Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim PC system requirements confirmed
Bethesda today unveiled the system requirements for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, revealing that, really, as long as you're not still rocking the computer you built in 2006 to play Oblivion, you're probably all right.
With The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim fast approaching, how will your PC hold up? Bethesda today unveiled the system requirements, revealing that, really, as long as you're not still rocking the computer you built in 2006 to play Oblivion, you're probably all right.
Recommended PC specification:
- Quad-core Intel/AMD CPU
- 4GB RAM
- DirectX 9 video card with 1GB RAM - Nvidia GTX 260/AMD Radeon 4890 or better
- Windows XP/7
- 6GB hard disk space
- DirectX compatible soundcard
Minimum specification:
- 2GHz dual-core CPU
- 2GB RAM
- DirectX 9c video card with 512MB RAM
- Windows XP/7/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
The specs were confirmed by Bethesda marketing man Pete Hines on Twitter. Hines also explained that the minimum specs "get you playing," while the recommended will let you play with the graphics set to "High." If you want to bump it up to "Ultra," though, he says you'll want a "beefier rig."
And, as Skyrim is a Steamworks title, you'll need an Internet connection to activate retail copies. Or to download it digitally, obviously.
Skyrim arrives for PC, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3 on November 11.
-
Shacknews
replyAlice O'Connor posted a new article, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim PC system requirements confirmed.
Bethesda today unveiled the system requirements for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, revealing that, really, as long as you're not still rocking the computer you built in 2006 to play Oblivion, you're probably all right.-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Same here, except with a 5970.
-
-
-
Specs? Keep thinking about a gaming laptop but want 14" or less... so basically m11/14x hmmm
-
-
-
-
Steamworks so it should be fine.
-
-
So, graphics cards from two generations ago and 6GB of HDD space... I can see where Bethesda's priorities lie.
-
We knew this was going to be the case since they showed their first footage.
-
so I'm confused. Are you happy the game will run on lower end PCs or pissed your $500 video has gone to waste for this game?
-
since when have you paid $500 for a video card? Most go for under $200, with the top of the line ones going for around $300.
-
huh? Here are a few above $500...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%204021&IsNodeId=1&name=%24500%20-%20%24750
-
OK, that link is whacked. Here is at least one, with plenty more to be found there:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500214
-
-
Pre AMD resurgence, top end GPUs would routinely come out north of $500 and stay there. Since then we've only really seen that replicated with dual-GPU cards.
-
[deleted]
-
-
This type of comment always cracks me up. Perhaps he's upset that it's not utilizing all the features and new technology his newer card supports, like a modern PC game should. See - Crysis 2 pre-DX 11 patch.
-
-
-
Why not make a game that runs on both? You know, computers are not consoles. They have different levels of hardware. Why not tone back the settings so they can run on crap boxes like your own and look good on high end hardware?
I really don't understand why people think all computers are static objects that never change or vary. It's either on or off. It either runs well or it doesn't run at all.
I'm starting to think this line of thinking is a epeen stroking contest, where people with ancient computers want to be able to run everything on maximum settings without ever putting money into it... I don't even understand why they would want to do that if quality on Low for one game is the same as Maximum for another it shouldn't matter, except for the word LOW and MAXIMUM.
I really hate consolization.-
[deleted]
-
The game *DOES* run on both, and I'm sure the low and ultra settings will look quite different.
-
I am not saying that games shouldn't run at both extremes, but as a developer that shit costs time and money. And for what? to make 1% of the gaming community happy about their video card purchase? Maybe the content of the game is better because they focused on that instead. Or maybe its just so they can run on consoles easier. who knows.
So its a trade off I'm sure they considered and decided not to target the high end of PC gaming. Their priorities are making a good game that makes money. Making the visuals as nice as possible only becomes a priority if the number of people enjoying those visuals is significant.
-
-
-
In selling as many copies as possible? Yeah. Crazy stuff huh? Go figure.
-
[deleted]
-
:<
-
-
I'm kind of shocked my laptop will be able to grind this out on low.
-
-
Just wait until modders create super hi res textures and you download 50 mods. Then your instal folder will get very full.
-
-
Pretty weak... the recommended specs you could buy in 08. Oblivion you could buy in 06, but the same recommended specs as Skyrim were what was needed to run Oblivion fluidly.
So, Oblivion had software that pushed hardware for two years after it's release. Skyrim needs hardware that was available three years ago. In other words, Skyrim doesn't look any better then Oblivion either objectively or subjectively.
Yay for consolization?-
Not at all.
-
How the fuck can you look at low system requirements as a bad thing? An optimized engine is a good thing!
-
Except that if you look at literally *ANY* of the footage of Skyrim out there, it clearly looks better than Oblivion.
-
-
What the shit? haha
-
Seriously? Like, I understand putting your head in your hands over stuff like Rage, or Deus Ex: HR or Dragon Age II, but I have no problem with people aiming for lower specs and optimizing. I mean if you want to reach a broad audience. Not 3000k hard cores who have a PysX card. The game looks amazing. Just like Crysis 2 did this year. I don't mind aiming for console specs as long as you support your mod community and have scalability.
