Watch Dogs revised PC requirements call for 6GB of RAM

Tuesday, 8th October 2013 01:52 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Ubisoft has released a new set of minimum requirements for the PC version of Watch Dogs, but has revised its ambitions upwards from last week’s inaccurate list.

Here are the new specs, as per Uplay:

    Minimum requirements:

  • Supported OS: Windows Vista SP2 64bit, Windows 7 SP1 64bit, Windows 8 64bit
  • Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz
  • RAM: 6 GB
  • Video Card: 1024 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0
  • Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card
  • This product supports 64-bit operating systems ONLY.
    Recommended requirements:

  • Processor: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
  • RAM: 8 GB
  • Video Card: 2048 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 or higher
  • Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card
    Supported video cards at time of release:

  • nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series
  • AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series
  • Intel Iris Pro HD 5200.

Watch Dogs is due on PC, PlayStation 3, PS4, Wii U, Xbox 360 and Xbox One in November.

Thanks, Ausgamers.



  1. pcbros

    I wonder how well it would perform on a GTX 660.

    #1 1 year ago
  2. Antinoitikos

    Granted I would hope a gaming rig has at least 8 GB RAM, but it does seem as though Ubisoft slapped gamers in the face with a trout telling them to keep up.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. xXNapsterManXx

    Well I don’t think my PC will survive the next generation consoles, Seems it will become outdated a lot faster now devs have new hardware to work with.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. Keivz

    I fear for PC gaming in the next gen. Many a rig will be left behind very rapidly in the coming months, which means fewer sales for console ports and the like. I don’t see a lot of people who have been playing on low/medium on their laptop integrated graphics cards for several years making a leap. No one can predict the future… I’ll be doing a wait and see until I’m struck with enough must have games to make a decision.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. pcbros

    The console market is asking gamers to pay $400-$500 to upgrade their hardware for the next-generation. Why shouldn’t PC gamers do the same?

    You can get a lot for $400-$500…

    $110 – AMD FX-6300
    $80 – 8GB DDR3 1600
    $80 – MSI 970A-G46 AM3+ AMD 970
    $160 – XFX Radeon HD 7870GHz 2GB 256-bit GDDR5
    Total: $440

    Or… we could wait and see what Steam Machines go for. I’m sure Valve can get better pricing than us.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. DSB

    @5 I doubt that Valve will be able to get much better prices than anybody else. They’re not likely to match businesses like IBuyPower in volume, let alone Lenovo or HP.

    What they could do is sell at a loss. That would be pretty damn interesting. All those other businesses make a living off the hardware profits, Valve makes a decent living on software.

    It’s a pipedream right now, it wouldn’t be great business, but it would be a pretty nice treat for people looking to get into PC gaming, and Valve is pretty much the only other company aside from maybe EA (unlikely) or (much less likely) Amazon, that could do it.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. pcbros

    @6 – They will definitely beat any price I can get as a consumer.

    Don’t forget what they announced…

    “We are working with multiple partners to bring a variety of Steam gaming machines to market during 2014… Beginning in 2014, there will be multiple SteamOS machines to choose from, made by different manufacturers.” (Link)

    IBuyPower, Toshiba, Lenovo, HP, Alienware, Dell and others could easily be manufacturing these.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. DSB

    @7 What makes you think that, though? Hardware doesn’t suddenly become cheaper for being in a Steam Machine, and the only thing that brings the wholesale price down is bulk. Nvidia and Intel aren’t gonna give Valve a discount for being popular.

    The competition is already pretty fierce, so I think a value manufacturer like IBuyPower is shaving their margins as is. They’re not making Dell or Alienware money on every rig sold, that’s for sure.

    The only way Valve can bring down the price of the box as I see it is if they take the hit to their own bottom line.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. pcbros

    @8 – You said, “They’re not likely to match businesses like IBuyPower in volume, let alone Lenovo or HP.”

    My point is that they don’t have to match them if they are using them.

    Also, I’m not saying they will be cheaper than consoles. Just that they will be cheaper than what a consumer would build buying parts off a site like

    “The competition is already pretty fierce, so I think a value manufacturer like IBuyPower is shaving their margins as is.”

    But without the need for a Windows license, using SteamOS will increase that profit margin, even if by a little.

    #9 1 year ago
  10. DSB

    @9 I was responding to you saying that Valve could get a better price on the hardware. I don’t see how.

    And right now you still do need a Windows license, or an existing rig with a Windows license, if you’re just going for a small streaming machine. SteamOS won’t play most of your games without one.

    I don’t see how it would be cheaper. Newegg can be a little expensive, but if you source the parts yourself, the only way Valve are gonna beat that price is if they sell at a loss.

