Game developers generally anticipate that only a small fraction of players will actually engage with their games.
Game developers generally anticipate that only a small fraction of players will actually engage with their games.
Good evening everyone! I wanted to bring up something that’s been on my mind lately. When it comes to recent or older titles, there seems to be some confusion about hardware requirements. I’m sharing this because it hasn’t gotten enough discussion, and I’d love your perspective.
To be honest, when I set up my PC in 2015, I invested around 1000 dollars and upgraded the GPU, RAM, and cooling system. To this day, among my friends, I have the most powerful gaming rig. But even a year later, Battlefield 1 is practically impossible to run on a CPU. Most games today perform well—usually I get 100fps or more with decent settings. Some newer releases even struggle to hit 45fps on low settings, which makes me wonder if developers are expecting too much from older hardware.
I’m asking myself: if I have a good machine and still can’t play some newer games, what do developers really expect? It feels unfair, especially since a budget console can still run many great titles. What do you think? How should game developers balance performance expectations with accessibility?
We live in 2020. The equipment that cost 1000 euros in 2015 might now be worth less than 300 to 500 euros. Developers focus on hardware from the past two to three years, mainly testing current and older graphics cards, and tweaking games for compatibility with today’s consoles to boost sales. Check the Steam surveys to see what processors and cards players use, then consider whether it’s worth developers spending time optimizing or supporting such outdated systems. The survey results page is here: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/...e-to-Steam You might also think differently—if you own a computer worth 300 to 500 euros, do you believe someone would pay 50 to 60 euros for a game (about 10 to 20% of your machine’s value)? You’re not their target audience; you’re more likely to buy pirated copies, save money for upgrades, or simply can’t afford such games. You’re not their market.
Your PC might not be as powerful as you believe. I remember running BF1 smoothly on my Phenom II with a 2010 CPU, and most games still perform well on lower-end systems if you adjust the settings. Resolution scaling is a useful technique to boost frames without altering the original resolution.
You mentioned your PC was valued at 500 euros, highlighting recent upgrades and noting that the AMD CPU you replaced was among the strongest available in 2015. It seems people who bought top-tier AMD chips in 2015 struggled with newer games by 2016, raising questions about why this isn't considered a scandal. Also, older consoles from the previous generation still worked well at that time.
I'm discussing multiplayer here, and I understand some maps work well in BF1. However, St. Quentin tends to drop to around 50fps, while singleplayer usually stays above 120fps at 1440p.
The question revolves around how developers estimate player numbers versus sales projections. They rely on market data and benchmark similar titles to gauge potential reach. Regarding PC gaming, developers anticipate mid-range systems for their releases. However, player expectations are strong—games should appear visually appealing, run smoothly at high frame rates, support 4K resolution, and accommodate large multiplayer groups. Choosing which components to prioritize and how to optimize is crucial. Ultimately, the aim is to make the game accessible to a broad audience, including users with mid-range PCs from just a couple of years ago. Companies like EA and DICE often collaborate with hardware makers such as Nvidia, pushing for higher settings to cater to enthusiasts seeking 4K and high FPS experiences. If execution is strong, scaling and optimization can enable broader accessibility, though this may come at the cost of visual fidelity. Games like LoL, Dota2, and Overwatch exemplify this balance.
Purchasing a computer today with 500 euro is acceptable. In 2005, 500 euro would cover roughly a 100 euro CPU, 70 euro motherboard, 30 euro RAM, 200 euro graphics card, 50 euro hard drive, 50 euro power supply, and case. Adjusting graphics settings in games won’t significantly affect performance compared to consoles. A 200 euro graphics card can achieve 60 fps at 1080p. Remember, consoles often optimize performance, while some games are limited to lower resolutions due to technical constraints. Developers may manually set resolutions scene by scene or per cutscene. A 500 euro console exists because it’s mass-produced with minimal components, optimized for efficiency. Designers ensure processors stay within power limits, using VRMs with multiple phases and strong components to handle higher loads. Motherboards must accommodate a range of processors—from low-power dual-core units to high-performance 16-core models—requiring complex power delivery systems. Storage is bought in bulk and soldered directly onto the board, eliminating standard connectors like PCIe or SATA.
It's fascinating how developers manage to get certain games running despite such wide variations in player setups. Imagine someone trying to play on outdated gear versus someone with cutting-edge tech, while another struggles on the weakest console and a third on the most powerful. Achieving compatibility across this spectrum really highlights their expertise. Of course, these versions are optimized for specific systems, but it shows how much effort goes into meeting diverse needs. They balance technical challenges with business goals, even if success isn't guaranteed for every title. It's just how the industry operates.