To Anet: Revise the RAM requirements listed on Steam

[XenoSpyro.1780]

Your own website : 4 GB minimum (even under the POF section)This lines up with my own numbers. I chose Lily because it seems to be one of the most graphically intensive spots with a large gathering of people. I'm listing both regular D3D9, and the D3D12 wrapper (this consumes a bit more ram).All lowest settings : Under 3 GB / Under 4 GBHighest settings? I went to Lily, VB, LA, and even followed world boss trains and still couldn't push over 6 GB even WITH the wrapper.

This makes the suggested 6 GB minimum pretty dishonest if you can get away with 4. The recommended capacity of 24 GB is horribly exaggerated. It's not only dishonest, I'd call it an out of season April Fools joke. Best case scenario, you're going to confuse someone new when they read that. Worst case, it's a deterrent.

[Khisanth.2948]

6GB is not an unreasonable requirement if the game itself is going to take 3GB. The OS is going to require a chunk and most people will probably have some other thing running as well, maybe a browser or a voice app. GW2 for me rarely if ever goes above 2.5GB but my current total system memory usage is 11GB. If I only had 6GB GW2 would be running horribly. I have tried playing GW2 with system memory usage maxed out. It slaughters the FPS and the experience is generally poor.

[Astyrah.4015]

@Khisanth.2948 said:6GB is not an unreasonable requirement if the game itself is going to take 3GB. The OS is going to require a chunk and most people will probably have some other thing running as well, maybe a browser or a voice app. GW2 for me rarely if ever goes above 2.5GB but my current total system memory usage is 11GB. If I only had 6GB GW2 would be running horribly. I have tried playing GW2 with system memory usage maxed out. It slaughters the FPS and the experience is generally poor.

---

　　for what it's worth on linux via wine + dxvk: GW2 max settings, low char model limit, on Teq boss fight + a dozen or two firefox tabs + thunderbird (email application) + discord + steam easily sees about 9.5gb to 13gb total system RAM consumption (depending on how many firefox tabs lol) .... but that's a lot of overhead with wine and vulkan driving a poorly optimised windows game on linux. so yeah the 6gb minimum is fine if they would consider people attempting to play the game via SteamPlay/Proton on linux (yeah for the unaware it's a recent thing on the linux gaming world, and 70~80% of all windows games on steam working nicely on linux because of it)　regarding the recommended specs: i think a suggested 16gb ram for recommended requirements is more than adequate, the listed 24gb i agree is way too much

[Leablo.2651]

How do you know that it's too much for the Steam version? We know hardly anything about it. We could even see a feature added to the standalone client over the next month or so that will also raise the memory recommendation for us, too.

If anything, Anet's specs are generally lowballing and have been since 2012. I hope they are ready for a flood of negative reviews regarding performance.

[Alin.2468]

@Leablo.2651 said:If anything, Anet's specs are generally lowballing and have been since 2012. I hope they are ready for a flood of negative reviews regarding performance.

It's a somewhat lack of care, but it has arguments. Game must sell, especially now, when Amazon announced a new MMO with way better PvP in spring. Therefore Steam is an obvious choice to increase sales at this point; besides let's not forget Christmas will come and all those new players will buy gems. In the end, it's all about money, and just money.

[Linken.6345]

@Alin.2468 said:

@Leablo.2651 said:If anything, Anet's specs are generally lowballing and have been since 2012. I hope they are ready for a flood of negative reviews regarding performance.

It's a somewhat lack of care, but it has arguments. Game must sell, especially now, when Amazon announced a new MMO with way better PvP in spring. Therefore Steam is an obvious choice to increase sales at this point; besides let's not forget Christmas will come and all those new players will buy gems. In the end, it's all about money, and just money.

Dident the gutt the pvp in the amazon mmo already?

[misterman.1530]

Might be a stupid question, but what are the RAM requirements just to run the Steam client?

[Astyrah.4015]

@misterman.1530 said:Might be a stupid question, but what are the RAM requirements just to run the Steam client?

actual ram usage on linux/ubuntu(gnome), as low as 100mb, average of 200~280mb depending on what you do, up to a high 800~900mb

i imagine windows steam would use the same amount of ram if not just a lil bit higher

[XenoSpyro.1780]

@Leablo.2651 said:How do you know that it's too much for the Steam version?Is this a real question?

@misterman.1530 said:Might be a stupid question, but what are the RAM requirements just to run the Steam client?Less than 256 MB usually, 512 at the most. Hasn't changed much since 2003.

[PseudoNewb.5468]

Also, make the ArenaNet and NCSoft developer/publisher tags the same ones used on the GW1 page.

