Update: Watch Dogs Won't Run on 32-Bit Windows

[Retardinator]

Geez they really are trying to get people to DOWNgrade to that Vista/7/8 trilogy of crap!

Or wait... Would it work on 64-bit XP? Maybe I could get those.

Valve needs to hurry up with that gaming Linux of theirs. I'm tired of all these broken windows.

Win7 is actually pretty okay (even more so when you realize you don't have to reinstall it and reformat the disks every two years). Though you won't know until you've switched, and you won't because you're stubborn and "fine where you are". I know. I was like that once.

A little bit hypocritical since I was gonna say I have a PC from 2005 and it runs everything jus' faaaaaen an' dandeh.
Until now, at least.

Also, the specs state you need DX11, but since it's gonna be a bit lower I guess it's gonna be DX10, which you can't run on XP.
If I manage to get Watch Dogs and, eventually, GTAV to run on this scrap metal heap, I'll never upgrade it in my lifetime.

 

[omega 616]

Wait, my pc is a bit of a weakling and it hits the min specs, well it would if my computer could work out that two 2gb of ram = 4gb. My graphics card is the 5770 as well, first time I've ever seen my card for specs on a game.

I'm feeling quite proud of my little budget machine, I'd feel even more proud if the fucking thing wasn't a paperweight at the moment!

I almost don't believe I could kinda play watch dogs on my pc, I won't be but it is nice to know. (ill be getting it on next gen)

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

1. Since I'm apparently a pariah on this site (using Windows 7 and love it), I'm happy a game actually uses the 64bit architecture. Been waiting for this for a while. Also running AMD because I like their hardware, been a loyal brand customer since they decided making chips for themselves was more profitable than being Intel's *****.

2. Looks like we've got a new Crysis for PC nutballs to drool over when they buy their top-of-the-line hardware to make their epeen factor rise. I am looking forward to this game.

3. Back on the subject of hardware, the lack of decent 8-core CPUs is a thing that will be rectified in the market soon enough, and according to the latest update on this story, the recommended specs are just theory at the moment.

So yeah I am looking forward to this game, it piqued my interest when the first trailer was released and I am optimistic that it will be worth picking up. Gives me a reason to be happy about having above 4GB of RAM as it will definitely be nice to put it to use.
I'm waiting for the day that 64-bit actually is a thing and not a novelty, Watch Dogs seems to be a reason to hope for a brighter future of hardware usage.

Note: I am aware that Win7 and above has issues, I never liked XP even after SP2 was released, nor did I like Vista's penchant for being stupid. Since I installed Win7 I've yet to encounter any real deal-breaking issues and all of my games, including older ones still work just fine. I don't know if its just the way I configure my O/S, but it works great for me.
I just never understood how people cling to XP like it was the best Windows ever... IMHO Win98 was the best.

 

[Metalrocks]

i have everything from the recommended settings except my quad core cpu.
but it wont matter to me really since i dont want it anyway. since ubi wants to make franchises only and i dont want to get dragged in to this.

If their franchises going out is as easy to ignore as the Assassin's Creed Franchise, I think you'll be okay. I stopped buying the games after 2, and only played the others when I got around to it, which was usually much later. I don't expect to find myself playing Black Flag any time soon, if ever.

But really, this game has never grabbed me like it seemed to grab everyone else. It looks neat, yeah, but I know it'll most likely be Arkham Asylum-like melee combat or Gears-of-War-style cover shooting, coupled with some hacking "spells" to aid the fighty bits. Maybe I'm just cynical though. I'd love to be surprised.

well, im a fan of AC and enjoyed so far every title. and from the looks of it, part 4 will be pretty neat as well since cruising on ships was really fun in part 3. thats why i have pre ordered it with the nice figurine.

but we know that ubi only wants to make titles which they can make a franchise out of it. and they sure do it quickly by releasing practically every year another title of the same IP like activision with the COD titles.
thats why i have stopped playing GTA after SA (also because of poor pc port) and never touched any of the saints row titles. certain franchises like AC or tomb raider are titles i enjoy and like to keep playing.

 

[Rellik San]

Q6600,
8Gig Ram,
Radeon 6670HD,

I bet at a resolution of 1920x1080, with no motion blur on and no AA I can run it at high settings smoothly. Hell I can run Witcher 2 at around 55fps with that on ultra. I think a lot of people will be far too quick to write off older machines with the new console generation coming out so soon, but in truth, you'll often find turning off some of the more intrusive post processing (i.e. Motion Blur) and having no AA (which very few games need at 1080p anyway), you tend to find they can still hold up.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Q6600,
8Gig Ram,
Radeon 6670HD,

I bet at a resolution of 1920x1080, with no motion blur on and no AA I can run it at high settings smoothly. Hell I can run Witcher 2 at around 55fps with that on ultra. I think a lot of people will be far too quick to write off older machines with the new console generation coming out so soon, but in truth, you'll often find turning off some of the more intrusive post processing (i.e. Motion Blur) and having no AA (which very few games need at 1080p anyway), you tend to find they can still hold up.

