DICE Reveals PC Requirements For 'Battlefield 1,' Changes Conquest Mode Scoring

News
By Rexly Peñaflorida
published

The Battlefield 1 beta event a few weeks ago was the public’s chance to try out the game on PC as well as consoles. Obviously, the game isn’t quite finished yet, and the open beta provided DICE with much needed information about how to proceed with development. Even so, the studio released the finalized minimum and recommended specs for the game.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Battlefield 1 System RequiementsMinimumRecommended
CPUIntel Core i5-6600K (Skylake, 3.5 GHz) / AMD FX-6350 (Vishera, 3.9 GHz)Intel Core i7-4790 (Haswell, 3.6 GHz) / AMD FX-8350 (Vishera, 4.0 GHz)
GPUNvidia GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7850Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 / AMD RX 480
RAM8 GB16 GB
Storage50 GB50 GB
OSWindows 7, 8.1, 10 (64-bit)Windows 10 or later (64-bit)
DirectX Version1111.1

Based on the results of the open beta, lead world designer Daniel Berlin also wrote a blog post about the studio’s current work on Battlefield 1. The most major change to date was in the popular Conquest mode. In the final version of the game, kills, as well as capturing objective points, will contribute to the overall score for both sides. Berlin also said that the team will make changes to the Rush game mode based on comments from players.

Several weapons and vehicles will also get tweaks, such as the Light Tank, which Berlin said was “a bit too effective in the Open Beta.” Even the game’s horses are getting a fix, because they seem to take a significant number of bullets before falling in combat. So that the Support class soldiers can take out the game’s more dangerous vehicles, the team is also considering adding some sort of Gadget tool.

We won’t have to wait long to see the effects of these changes. Battlefield 1 arrives in almost a month, on October 21.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
NameBattlefield 1
TypeFirst-Person Shooter
DeveloperDICE
PublisherElectronic Arts
Release DateOctober 21, 2016
PlatformsPC, PlayStation 4, Xbox One
Where To BuyOriginPlayStation StoreXbox StoreAmazonBest BuyTargetWalmartGameStop
Rexly Peñaflorida
20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • jjbtexas
    This game must be pretty CPU intensive if it requires a 6600K but only a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7850... I bet you could easily get away with a 6500.
    Reply
  • velocityg4
    This doesn't make much sense. An i5-2500K dominates an Athlon FX 6350 in single and multi-threaded tasks. There always seems to be an imbalance in the AMD Intel requirements in games. Even though every in game benchmark I've seen shows Intel models beating out AMD. Even the i3-6100 at stock settings does better in most games than a fairly heavily overclocked AMD 8 Core.

    Does Intel pay game publishers to bump up requirements? Many games seem to play quite well on Intel CPUs well below the minimum requirements. As long as the GPU is good.
    Reply
  • gggplaya
    18622333 said:
    This game must be pretty CPU intensive if it requires a 6600K but only a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 / AMD Radeon HD 7850... I bet you could easily get away with a 6500.

    I played the beta on an 8 year old core i7 920 with a geforce 970. I played on ultra detail at 1440p and still consistently got over 50-60fps, i had DX12 enabled. The game was impressively well optimized, and i'm assuming it's taking good advantage of the extra cores in my processor. Not once, did it stutter or chug.

    Reply
  • Samaratin
    I played the Beta with an I3-3240, EVGA 960 4gb, and 16gb ram, and it ran perfectly fine
    Reply
  • quilciri
    The Intel CPU requirement is complete and utter B.S. period. full stop. Try again, DICE.
    Reply
  • anbello262
    I guess the cpu requirements are always a trade-off. Low requirements mean people will see it as 'more accessible', but it brings a higher risk of less knowledgeable people saying "I have an i5 and it's slow", when they might have a 1st gen low end i5 (most people just look at the i3-i5-i7 number, not the exact model).
    Higher requirements mean some people wont buy it because they think they cant run it, but it will also be a 'pleasant surprise' for people who can run it and don't meet the recommended specs.
    Reply
  • problematiq
    18622723 said:
    I guess the cpu requirements are always a trade-off. Low requirements mean people will see it as 'more accessible', but it brings a higher risk of less knowledgeable people saying "I have an i5 and it's slow", when they might have a 1st gen low end i5 (most people just look at the i3-i5-i7 number, not the exact model).
    Higher requirements mean some people wont buy it because they think they cant run it, but it will also be a 'pleasant surprise' for people who can run it and don't meet the recommended specs.

    I suspect this is a problem for people with laptops. "My laptop says i5 on the sticker" though running 2 cores at 1.2GHz "And it says my graphics card is a 960m!" would be nice to have a benchmark for the game as a standalone in case you are unsure if your pc can run it.
    Reply
  • MayuraDeSilva
    Based on their requirements, my i3 gonna be crushed ;) Let's find out next month.
    Reply
  • ubercake
    If they don't make capturing and holding control points the primary way to earn points in conquest, it will be the same old thing. Not bad, just not encouraging the team concept or cooperation all that much. This means a team full of snipers can sit back and shoot, not capture any flags and then get high scores for the round. I think the best thing they could do is encourage the team concept and discourage TDM players from hanging out at the edge of the map sniping when playing a round of conquest unless that sniper is directly supporting teammates at a flag in the process of being defended or captured.

    Also, the armor should be something to be feared. I thought the tanks were at the right level in the beta.

    I do agree with the horse tweak. You shouldn't have to use all of your ammo to drop one.

    I hope they don't mess with the planes too much. That part of the game seems more fun than ever. I think it's due to the slower speeds of the old planes. They seem more suitable for the map size. For example, in BF4 you could fly from one end of a map to the other in a few seconds on some of the smaller maps. In BF1, you spend a lot more time over the map because of the limitation in speed of the plane.
    Reply
  • XGC EZ TEC
    hey guys, i ran the battlefield one beta on my current build, and i found it ran great. I was watching the chat and everyone was comparing what they had. I told everyone what i had and i got laughed at ? the only thing i changed was the ram. i went from 16 gb ddr4 Corsair ram to 32gb G.Skill Aegis & i had 2 memory slots open. So i used 8gb (2x4 Corsair dominator Platinum ddr4) then they asked me what monitor i got, and i said i have an AOC 27 inch. with 20 mil to 1 contrast ratio, and then everyone shut up ???? I don't understand
    Reply