Beta Spec Requirements Revealed - INCORRECT

Update: Blizzard published these on accident and they are not real.
from ve3d.ign.com

Update: Blizzard's Bob Colayco sent us a mean email

This optimization is pretty damn impressive!

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-ii-system-requirements-revealed/

http://eu.blizzard.com/support/arti...parentCategoryId&pageNumber=1&categoryId=7040

 

Okay, I knew they're targeting low-end systems too with SC2 but damn this is impressive. This is very impressive. I could run SC2 on probably medium settings on my current system

 

hey hey !! Maximum settings for me !
Already 8 Go RAM and Nvidia 9800GT.
Intel Core 2 duo CPU 6400 @ 2,13 GHZ (so 2x 2,13 GHZ). I can overclock my processors to 2x 2,6 GHZ and more (which will give more risks for the famous 'blue screen'). My current settings allow SC2 to be run in full details even without overclocking.
Win 7 64bits Integral Edition.

The system requirement is very impressive. I get it.

Who gets a 64bits OS needs absolutely 2 GO RAM minimum.

 

Hmmm, those minimum specs seem really minimum, I would wager the game is only barely playable with them if it's playable at all. Soge I wouldn't instantly assume you can play at max yet either, the minimum may be really low, but the maximum could be really high.

 

32MB VRAM /512MB RAM is what I gauged this game should take at minimum. I remember those speculations we had last year where figures of 512MB VRAM/2GB RAM were suggested and I lol'd.

CPU speed requirements are a bit higher than I thought it should be actually. I guess that's because of the Havok engine.

 

They said in their site that the system requirements are subject to change afterwards, so yes it's true I may play under the middle requirements (if I can say). But I frankly doubt I can't too. I believe I can run in maximum. I'll see.

 

The minimum requirements have now been removed from the SC2 support page. Apparently those weren't supposed to be seen yet?

 

Someone explain to me because I'm dumb, to put it mildly. What has Blizzard got to lose if they post a set of requirements that might prove to be incorrect later on? Now of course this question goes back a couple of months when they already knew the requirements but kept it from the public. But why? Any dimwit that might call Blizzard a liar would have absolutely no credit whatsoever, but I doubt anyone would be upset about Blizzard changing the requirements slightly later on. I can understand the mystery around the release date, obviously, but this?

 

These specs have been confirmed to be false. These are the exact requirements for World Of WarCraft and Blizzard is now saying that they don't know how it got there. i.e. maybe they were hacked or whatever.

Either way, the bottom line is that these are false.

 

from ve3d.ign.com

Update: Blizzard's Bob Colayco sent us a mean email

 

@kuvasz: Everyone has different configurations. You know how hardware gets tested and bar charts drawn to compare it to similar products. Even when the similar products have the same specification, there can be significant differences in performance. So it's hard for a developer to state minimum specs and be sure about them. They have access to relatively few machines to test on.

A developer would hate to say it'll work on your system only to discover that it won't. It's a broken promise. It suggests the developer doesn't know much about their own game. It looks really unprofessional. What the developer has to lose is their credibility.

A large part of the reasoning behind the beta is to determine the true minimum specs... it's not just about gameplay balancing and bug testing. I expect a fair number of beta testers will be selected specifically because they are users of lower end hardware.

 

I know that a graphic card from ATI is different of a GC from Nvidia, even if they are from the same category.
i.e. you have a GC of 512 MB with the same specifications, the same category at both side you know that Nvidia uses more calculation to elaborate a specific light effect and that ATI uses more calculation to elaborate a specific blur. I used 3D Mark and saw some differences from 'same' GC from both companies.
So will Blizzard have a choice on which brand is better to play starcraft 2? 'm sure they will choose Nvidia as EA chose this brand for Crysis.
I just hope that for each visual effect Blizzard will bring some algorythms to use the graphic cards abilities. But it will be a huge work again ....

 

Also they updated the info on the blizzard support site for starcraft 2 beta.http://eu.blizzard.com/support/index.xml?locale=en_GB&gameId=13

 

I can confirm that the system requirements are incorrect. I thought they were a little too low when I first saw it.

I'm not closing the thread but it's dead.

 

Ahaha incorrect!

Real speccs:

8gb ram
4,0GHz processor speed (intel i7)
and also 3 GPU's

 

WOW ! If Starcraft needs this last configuration there will be a few people who will play it. But I doubt the configuration for maximum settings will be like this one.

 

How can you consider that even a possibility? Only 1% of the most hardcore PC enthusiasts have that kind of rig. That system would destroy the next gen consoles.

 

You're forgetting the 1.21 gigawatt power supply.

 

I have just the 8 GO RAM, but for the processor I even need to change the Motherboard, a good one (ASUS P5B)

 

Oh comon guys stop spreading rumours. I got the real info from the dude who stands on the corner by the cross streets of where the Blizzard Entertainment Campus is located.

It turns out, you need to have a MINIMUM of 20 Gigs of Ram, 2 quad-core processors, and 3 terabytes of hard drive space, and 234567865432gigs of extra video ram.

Get with the times people. Gosh.

lol XD