Setting Minimum Comp Requirement for your game

[yanuart]

Hi, I just wanna know is there a data/stats relevant to this question ?
I think it'll be handy if we have one.. that way we can determine how me make our game.
A moment a go I made a remark saying "nobody owns <1GHz comp anymore" and I got quite lot of protests, so maybe I'm wrong.. but I need to see numbers..

[Wayward]

Start with:
Hardware Specs (http://www.indiewiki.org/index.php?HardwareSpecs) at the IndieWiki (http://www.indiewiki.org/index.php)
Valve's Hardware Survey (http://steampowered.com/status/survey.html) (discussed here)

There's a bunch of related discussions here and in the archives too:
Hardware Demographics for Casual Gamers (09-2004)
3D hardware assumptions (http://www.indiegamer.com/archives/t-3109.html) (05-2004)
What is average PC configuration and OS? (http://www.indiegamer.com/archives/t-3455.html) (06-2004)
Minimum Requirements (http://www.indiegamer.com/archives/t-778.html) (06-2003)
Customer's Operating System (http://www.indiegamer.com/archives/t-1465.html) (09-2003)

[Gnatinator]

I would just make it, then optimise it to run on whatever it can. Just as long as it isnt ridiculously high (which it shouldnt be anyway after optimization), you should be ok.

Dont limit your product because you want to support a slightly lower system class. Do what you can get away with while still looking/playing great, then leave it.

[svero]

I think it really depends on who your target audience is. If it's a casual game then you don't want to produce something with doom3 style system requirements. It just won't sell. I'd look at other games that are selling well to the target audience you're targeting and see if there's any average you can come up with that way.

[Black Hydra]

Windows 98 2nd Edition
500 mhz
128 mb ram
12 gig's hd space.

Thats my computer. So don't tell me any bs about how nobody has <1 ghz comps anymore. I spend hours using my computer and its crappy. Yeah, I'm in the minority now, but considering I'm the kind of person that would buy shareware, I wouldn't exclude me.

Basically, don't create unnecessary restrictions. If your making a game where you could make it run on crappier computers by sacrificing some small aspect you may get more sales. Most indie games have generally lower quality graphics. So don't make a game that not only has worse graphics than the new releases but also has higher requirements.

[Tertsi]

Black hydra, eh time to upgrade? It seriously would even be a better investment than even advertising your game with the same money due to the productivity gain for future games. ;)

[Phil Newton]

900Mhz Celeron and 15gig (slooooow) hard drive here. The "family" computer is 800Mhz Pentium 3, so nothing too speedy.

I try to make my games as low spec as possible, and 500Mhz is my usual aim. If it runs on this hunk of junk, it'll run on anything.

It seriously would even be a better investment than even advertising your game with the same money due to the productivity gain for future games.

I've been trying to use that reason to justify spending £800 on a new PC, but haven't convinced myself yet. I'm not really sure if a 3Ghz would improve my productivity much at all. After all, upgrading from an 8Mhz Atari to this laptop didn't speed me up that much ;)

[Emmanuel]

If you are working on a product right now, is it in windowed mode (I think it's quite convenient for the player if it's a casual game, rather than fullscreen where they may have to look for where the other apps went) or fullscreen?

If windowed, what desktop resolution do you primarily target? (1024x768 or 800x600 seem to represent the two biggest shares of players)

If you support multiple resolutions, what is your strategy? (scale graphics or just make sure the game fits on the lower resolution even if it looks a bit big ?)

[Jay_Kyburz]

Anybody know the minimum system requirement for the .Net Framework?

I assume its fairly low as well.


dont worry.. found it here

http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/technologyinfo/sysreqs/default.aspx
90-megahertz (MHz) Intel Pentium-class processor

# Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me)
# Windows 98
# Microsoft Windows NT® 4.0 Service Pack 6a

Client: 32 megabytes (MB) of RAM, 96 MB recommended

110 MB of hard disk space required, 40 MB additional hard disk space required for installation (150 MB total)

[papillon]

... don't know what the requirements are, but I and many people will never use anything that requires it. ;)

(Not just because of general anti-microsoft paranoia... It broke my computer! I had to reinstall everything!)

[Sillysoft]

My roommate currently has a 733 Mhz P3. I bought this computer about 4 months ago. Before that she was using a 300 Mhz pentium2 or something.

