I’m thinking you’ll find Rage‘s minimum and recommended hardware requirements firm but fair, Kotaku readers. Let us know if you plan on picking up the PC version and please keep the Mac OS X release in your thoughts and prayers for people like me. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Without further ado, here are your Rage requirements, straight from Bethesda.
Minimum
- OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD
- Memory: 2GB
- Hard Disk Space: 25GB
- Video Card: GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 4200
Recommended:
- OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
- Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad or Equivalent AMD
- Memory: 4GB
- Hard Disk Space: 25GB
- Video Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, ATI Radeon HD 5550
Thanks for the heads up, Robert!
Paddington
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:02 AMSweet, my PC’s above the Recommended! 8D Still going to wait for reviews on this one though before I decide whether to buy it or not (and on what platform).
Chris
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:27 AMHell yes my ancienct 8800 gtx has still got it
alinos
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 1:29 PMof course it does until we get to the next console generation any game that goes on console will basically have to have 8800GT as a min spec.
Adrian Milano
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 6:38 PMMy brother has SLI 8800′s and its been hanging on for years lol. Lucky him. my xfire 5870′s though smash him :-P
Nicholas
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 9:18 PMI’m one step above you with a 9800. Best (and only) card I ever bought. Sure it can’t run Crysis or Metro at full spec, but everything else it’ll gun quite happily.
Skidd
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:04 AMSmells rather fishy of the console port kind…
Chazz
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:08 AMIndeed. My eagerness for this game has been somewhat dampened.
Glenn
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:14 AMDon’t let it fool you, they have been working on this game for 6 years. Carmack is a firm believer in PC gaming and he’s said in interviews he hopes he’ll be able to release high res texture packs in the future.
This game will still eat machines alive at the highest settings.
Water Bear
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:16 AMAlso remembering Carmack’s amazing ability to produce wonderfully optimised game engines, i would have been surprised if the specs were any higher!
Skidd
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:31 AMYou forget that Carmack has spent the last 6 years praising the current console generation every chance he gets. He has openly said that he would love to get in on the sheep console sales….
It would not surprise me at all that when we finally get this game installed on our PC the first thing it will do is ask us to press start.
Skidd
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:36 AMPS: The doom3 engine wasn’t exactly optimized either. It ran like a dog and could only do enclosed areas. Hence the reason it hasn’t been used extensively as a game engine base for any third party games as much as say the unreal engine of the same time period.
NotoriousR
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:01 PMBut Carmack has also stated he doesn’t make Id Tech to license out, and Unreal’s explosion in popularity is because they’re damn determined to get it out there and get everyone using it.
Also, just out of curiosity how long was Doom 3 (and id tech 4(?)) under developemnt for?
Thom
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:10 PMI take that with a grain of salt. Game engines are effectively their own product, and requires a separate team of specialists. Companies rarely build engines without being open to the option of leasing.
NotoriousR
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:20 PMI should clarify that and say that (or rather, Carmack says) that when they make the id Tech engines, they make it with the intent for making their game. With unreal, they’ve clearly spent a great, great deal of effort from day one making it as generic and user accesible as possible so any developer can use it. I think Carmack said in an interview that the licensing happened only because people came up them and asked if they could, and they were like, sure, why not. Where as Unreal is standing there yelling out how awesome their engine is (and deservedly so).
Thom
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 1:17 PMYeah, OK, given your clarification, I think we’re on the same wavelength.
Wesley Franc
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 7:53 PMIt was a PC game …not for retards. I remember it running badly, until I googled for which settings I should apply for my video card … some tweak about vertex rendering in the config file and it ran like magic.
Also, the “only does enclosed areas” is kind of a cheap shot in hindsight. It was the first game to do nice dynamic lighting … that is like saying pong “didn’t even have realistic handles on the paddles”,
waterbear
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:41 PMI seem to remember the recommended card for doom 3 when it came out was the 6600gt, which I recall was a completely middle of the road card at the time. It was capable of high settings at a decent (for the time) resolution.
Awnshegh
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:43 AMWouldn’t surprise me if the ‘recommended’ settings are what’s required to get this game running at console level. IE 1080P. But I’m sure for those of us running high end setups we’ll be able to ramp the detail well above the ‘recommended’ level for a great result.
alinos
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 1:45 PMthats what im thinking the 9800GTX isn’t a powerhouse card.
in fact unless you were upgrading constantly you should basically have missed it. Since the 200 series came out 6 months after it.
I really wish they would mention screen resolution when doing these thing’s.
Azza
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:08 AM25GB??
#35
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM^this
wow. how many discs does it ship on?
Im still keen as mustard to get this, but im thinking the download from steam will be a bit too much… gotta go try & remember where these mythical ‘retail stores’ are…
f4ction
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:44 AMAlso remember file compressions for downloads.
shodannet
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:30 AMAnd to think it wasnt that long ago a game taking up 9GB was huge…
KidCynic
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:37 AMWoo! Sli GTX 580′s!
Pioneer
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:42 AMTwenty… five… gig. Something tells me this is NOT a game to buy on Steam.
NotoriousR
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 11:59 AMOooh, is it the 2GB memory requirement? I bet that’s why!
Merus
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:09 PMInteresting: Rage appears to benefit from quad core processors. Most games generally stick to a couple of threads.
Ynefel
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 12:48 PMRecommended graphics cards are 3+ years old? Sus.
OzHuski
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 1:36 PMThe 9800 is pretty old but it was going out for cheap a while ago.. The 5550 is about a year and a half, but to see a mid range recommended I guess is fair, that wouldnt be for highest settings of course.
Chazz
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 2:15 PMYeah but for an up and coming title in the DX11 era you’d expect for the recommended to at least be a GTX260.
706
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 4:55 PMYou would expect that, but then you remember that games don’t seem to be pushing PC hardware very hard at all lately. I am loathe to blame that solely on old consoles and PC’s getting ports but I don’t really see any other reason.
It is kind of ironic that the only games that are PC exclusive and could push the boundaries, ie Blizzard and Valve games, are games that are specifically going to be made to look relatively simple to appeal to a greater audience or to prevent lag, ie Diablo 3 and DOTA2.
moloko
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 7:00 PMWho cares it will be buggy and unplayable on release.
Otacon
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 7:18 PMIt would be nice with the release of these figures that they include what settings said figures are based on.