[Astyrah.4015]

@"PseudoNewb.5468" said:Also, make the ArenaNet and NCSoft developer/publisher tags the same ones used on the GW1 page.

are they not the same (dev + pub)?https://store.steampowered.com/app/1284210/Guild_Wars_2/https://store.steampowered.com/app/29570/Guild_Wars_Trilogy/

says for both:DEVELOPER: ArenaNet®PUBLISHER: NCSOFT

[PseudoNewb.5468]

Ah never mind they fixed it. Yet... the recommended memory is unchanged :/Originally the spelling was slightly different so the links didn't direct you to their other games, but someone was smart enough to fix that, but not figure out the memory requirements.

[Coeruleum.9164]

@Alin.2468 said:

@Leablo.2651 said:If anything, Anet's specs are generally lowballing and have been since 2012. I hope they are ready for a flood of negative reviews regarding performance.

It's a somewhat lack of care, but it has arguments. Game must sell, especially now, when Amazon announced a new MMO with way better PvP in spring. Therefore Steam is an obvious choice to increase sales at this point; besides let's not forget Christmas will come and all those new players will buy gems. In the end, it's all about money, and just money.

No one thinks Amazon is a gaming company. That's just one step up from Wal-Mart releasing a knockoff World of Warcraft to go with their phone plans, their pharmacy and their general attempts to dip their tentacles into everything else. No one is going to be playing New World when they could be playing Guild Wars 2 or pretty much any other MMO.

If you think games are just a cynical plot to grab your money, why do you play them?

[Alin.2468]

@Coeruleum.9164 said:

@Alin.2468 said:

@"Leablo.2651" said:If anything, Anet's specs are generally lowballing and have been since 2012. I hope they are ready for a flood of negative reviews regarding performance.

It's a somewhat lack of care, but it has arguments. Game must sell, especially now, when Amazon announced a new MMO with way better PvP in spring. Therefore Steam is an obvious choice to increase sales at this point; besides let's not forget Christmas will come and all those new players will buy gems. In the end, it's all about money, and just money.

No one thinks Amazon is a gaming company. That's just one step up from Wal-Mart releasing a knockoff World of Warcraft to go with their phone plans, their pharmacy and their general attempts to dip their tentacles into everything else. No one is going to be playing New World when they could be playing Guild Wars 2 or pretty much any other MMO.

If you think games are just a cynical plot to grab your money, why do you play them?

Games are created for entertainment, and like any other entertainment they must sell. At some point though, games can not keep players any more, and they move away, or try something else. One of the reasons of players leaving this game is PvP (whether is promoting randoms, balance, or lack of content; or even failed promises like battlegrounds and GvG even though ironically the game is called Guild Wars 2 for 8 years now). Maybe players will return, but they will definitely try the new game.

Amazon is indeed trying to "dip their tentacles into everything" but they also have the budget for it. We are talking about the richest man in the world behind Amazon. So yeah: I can't wait to try that game.

[Tyncale.1629]

@"Alin.2468" said:

Amazon is indeed trying to "dip their tentacles into everything" but they also have the budget for it. We are talking about the richest man in the world behind Amazon. So yeah: I can't wait to try that game.

Do not get your hopes up. I played the recent try out and the one before that and it is the clunkiest pos I have ever played. It is almost as if they know nothing of MMO's. I was hyped too, not anymore.

[Heisenberg.1482]

Steams ESO store page lists 8 GB for recommended memory. How can GW2s be 24 gb.

[Parasite.5389]

guys, take a chill pill, it's just a typo

[misterman.1530]

@XenoSpyro.1780 said:

@Leablo.2651 said:How do you know that it's too much for the Steam version?Is this a real question?

@"misterman.1530" said:Might be a stupid question, but what are the RAM requirements just to run the Steam client?Less than 256 MB usually, 512 at the most. Hasn't changed much since 2003.

I just discovered I can start steam without the browser, so it takes up even less memory. Just create a shortcut to steam.exe and modify the properties by adding -no-browser:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steam.exe" -no-browser

You will note that when steam starts, there are no longer 5 or 6 steamwebhelper processes running. You won't be able to browse the store, etc. but apparently it helps with frame rates.

[maddoctor.2738]

@"misterman.1530" said:I just discovered I can start steam without the browser, so it takes up even less memory. Just create a shortcut to steam.exe and modify the properties by adding -no-browser:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steam.exe" -no-browser

You will note that when steam starts, there are no longer 5 or 6 steamwebhelper processes running. You won't be able to browse the store, etc. but apparently it helps with frame rates.

Instead of doing that you can simply launch Steam in offline mode. That way the online services won't load, leading to less RAM being used, you will save about 50-100mb, which might help in some RAM-starved systems.

[misterman.1530]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"misterman.1530" said:I just discovered I can start steam without the browser, so it takes up even less memory. Just create a shortcut to steam.exe and modify the properties by adding -no-browser:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steam.exe" -no-browser

You will note that when steam starts, there are no longer 5 or 6 steamwebhelper processes running. You won't be able to browse the store, etc. but apparently it helps with frame rates.