Just another datapoint. There are plenty of people out there that are still using old computers.

[yanuart]

I don't know about you guys.. but you can keep saying that 500 Mhz works fine and has nothing to do with your productivity :D .. that's true if you use linux (altough not so very true) and trying to create games for linux..

awww.. cmon.. i know you guys use windows and believe me .. 500 Mhz won't get you anywhere with all those "resource sucking windows based" software..

A good computer setup(try to include 19 inch LCD with a high contrast ratio + a very ergonomic chair :D ) is a good investment.. sure you don't need 3 Ghz or ATIX800.. but I'm not going to use 500Mhz unless my intentions are only to browse and check mail :D and a short freecell session
I never follow the hype of processor, HT ?? bah... I always buy the middle end.. good enough and cheap enough to work with..

being an indie means you must be the jack of all trade, you draw your art, you code ur game, sometimes do a little music recording.. i can't see how r you gonna do it with lowend computers.

in fact, now i'm thinking of a new market.. mini games for highend computers.. but nope... i'll stick with soccer mom and their crappy computers :D

[Black Hydra]

@Tertsi - I'm currently saving for a computer, but at my current position I can't afford it.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with my computer. While I can't always play the newest games, most games of the type I'm trying to make work fine on my computer. Also, I don't see how processor speed has anything to do with productivity.

Thats like an author saying getting a new pen will allow you to finish your novel faster.

A new computer won't let me type faster, think faster or design faster. All it can do is make saving times shorter which are already negligable. So the only REAL benefit of having a new computer is that I can play newer games or use newer technology. Besides, having this computer also helps me restrict myself more so that I am more conciously aware of processing speeds and such. If I had the greatest computer and didn't HAVE to run all my programs on a bare minimum computer I would probably be more frivolous with my optimizations.

While I am sort of ranting here my point is that you cannot just make assumptions that your market all have new computers like you do. Really, unless your offering me something that I would feel justifies a requirements jump, don't restrict your users. In the end, your graphics are usually poorer than most retail games, so don't slap people in the face when you also have higher restrictions than retail games aswell.

[luggage]

Thats like an author saying getting a new pen will allow you to finish your novel faster.

But if it's the difference between using a quill and a new fangled ball point maybe they will finish the novel quicker.

[Ricardo C]

Thats like an author saying getting a new pen will allow you to finish your novel faster.

A faster computer would represent a nice improvement in compile times, wouldn't it? So your analogy is not quite correct ;)

[yanuart]

I just hate it when I turn on my computer and then I must wait like 2-3 minute just make sure the window is open and ready to use :(

[luggage]

I know what you mean. When I was younger our school used Archimedes and the OS was on rom. From reset to useable took 3 seconds and that used to annoy me! What I wouldn't give for that now :)

[yanuart]

I know what you mean. When I was younger our school used Archimedes and the OS was on rom. From reset to useable took 3 seconds and that used to annoy me! What I wouldn't give for that now :)
lol.. i would kill for a computer setup that'll only takes 3 secs to up and running !!!! Is that possible these days ? :confused:
The problem is, while you're waiting for your computer to be ready to use, sometimes I forget what I'm going to do or worse.. I lost my mood !!!

Anyway.. I'd still go with more power means more productivity if you know how and I still think this 400$ ergonomic chair is my best investment of all :D. Next stop will be -> 19 inch LCD !!!!

[BigZaphod]

lol.. i would kill for a computer setup that'll only takes 3 secs to up and running !!!! Is that possible these days ? :confused:

With my PowerBook, when I open the lid to wake it from sleep, it is awake and ready to go by the time I have the lid all the way raised--nearly instantly. So, I suppose it is sort of possible. Actual boot time, of course, is much longer than that. I never need to shut down the PowerBook, though. I just close the lid and put it to sleep instead.

[yanuart]

With my PowerBook, when I open the lid to wake it from sleep, it is awake and ready to go by the time I have the lid all the way raised--nearly instantly. So, I suppose it is sort of possible. Actual boot time, of course, is much longer than that. I never need to shut down the PowerBook, though. I just close the lid and put it to sleep instead.

