Call of Duty: Ghosts Patch Removes 6 GB RAM Requirement

[Steven Bogos]

Call of Duty: Ghosts Patch Removes 6 GB RAM Requirement

You'll now be able to play Call of Duty: Ghosts with just 4 GB of RAM.

What is going on with PC system requirements these days? First, there were those Call of Duty: Ghosts specs [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128484-Watch-Dogs-Revised-PC-Specs-Are-Even-More-Demanding]. But, has it all been smoke and mirrors? Acitivsion has just released a large patch for Ghosts, that drops the 6 GB RAM requirement down to 4 GB.

Previously, if you tried to play the game with 2, 4, or, God forbid, 5 GB of RAM, the game would simply throw up an error and refuse to launch. The latest patch has moved that error down to the 4 GB threshold, and gives a "warning" to players with less than 6 GB. It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

The patch also comes with its fair share of bug fixes, and optimization updates as well as a broadcaster mode, eSports rules, and a 4K display option. A much smaller update was also released for the PS3, Xbox 360 and PS4 versions of the game, which simply stomp out a couple of bugs.

You can check out the full change log here [http://community.callofduty.com/thread/200795177#.Uox8DcQqgWn].

Source: Activision [http://community.callofduty.com/thread/200795177#.Uox8DcQqgWn]

Permalink

 

[josemlopes]

Now we only need the removal of the 30fps limit for the PC version of Need for Speed Rivals (I know there is probably an easy fix but its laughable what the publishers are trying to do to promote next-gen consoles).

 

[Omegatronacles]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

 

[Steven Bogos]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

If 6 GB Ram is a "position of privilege" then my 16 GB makes me the king of England.

 

[J Tyran]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

So because they have less money those people need to be treated with as special snowflakes and with kid glove? Congratulations on your position of patronisation.

 

[josemlopes]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

So what? Let the game run on said "laughably out of date" hardware, a friend of mine completed Borderlands on a PC that only managed about 12fps, he still enjoyed it. This way he couldnt.

 

[Bindal]

(I know there is probably an easy fix but its laughable what the publishers are trying to do to promote next-gen consoles).

No, there is no "easy fix" as they apparently tied the speed of the game to the framerate. Meaning if you increase the framerate - you increase the speed of the game itself. And setting it to 120 just breaks the game entirely.
http://t.co/pu0Cw8F25L

 

[josemlopes]

(I know there is probably an easy fix but its laughable what the publishers are trying to do to promote next-gen consoles).

No, there is no "easy fix" as they apparently tied the speed of the game to the framerate. Meaning if you increase the framerate - you increase the speed of the game itself. And setting it to 120 just breaks the game entirely.
http://t.co/pu0Cw8F25L

Holy shit, these guys are just going full retard with next-gen.

Its like they built two identical houses but then put one of them on fire to say that the other is better.

 

[IceForce]

No, there is no "easy fix" as they apparently tied the speed of the game to the framerate. Meaning if you increase the framerate - you increase the speed of the game itself. And setting it to 120 just breaks the game entirely.
http://t.co/pu0Cw8F25L

Holy crap, that's extremely bad practice.

What the hell were they thinking?

or, God forbid, 5 GB of RAM

Wait, 5 GB of RAM? That's a rather strange amount to have...

 

[Saulkar]

Wait, 5 GB of RAM? That's a rather strange amount to have...

I find it odd but a used office computer that my dad bought from Sasktel had a very strange configuration including 5GB of ram.

It was a Pentium 4 3GHZ processor with 5 GB of ram. The weirdest part is that when I opened up the computer the ram was built into the motherboard itself, under a heatsink.

EDIT: Scratch that, it was actually my Uncle who found it then my dad bought it from him. I cannot remember what computer he got from Sasktel.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There is actually a better fan made patch out, doesn't limit you to 4 either.
And on that "out of date hardware" comment, buddy have you seen this game... it's about as new and pretty as my grannies ankles, I'd be surprised if this prehistoric engine even knew what to do with 1GB let alone 6.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Activision pretending their game is more advanced than it is by placing arbitrary hardware limits and huge uncompressed textures to bump up the install size, very mature.

