Traditionally that target becomes the recommended spec. I mean most developers who want to make money will target a system that a majority of potential customers have, or are willing to purchase. On the other hand - and again this seems self-inflicted damage by just dropping stuff without initial clarification - the specs seem to written towards " this is what you need with every detail maxed doing crazy shenanigans" and the difference between "minimum" and "recommended" is the resolution.
I'm willing to give Intercept a lot of benefits of doubt, but when they're saying that there's room to improve to an extend where it's lowering system requirements, I feel that the product is not as finished as they told us it is the game running better in the future on lesser hardware might be a positive aspect of Intercept misleading us but that's about it. The optimizations that are left should be in the 5-10% range, unless we've been lied to regarding where the product is in development (the story being it's feature complete, we just want to await feedback before adding that). KSP2 was built from the ground up with an end-product in mind. The early access launch version would grind most computers to a halt. I think you need to remember the difference in performance between early access launch and 1.2 release in KSP.
0 kommentar(er)