Good to see that Q6600 still holds up. I used to have that. It was a beast. Though you might want to consider upgrading soon. The good thing about upgrading is that most of the newer tech that's coming out actually uses less power and produces less heat, so you already know that you probably won't need a new PSU. And of course a new PC case. That's two essentials already gone. And if you take the optical drive (if you still have one) and the HDD from the old PC, then all you need is a new mobo, CPU, GPU and RAM. GPU is compatible with everything, so you can hold on to that for now and just get the other 3 components. And then when the really demanding games start to come out, all you will need is a new GPU. Possibly a new PSU if you go with a higher-end GPU.

 

[Kahani]

Its interesting you use the word "virtually" here because that is exactly how the core i7 fits in. Its Quad Core with Hyperthreading(i5 is Quad Core without Hyperthreading, except one or two models which are Dual Core with Hyperthreading) so each of the four cores 'virtually' work as two.

Not particularly interesting, no, since I'm pretty sure everyone already knows this. Pretending to have 8 cores is not the same as actually having 8 cores. If Ubisoft actually meant that a quad-core is fine, that's what they should have said. Your claim that this is what they meant doesn't appear to be supported by any evidence, as far as I can tell it's entirely baseless speculation.

The reason there aren't many actual 8 core ones is that synchronization would be a nightmare, I am sure some PHD designers are working on making it stable and affordable.

Utter nonsense. There are plenty of 8 cores around, they're just generally only used in servers and workstations because they're completely pointless for the general consumer. There are virtually no programs that can use all 4 cores to their full potential, so what would be the point in having any more? At work, I easily max out a pair of 8-core Xeons. At home, I rarely see any core go over 50% usage. Heating, physical size, and so on are problems for fitting more cores in. Synchronising isn't going to significantly change whether you have 4, 6 or 8. All of which have been commercially available for a long time in entirely stable and affordable packages, just not always ones home users have any use for.

 

[mohit9206]

Will a dual core cpu be able to play this game ? My specs Pentium dual core G630,8gb ram,7750 1gb,win 7 sp1 64bit.

 

[Kaymish]

wow i saw those specs and got a bit worried and then they listed pretty much my rig in the ultra specs and then i read the updated and i was no longer worried infact a little excited
i haven't seen my CPU use all 8 cores yet so i am going want to see what sort of resources the game actually wants for full tilt graphics and i know a guy who has 16 cores at his disposal
anyway with the consoles both coming out with 8 cores that was not all that surprising we are going to have to go with at least 8 core 8GB ram and at least another 1-2GB in GPU for most upcoming titles i think though the PC 8 cores are still far more powerful than the tablet processors in the consoles and the same goes for the processors in a halfway decent GPU
also i didn't know people still used 32 bit if you want more than 4 and a bit GB of ram its a must have and the GPU ram counts towards the total too so 32bit pretty much limits you to 4 GB and a 512 GPU if its metric Gigs less if its binary

 

[Whispering Cynic]

I'm really curious if I'll be able to get it working on my C2D E8400, 4 gigs of ram and 5770. My rig is old as hell but so far I haven't encountered a game I wouldn't be able to play comfortably.

 

[ckam]

An 8-core? Aw man, I just got a quad? 8's a bit much?

 

[Lightknight]

I expect computer specs to advance rapidly with the introduction of new console hardware. But not that much. Good thing the article has been updated and that these aren't the specs. I've got a decent i7 with 16GBs of RAM and a 2GB video card. So I'll be in business for awhile. But at some point I'm going to have to upgrade my motherboard so I can slap in a better video card.

 

[Retardinator]

They're completely the same. Anything that runs W7 well will run XP even better.

The difference is that Windows 7 actually runs in comparison to Vista.

BTW I so much fail to see why can't devs use OpenGL which can do absolutely everything that DX11 can and runs on XP just fine. Unigine demos prove that.

I was wondering about this. Thought it was because consoles used D3D or something similar, making it easier to port, but a short google search just now proved me wrong. I'll have to look more into it.
It might be that there are just more industry professionals who know how to work DX than OpenGL, but they might as well be near-identical for all I know. Or it might be one of those 'industry standards' thing, like when people think the only engines worth checking out are UDK and CryEngine 3 and you can't make a commercial level game with Unity.
(The former being convoluted to code for and screwing indies over publishing, respectively, and the latter not being true)

 

[Zealous]

Womp Woooow. Guess this means I'll actually need to get a semi decent computer for the first time in a decade.

 

[lordmardok]

That's really not that surprising, especially considering how much freedom the game gives you. The amount of memory you'd need for that is way more than a 32-bit system could reliably provide.

 

[Manthraxx]

Shut up and take my money!

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Will a dual core cpu be able to play this game ? My specs Pentium dual core G630,8gb ram,7750 1gb,win 7 sp1 64bit.

Nahin chale ga. Waisay G630 achi choice thi ab tum Core i3 par same motherboard use kar sakte ho. Paisay bachana suro kar do agr next-gen chalana hai. AC 4 ko bhi quad core ke zorarat hai.