If they would just admit that it's a Quake Engine game and get on with it they could sell Call of Duty to pretty much every PC sold in the last five years, but nope, we have to be more advanced than that other modern military shooter that completely dominates the PC market, completely missing the point as to why it dominates in the process.

 

[Omegatronacles]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

So because they have less money those people need to be treated with as special snowflakes and with kid glove? Congratulations on your position of patronisation.

I don't believe it is patronising to request that someone who posts an article on a news site display some basic journalistic objectivity.

My issue is not the fact that some people do not have 6gb of RAM and would not have been able to play the game prepatch. My issue is that sarcastic comments to the detriment of others has no place in a news story.

 

[Incomer]

It seems like a rather arbitrary thing to do, I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware would bring.

This comment contains a large amount of sarcasm that is completely unrequired in this article.

People may not be able to afford any better than "laughably out of date" hardware. Congratulations on your position of privilege, that you can sneer at them.

So because they have less money those people need to be treated with as special snowflakes and with kid glove? Congratulations on your position of patronisation.

I don't believe it is patronising to request that someone who posts an article on a news site display some basic journalistic objectivity.

My issue is not the fact that some people do not have 6gb of RAM and would not have been able to play the game prepatch. My issue is that sarcastic comments to the detriment of others has no place in a news story.

Gee so much hate for nothing. I'm running 4gig machine and I was not offended what the deal guys?

Side note: I'm so deep in the stone age that I still feel like... HOLY SHIT 16gig beast!

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

If 6 GB Ram is a "position of privilege" then my 16 GB makes me the king of England.

Does that make me the God Emperor of the world with my 32gb of RAM? I had 4gb on my previous computer, but bumped it up to 8 this spring after I realized that most new PC-only games had 4gb as the minimum specs. At this point 4gb really is bordering on too low for most contemporary games, there's no way around it.

 

[Strazdas]

Funny thing is, the game actually uses 1.5 GB of ram when being played, so even 4 GB is twice more than the game actually needs. Though granted with OS that hogs 1.5 GB on idle this may be closer to reality. Still there is absolutely no reason to hardcode the requirements, ever. If a person wants to run it on lower specs - he should be allowed to.

(I know there is probably an easy fix but its laughable what the publishers are trying to do to promote next-gen consoles).

No, there is no "easy fix" as they apparently tied the speed of the game to the framerate. Meaning if you increase the framerate - you increase the speed of the game itself. And setting it to 120 just breaks the game entirely.
http://t.co/pu0Cw8F25L

thats 1995 DOS games level of stupidity. This should never happen in modern game programming. I mean seriuosly how stupid must you be!

If 6 GB Ram is a "position of privilege" then my 16 GB makes me the king of England.

HI, 4 GB machine reporting in, enough to run any game released up to date.

Wait, 5 GB of RAM? That's a rather strange amount to have...

I got a machine that has 864 MB of ram. how you ask? Simple, 5 RAM slots, all 5 with DIFFERENT sized rams in them. this PC is a frankenstein of "yeah is cavenged that of this pc that died" or "this was left over from the 3 pc asembly[footnote] there was event when a client came in with 3 non-working PCs and asked me to assemble one working and i would keep the rest. I salvaged a working HDD, PSU and RAM from it and plenty of fans. One had broken HDD, other was with burned GPU, third one was jsut a very nasty virus.[/footnote]

Capcha: Keep calm
And let out daleks you mean?

 

[RA92]

I don't see what the harm in letting people at least try to run the game on laughably out-of-date hardware...

... to play a laughably linear games with laughably narrow corridors running on a laughably ancient engine.

Laugh away.

 

[shadowmagus]

This is what happens when publishers try to push software as "next-gen". There is nothing "next-gen" about any of these games, or these consoles, and the fact the publishers and developers are all in it together to try and squeeze more money out of the uninformed is disgusting.

 

[kasperbbs]

That game ran just fine with 4 gigs of ram(with unofficial patch) on max settings and it looked just slightly better then the previous ones, i have no idea why they came up with these requirements, perhaps they really wanted to pretend that their engine is beefier than battlefields, or they were trying to avoid poor people who are still using their 4 - 5 year old pc's from playing their game.