Dude.. does that mean you always plug the power to your Powerbook ?? I heard it's bad for your battery.. I dunno though.. mmm.. even in sleep mode it still takes almost 20 secs for my window to be completely awaken :(

[cliffski]

my Sony Vaio takes about 10 seconds from asleep to fully on.
Thats not with the power cable in, thats just opening the lid. Pity the actual battery life sucks so much..

[BigZaphod]

This is getting increasingly off-topic...

Dude.. does that mean you always plug the power to your Powerbook ?? I heard it's bad for your battery..

Yes, I mostly use it while plugged in. I've heard something about that too, but I've had it for over 2 years now and the battery still seems fine. Not quite what it used to be, but I still can get many hours out of it on battery with reduced CPU speed and a slightly dimmer screen. As I understand it, the PowerBook internally runs off of battery even when plugged in. When the battery's charge level drops below a certain number, it starts charging the battery again. I've noticed it switch to charging mode even when I've been using the laptop all day plugged in. So it seems reasonable that it keeps the battery exercised.

However, that nearly instant wake-up time is unconnected with being plugged in. It is just as fast if it is on battery vs. being plugged in when I wake it up. I really am not sure how they pulled it off, but I love it. :)

[Black Hydra]

Until I get near the 20 000 - 100 000 lines of code mark I'm looking at less than 15 seconds to compile. And that is being very generous as most my programs would take about 1-5 seconds to compile.

Considering I would compile maybe once every 5-10 minutes on average if I am really working hard, that means that even if I chose the highest amount there my time spent compiling is about 5%. That is, compiling every 5 minutes and it taking 15 seconds to compile.

Normally I would say I compile about once every 15 minutes (again, on average) and it takes about 3 seconds. That means that it is taking a total of 1/3 of a percentage spent compiling. Unless we get up into the 5 figure lines of code range compiling times are a momentary pause, and really have little effect on productivity.

So, no, having a better computer doesn't increase your productivity. Thats just an illusion you project so that you feel justified in always buying the latest computer. Or perhaps its because then you can write it off as a business expense on your tax return.

The only reason you need a computer that is faster is so you can play better games.

I'm not here to say that you don't need a new computer. But, don't start telling me it helps productivity.

[luggage]

I've worked at game developers where we didn't have decent kit and when the machines were finally upgraded it did help productivity. I didn't care about tax breaks and we weren't allowed to play games on them. It wasn't even the latest kit we were upgraded to, we were given the hand me downs from the artists.

It was literally down to the computer being a lot nicer to use. This includes load times for dev studio and photoshop, compile times, file copying times, getting rid of any sluggishness, checking email, etc. It all adds up.

Thing is, I can say from experience that it does help producivity. You can't say the same thing as you haven't gone through a significant upgrade from what I can gather.

[James C. Smith]

The minimum spec for my current casual game is 400 MHz. Some features are automatically disabled on machines that slow. You have to have a 750 MHz machine to have all features enabled by default.

The "features" I am referring to are just rendering quality settings. Scaling and sub-pixel rendering are disabled on machines slower than 750 MHz which degrades the image quality but the game play is still identical.

[Greg Squire]

I'm shooting for a PII 400 MHz as my minimum spec as well. The reason being is I have both a PII 400 MHz and a Celeron 400 MHz (both Win98) kicking around still, so I can verify that it does indeed run on something that slow.

[Ares]

For Mythic Blades (http://www.cartelgames.com) we announced the following minimum system requirements:

System Requirements:
• Processor: 600 Mhz
• RAM: 64 Mb
• Video card: 64 Mb 100% Open GL Compatible
• Windows 98/ME/2000/XP

Some of the feedback has been that the game can't have very good graphics if it only requires a 600 Mhz Processor. The answer to this type of query is that if you have a better computer you will be able to run sharper textures, effects, resolutions etc, . . . but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game with a 3-5 year old computer with a good graphics card. So far noone has said that the system requirements are to high.

[James C. Smith]

Some of the feedback has been that the game can't have very good graphics if it only requires a 600 Mhz Processor

I know what you mean. My games all Require DirectX 3 or greater but many web sites list the system requirement of my games as DirectX 7 just so the game doesn’t sound so outdated. It is nice when a game will work on a slow computer or outdated OS or API.. But actually naming the slow computer or OS or API can made then game sound less appealing.