as published on the Origin store:

OS: 64-bit Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10
Processor (AMD): AMD FX-6350
Processor (Intel): Core i5 6600K
Memory: 8GB RAM
Graphics card (AMD): AMD Radeon™ HD 7850 2GB
Graphics card (NVIDIA): nVidia GeForce® GTX 660 2GB
DirectX: 11.0 Compatible video card or equivalent
Online Connection Requirements: 512 KBPS or faster Internet connection
Hard-drive space: 50GB

Battlefield 5 will release on October 19. It will feature a 4-player co-operative mode and, no loot boxes, and no Premium Pass.
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#6
Nahh... we won't hahahahah. We REALLY need a game that grabs everyone. I really miss shooting and being shot by you degenerates.
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#8
I do have to say that the more actual gameplay footage I see it seems like a mashup of a BF4 Classic Mode server and BF1. I mean private servers are great if done well. "Official" servers have never really been my thing due to the asshat factor but the shift to scarcity and limited health on revive / and all the other Ammo 2.0 like mechanics has me pretty intrigued. I think it's a great move on their part. That said I doubt the casuals will like it and it may affect their willingness to follow through with it in future games.
As the RSP server are just at the bare minimum requirements, well mostly, as long as the START with these features, the ability to actually bounce your server if need be, and a working server browser that actually works like it should then I think it will be a solid starting point.
I dont have issues with DICE/EA servers VS 3rd party. The issue I have is with the options available to the owners/admins. I think that's the crux of the whole thing. People keep saying bring back 3rd party servers and what they really want is PROCON and the plugins. Seeing as the PROCON dev is new a DICE/EA employee it a pretty safe bet that that boat has sailed. Unless someone comes up with a new console its a done deal and since DICE/EA aren't releasing APIs with the recent titles its just not gonna happen.
 
Starter
OP
Axlerod

Axlerod

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Location
Indiana
#9
DICE was smart in hiring him from procon. He cant work on procon and obviously he cant work with RSP. In the end, EA gets all the controls and we get nothing.

Like I have said, EA seems to perpetuate toxic behavior and chat now.
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#10
DICE was smart in hiring him from procon. He cant work on procon and obviously he cant work with RSP. In the end, EA gets all the controls and we get nothing.

Like I have said, EA seems to perpetuate toxic behavior and chat now.
Well if DICE was "smart" they would put him in charge of setting up the console for the rented servers. Honestly if the servers had what we wanted they would make a killing on them. There were clans with 3-5 servers in BF1 and the server options sucked. Im all for inexpensive servers but if you can't change the settings from official and have them listed its worthless. How they implemented rentable servers without an autorenue feature still astounds me. Its not like its a complex operation and since they have the Origin/EA access service it would be a simple matter to tie it to that and have it bill right through the system as any other service.
IMHO it was the delay in servers that caused the whole thing. They did not do concurrent development and when the masses lost their collective shit they tried to rush out a hacked together console server which pissed even more people off. As I stated several times we would have rather waited a bit longer and got something good and well tested.
 
Starter
OP
Axlerod

Axlerod

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Location
Indiana
#11
Why put him in charge?
EA and DICE put procon out of business for battlefield!
EA has already stated they want to get rid of RSP and dedicated all together.
EA and DICE just saved themselves money for not doing it.

It does not matter if the community does not buy the game and they lose money in overall retail sales. That is just a song and dance act at a shareholders meeting.
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#12
Why put him in charge?
EA and DICE put procon out of business for battlefield!
EA has already stated they want to get rid of RSP and dedicated all together.
EA and DICE just saved themselves money for not doing it.

It does not matter if the community does not buy the game and they lose money in overall retail sales. That is just a song and dance act at a shareholders meeting.
The hate is real with Ken!
 

RabidRebel

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Location
Texas
#13
It's real, but he's right. The AAA game makers have us by the short hairs at this point. If you want the new and pretty PvP game, you're going to have to come groveling to their doorstep. Only a handful of other options exist right now and you usually pay the price on visuals, netcode, and/or other issues. Unless they fu*k up royally (e.g., Star Wars Battlefront II), you just aren't going to get enough defectors or public interest to change the tide. They are still going to sell enough games to make money. They are still going to control the market in their genre.

You also have to throw in the meta of the current gaming environment. E-Sports are getting really popular and are keeping some games relevant with boat loads of additional sales. Squads and small teams are definitely favored in this world. I haven't yet seen a 64 person E-Sport battle. I think if they go down that route, it might reinvigorate a demand for hosted servers to make the pros happy. Reality is the E-Sports folks are younger kids and adults who probably aren't sporting enough friends or an income to make a server worthwhile.

I know a component of this is just making your loyal customers happy, but you know that is getting overridden by business analysts. Look no further than all of the industries in recent years jumping on the variable pricing bandwagon. Hotels, rental cars, apartments, and airlines now charge their pricing as quickly as by the hour. This does not make customers happy, but companies maximize profits with customers confused as to what a good deal even is. It'll change eventually, but it's going to take time for some good market disruption to occur.
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#14
but you know that is getting overridden by business analysts.
This is what happens when game developer studios, headed by gamers, are bought out by huge corps / publishers and the old management team jumps ship to play with their yachts and Lambos and MBAs move into the corner office who give a blank stare when WASD is mentioned.
 
Starter
OP
Axlerod

Axlerod

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Location
Indiana
#15
https://kotaku.com/battle-passes-are-so-hot-right-now-1827026722

read that article about what the gaming industry is doing as a whole right now.

"Pay-to-win games are garbage. Loot boxes are passe. Cosmetics are cute, but not a great incentive to keep playing. Game publishers have cycled through a bevy of monetization gimmicks aimed at keeping gamers putting cash into their games, some more successful than others. Now, more and more of them seem to be coalescing around a new idea—the “battle pass.” "
 

NetRngr

TAC Member
TAC Member
Founder
Moderator
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Location
Darlington, SC
#16
PUBG players have their panties in quite a bunch over the new season pass deal. These companies need to realize that they need to either raise the price of a AAA game if its not enough to support development, pssst it is, or make the games fun to play,free to play, and THEN monetize it. Most consumers have little desire to throw money ever week or so at a game they paid for / pay to play.
Fortnite's Battle Pass works because its free to play, the game is fun to play, and they update the living hell out of it and fix bugs in a timely manner unlike a couple of development studios I won't name... <cough....cough Dice...Blue Hole... Sniff> I have a lot less heartburn spending a few bucks every 2-3 months on a free to play game that's constantly updated with new content and that fixes bugs in a timely fashion than giving any extra money to the company that charged me 30-60 bucks right out of the shoot and then wants more.
Simple fact is that if you make these pay to play games fun to play and quit charging more and more to get the nice additions/content/fixes you will make plenty of cash. Pay attention to what your customers want. Case and point BF1 / SWBF2 SWBF2 was a disaster even worse than the first one and BF1 is the first BF game I can remember that is pretty much dead when looking how long previous BF titles have lasted.

Sad days folks.
 
Top Bottom