    HP, Lenovo etc. are more expensive than sourcing the parts because they need to make a profit on the sale of the hardware, so the same has to go for Valve in the same situation. Unless they sell at a loss.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. pcbros

    @10 – I see what you are saying now. But they must have a deal going on. Those multiple partnerships have to translate into something.

    Buy sourcing parts, are you refering to wholesale or shopping at sites like eBay?

    #11 1 year ago
  12. DSB

    @11 Just retail. I’ve never tried sourcing a rig in the US, I just bought an assembled one when I was over there, but in the old world it’s pretty much always cheaper to source and assemble it yourself.

    I don’t know if it’s different over there. We have all kinds of tax nuttiness :P

    #12 1 year ago
  13. Jerykk

    @4 I’m pretty sure people playing on their laptops comprise the minority of PC gamers when it comes to games like this. I mean, really, if you’re content with playing games that look and run like ass, why not just buy a console?

    Honestly, these specs aren’t even that demanding. In this day and age, anyone with a gaming rig should already have 8+ gigs of RAM, especially considering how cheap it’s been over the past few years. I picked up 16 gigs of quality DDR3 for under $100.

    Also, it’s important to keep in mind that these “requirements” are not absolute. The game will still run if you have less than 6 gigs of memory. It will probably run fine even if you only have 4 (the absolute minimum any gaming rig should have).

    #13 1 year ago
  14. livewired500

    This is good to see. Though I’m guessing my 32GB of RAM is still overkill.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. lubu

    it’s the same as the leaked specs but art director of the game said it’s going to be lower but it’s not

    #15 1 year ago
  16. Llewelyn_MT

    It boggles my mind why this game has higher recommended specs than even Battlefield 4. It’s still much much more powerful than the next generation. Xbox One has 5 GB usable memory while they recommend a total of 10 GB for the PC. That’s strange.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. ddtd

    Games on consoles can be highly optimized because they’re building for a specific setup. Can’t do that with PCs because the devs have to build the game to run on systems that can be made up from a variety of parts from different manufacturers.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. Llewelyn_MT

    @17: Games on consoles that are not even released yet can be highly optimized, while on the PC, that is out for years cannot? Need I remind you this game was made when the system specification of the next generation wasn’t even released? Don’t tell me DirectX creates that much overhead… Ubisoft is just plain lazy.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. Calin Banc


    They could have higher quality assets compared to the console versions. Also, it doesn’t mean that the game ALONE will need 6GB of RAM, only that your system will need 6 GB in order to run properly with other programs in the background.

    What’s all the concern really? We wanted next-gen games since Crysis and now when we do get them, we back out?

    #19 1 year ago
  20. Keivz

    I see most laptop/lower end desktop gamers as gamers on a budget. Their PC’s provide them an all in one solution–a gaming platform and PC (with all its extra functions) so they often don’t have a console. But if they want to keep playing said games in the upcoming gen, they may very well go and “just buy a console” if the minimum PC requirements continue to be so steep. That could spell trouble as they compromise >50% of PC gamers according to the Steam survey’s. Heck, even I was on a 32 bit OS with 4GB of RAM and a dual core processor until earlier this year and doing just fine (thanks to the length of the last console cycle). Of course, they could always upgrade too, and I’m hoping that they do.

    Also, what constitutes a “minimum requirement” varies from developer to developer. I’ve heard at least one say that it’s what it takes to get to the start screen! I wish there were a standard like absolute minimum (start the game), acceptable (medium/720p/30fps), recommended (very high/1080p/60fps), and ultra (max settings/60-120 fps/4K).

    #20 1 year ago
  21. Llewelyn_MT

    @19: If Windows uses more than 1 GB RAM on its own you just need to uninstall the crapware. Windows 7 never needs more than that. Running Battlefield 3 on huge map with 64 players or PlanetSide 2 never uses more than 4 GB RAM total.

    @20: I hope you’re right with your understanding of these numbers. This game must be horribly optimised if it needs more RAM then the consoles have to even start.

    The only positive thing is the lack of 32-bit version. It needs to die as far as gaming is concerned.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. Calin Banc


    RAM is also used to store data when the vRAM is full. Also, 64bit addressing needs more RAM than 32bit for the same thing.

    They could think at a quite few reasons why 6GB is the minimum, we can only wait and see. The good part – RAM is cheap.

    If we still remain in the past, the games will never move forward.

    #22 1 year ago
  23. Llewelyn_MT

    @22: I run a Windows 7 HP, 64-bit version so I still don’t see a game use twice the amount of RAM than Battlefield 3 though.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. Pitts

    I planned on upgrading for Witcher 3 anyway so big whoop.

    Besides, upgrading is freaking exciting!

    #24 1 year ago
  25. Calin Banc

    It’s not about one app, it’s about the system in total. BF 3 goes over 4GB and has some really bad textures at times.

    #25 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.