Death with console ports. Not consoles. -
"Skyrim doesn't look any better then Oblivion either objectively or subjectively."
Whaaaaaat? -
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
you're right, I can't see any difference. fucking consoles
http://download.gameblog.fr/images/blogs/3194/48859.jpg
http://download.gameblog.fr/images/blogs/3194/48858.jpg
-
Too... many... logical.... leaps...
-
-
same. PC gamers are the whiniest group of gamers i have ever come across.
-
-
maybe you should find a different hobby.
-
Hey I appreciate what you're doing, but try not to wear yourself out
-
Pretty sad line of comments following this.
This is exactly like what I said in the thread up a bit. People want a epeen stroking sensation of having everything on maximum without ever needing to update their hardware, even if it means a low quality game (graphically).
This isn't a heavily optimized engine, just like Rage doesn't look that amazing either. It's made for consoles that's why the specs are so low.
Oblivion COULDN'T be run on all the highest settings for TWO years after it's release, but it COULD be run on lower settings. This game will simply CAN run on it's highest settings on hardware that came out THREE YEARS AGO.
See the difference in variation? This game has none in terms of graphical fidelty. You're getting what it looks like on a console and nothing more. It's a overall loss.
-
-
Unfortunately, I'm still rocking the computer I built in 2007. So It will run it... barely. Its definitely time for an upgrade. I preordered collectors addition, but going to probably set this one on the shelf until I upgrade sometime after Christmas.
-
-
-
-
Really? You posted this without research?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_10_support
There's a ton of console games in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support
Not as many here, but a few, including BF3, Dirt 3, Dragon Age II, FEAR 3, Metro 2033, Lost Planet 2, HAWX 2.
Not to mention the games that will be coming out soon.
It's kind of a staggering amount, which makes Dynotaku's post all the more ridiculously stupid.-
Yes, and you know how many of those games are built off the Unreal Engine? Just because the engine itself, which can run on consoles can use DX10 features DOES NOT mean the game has features from it.
That is completely putting aside that the list you linked to lists games that support DX10... That means it can run under a DX10 environment (or DX11 for your other list), but does not mean the game is inherently DX10. It's merely a compatibility list.
For instance Homefront, if you played that, has absolutely no features from DX10 or 11, yet it's listed under the DX10 list and DX11 list because it's based on the UE3 engine.
Adding to that consoles only have hardware support for DX9 and below, so games that are made for consoles and ported to PCs don't have features for DX10 or 11 because they're based around the lowest common denominator.
Fear, Dirt 3, BF3, and Metro were not designed for consoles. They were ported to it, not the other way around. Lost Planet is a tech demo for all intents and purposes. That leaves DA2, which had patches released afterwards to fix it up for the PC (not nearly as well as DA1 either).-
Fear, Dirt 3, BF3, and Metro were not designed for consoles
Do you have any evidence to back that up? Because my first instinct is to say you're dead wrong. BF3 if anything, was a simultaneous development effort, like Rage's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_2033#Development
I don't see anything there that says there was any "porting."
Re: Homefront
http://pc.gamezone.com/editorials/homefront_interview_pc_gamers_wont_be_left_behind
So are you saying that they never implemented any DX11 features? Can you list what was left out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGO_%28game_engine%29
Sounds to me like Dirt 3's engine isn't PC-centric either, so porting from one platform to the other would seem to be a misnomer.
Many of the multiplatform engine games are not "ported" at all, and if they are, is it not very trivial to enable certain DX10 and 11 features of the engine with very little effort. In everything I've read, that's the advantage of using something like the Unreal 3 engine.
Either way, I'm done arguing about this since no matter what, it's a developer's decision whether or not to put the effort into turning on existing support for things like Directx 10 or 11 in the PC version of their engine. Blaming the actual console market for it is complete stupidity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not mentioned: Xbox 360 controller
-
*CONSOLE'D*
-
-
-
The bitching over the system requirements is so. goddamn. hilarious. There are a million videos out there showing extensive gameplay of it. Who gives a fuck what the requirements are? You can already tell it looks great from the videos!
I guess I'll just be playing the hell out of Skyrim while everyone else is simultaneously crying and jerking off to the CPU bench of 3DMark.-
it's only a fear that the game experience could be lessened so the console kiddies can play too. We jerk off and cry for the possibilities of a world of these epic games tailored only to a PC.
-
-
I can't wait for this game to have size 70 fonts and scrolling through 3 items at a time in my inventory thanks to said fonts.
I hope you have to press enter for everything too...that would be excellent -
Everything about this game looks great to me except what I read on Skyrim's wikipedia page about Bethesda's Creation Engine: "The resulting game engine was dubbed the Creation Engine, which was based on the Gamebryo engine used for Oblivion and Fallout 3..."
I don't really know how you could improve the Gamebryo engine, other than totally throwing it out and shooting it several times in the face. If the basis for Creation is Gamebryo, and in the end it feels like Gamebryo (i.e. horrible) I will be very disappointed. Can anyone who's played a preview build confirm/deny that Creation looks/feels/plays completely different than Gamebryo?-
Morrowind and Oblivion, if I recall correctly, both used the Gamebryo engine (unfortunately).
-
-