Instead of doing that you can simply launch Steam in offline mode. That way the online services won't load, leading to less RAM being used, you will save about 50-100mb, which might help in some RAM-starved systems.

But the steamwebhelper processes still load, even if in offline mode

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Khisanth.2948 said:6GB is not an unreasonable requirement if the game itself is going to take 3GB. The OS is going to require a chunk and most people will probably have some other thing running as well, maybe a browser or a voice app. GW2 for me rarely if ever goes above 2.5GB but my current total system memory usage is 11GB. If I only had 6GB GW2 would be running horribly. I have tried playing GW2 with system memory usage maxed out. It slaughters the FPS and the experience is generally poor.

I doubt it would run horribly. I play on a laptop with 8GB and it hasn't been an issue at all. If the OP is really doing fine with 4GB, then maybe a minimum requirement of 4GB wouldn't be a bad call. Otherwise you're telling people who could run the game without issue that they might as well not even bother. Also, I agree with the OP that it seems odd to have a recommended 24GB when the game shows no issues with memory usage at a third of that or less!

Edit: Just remembered I have an older laptop I used to play on that has only 4GB. 6GB as a minimum may be a little high.

[keenedge.9675]

I don't think dishonest is an issue here, since Anet doesn't sell memory or systems.

IMO, a modern windows system should have 8GB minimum of installed RAM, preferred 16GB. Guild Wars 2 uses close to 4GB of RAM on my system by itself. Plus the OS and anything else you run in the background needs some. I was surprised that firefox with only 5 gw2 wiki tabs open is listing a virtual size of 3GB.

RAM is fairly cheap, don't skimp on it for new systems. It's not like the old days when RAM was absurdly expensive, plus having your system never need to use a swap file on the hard drive is a BIG PLUS for any system. Plus swapping WILL wear out mechanical and SSD drives.

[Ayrilana.1396]

While I certainly agree with not skimping on RAM, there are some people that take it too far and get 32GB, or even 64GB, which is largely unnecessary and just a waste of money. This is when it comes to gaming.

[Khisanth.2948]

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@"Khisanth.2948" said:6GB is not an unreasonable requirement if the game itself is going to take 3GB. The OS is going to require a chunk and most people will probably have some other thing running as well, maybe a browser or a voice app. GW2 for me rarely if ever goes above 2.5GB but my current total system memory usage is 11GB. If I only had 6GB GW2 would be running horribly. I have tried playing GW2 with system memory usage maxed out. It slaughters the FPS and the experience is generally poor.

I doubt it would run horribly. I play on a laptop with 8GB and it hasn't been an issue at all. If the OP is really doing fine with 4GB, then maybe a minimum requirement of 4GB wouldn't be a bad call. Otherwise you're telling people who could run the game without issue that they might as well not even bother. Also, I agree with the OP that it seems odd to have a recommended 24GB when the game shows no issues with memory usage at a third of that or less!

Edit: Just remembered I have an older laptop I used to play on that has only 4GB. 6GB as a minimum may be a little high.

The game runs horribly with memory usage maxed out. Whether or not a system with 6GB would have it's memory usage maxed out depends on the user.

If you are going to go with the "skin of your teeth" bare minimum then even 3GB would work but that also assumes that any time someone is playing that they will have nothing else running. In the case of the Steam version that would be impossible since at least Steam will also be running.

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Khisanth.2948 said:

@AliamRationem.5172 said:

@Khisanth.2948 said:6GB is not an unreasonable requirement if the game itself is going to take 3GB. The OS is going to require a chunk and most people will probably have some other thing running as well, maybe a browser or a voice app. GW2 for me rarely if ever goes above 2.5GB but my current total system memory usage is 11GB. If I only had 6GB GW2 would be running horribly. I have tried playing GW2 with system memory usage maxed out. It slaughters the FPS and the experience is generally poor.

I doubt it would run horribly. I play on a laptop with 8GB and it hasn't been an issue at all. If the OP is really doing fine with 4GB, then maybe a minimum requirement of 4GB wouldn't be a bad call. Otherwise you're telling people who could run the game without issue that they might as well not even bother. Also, I agree with the OP that it seems odd to have a recommended 24GB when the game shows no issues with memory usage at a third of that or less!

Edit: Just remembered I have an older laptop I used to play on that has only 4GB. 6GB as a minimum may be a little high.

The game runs horribly with memory usage maxed out. Whether or not a system with 6GB would have it's memory usage maxed out depends on the user.

If you are going to go with the "skin of your teeth" bare minimum then even 3GB would work but that also assumes that any time someone is playing that they will have nothing else running. In the case of the Steam version that would be impossible since at least Steam will also be running.

It is a minimum requirement and it is not unreasonable to assume that a person playing on such a system would at the very least not run unnecessary additional software if it causes them to sacrifice performance in the game they are currently playing.