taken from Thread :- I can't read Japanese... (WARNING, UO:KR SPOILER) found in UO.UHall


UO:KR English info

Yay! Good! My computer is almost 5 years old now I think...so this is very good!

Kylana

If I were to write the definition of an "average" gamer, I would make the clear assumption that his/her computer is NEWER than 3 years old. Most gamers play "modern" games - ones that are released with "modern" system requirements. UO's system specs are often far from what modern software releases expect (even NON-games), and UO:KR's requirements are still well below modern software requirements (not to mention, modern game requirements).

For example - the recommended specs for World of Warcraft are 1.5 GHz and 1 GB of RAM (more than UO:KR). The new Sims game (which you would think would be less intensive than UO) - 1.3 GHz and 256MB of RAM (so, similar to UO). The new Vanguard game - 2.4 GHz and 512MB RAM, plus *20* GB of hard drive space. Quake 4 - 2 GHz and 512MB RAM. Rainbow Six:Vegas - 1.5 GHz and 512MB RAM. The flight simulator my brother just bought - its specs aren't listed on GameStop but I know that his 2 GHz system was too slow to run it, and he had to upgrade his computer.

The new version of Windows that comes out to consumers in a few days (Vista) - to use its new graphical interface, Microsoft recommends 1 GHz processor with 1 GB or RAM. I've been running Vista Business edition for about 6 weeks now on a 3.5 GHz processor with 1GB and RAM, and it was a bit laggy - had to upgrade to 2 GB of RAM, and I was fine doing that because my computer is over 2 years old and had never been upgraded. The new version of Photoshop coming this spring - 1.5 GHz and 512MB RAM.

I think EA has done a great job keeping the system specs reasonable for UO:KR - below most current and even some older games, in fact.

If someone who only plays UO considers him/herself an "average" gamer, I think we're behind the times a bit!! (I mean, come on - we've been playing with a 2D client for over 9 years now... we are a bit behind the curve when it comes to "average" gaming technology!)

The rule of thumb is that you should expect to put an average of $200/year into your computer to keep it upgraded and modern. Personally, I upgrade the motherboard, processor, and memory every 3rd year, add additional RAM about once a year, and get a new video card every 2 years. And that's just to stay within one year of what's "current." By this time next year, I'll likely have to replace my mainboard again, as 3.5GHz will be an outdated CPU. (This time next year, my system will be just over 3 years old).

The average useful lifecycle for a PC is 3 years (where you should expect to be able to still walk into a store and buy software off the shelf that will run fine on your PC). Computers aren't meant to be a one-time-only purchase. Technology changes rapidly! Granted, I work with technology as a career, so I'm likely more informed than the average PC user, but I just can't imagine being put out by UO:KR's system requirements. If your computer can't run UO:KR, what CAN it run????

It must be a miserable computing experience if your specs are that low!

Sorry Kit, some people just aren't as fortunate as you.

I would have to agree on that statment.

Dip - This isn't 1997. Computers cost less than iPods, for goodness sake. My cousin bought an HP 3 GHz laptop for $250 brand new from Office Depot this Christmas that more than doubles the specs required by UO:KR.

I'm no more "fortunate" than anybody else. Like I said, because I work in technology, my hardware needs are higher than most people's. My hardware needs are way higher than UO:KR's requirements.

But to claim that UO:KR's specs are too high? My point is that UO:KR's specs are very reasonable (if not LOW compared to today's average games and today's average software).

I'm sorry if you felt the need to take my post as some sort of personal dig against the "less fortunate," as it was not intended to be. My point has nothing to do with fortunes. It has to do with the common misconception that you should buy a computer once and then it will run fine forever and ever. Computers require maintenance. Computers require regular upgrades. The software industry pushes the hardware industry. Software applications have requirements, and computers require upgrades to keep up with those requirements.

It's not realistic or even fair to expect NEW software to have the same requirements as OLD software (particularly 9-year-old software). That is my point.

No, trust me Kit, I understand where you are coming from.

But I can also understand the "average gamer" who might bring up a conflict because the requirements may be high for them. I by no means am saying that newer software should be scaled down to the lowest requirements, but am saying that you being to upgrade your entire computer every 3 years by replacing parts annually IS fortunate and not everyone can do it.

Dip - But I wouldn't call that person who can't afford to keep their system current the average GAMER. I would probably refer to them as the average COMPUTER USER.

I guess I'm hung up in terminology - to me, a gamer likes to play all the current games, and all the current games require current computing technology.

The much more common computer user who surfs the web, plays a couple games, uses office applications, etc. doesn't need as much computing power and doesn't need to upgrade nearly as often - but that person to me isn't a "gamer." They're a user that happens to play some games.

Gamers to me are the people running the high end computers and buying all the new games that come out. Their primary usage of the computer is to play games.

So I guess my problem with the statement that UO:KR's requirements are too high for the average gamer is that the statement really SHOULD be - UO:KR's requirements are too high for the average computer user.

That latter statement could very well be true (considering the upgrade habits of the average computer user). I don't think it's true for the average GAMER.

Terminology, shmerminology :-p

So just because I dont upgrade my computer every year and run out to buy the new eye candy trend that everyone jumps on, im not a true gamer? Does it count that I play my psp in bed at night until I fall asleep, does that make me a real gamer???

heh

Hmm.. I got a good PC for sale if anyone is interested .... PM me for specs .

Maybe it should be computer gamer

If left to my own devices I would play FF on the PS or UO 247. Forget showering, food, air, light. All I need is my pajamas, a blanket, ice & diet coke.

I'm in the same boat as The Keeper.

I do not run out to buy all the new games and upgrade my computer every year, but if you call me a non-gamer, you'd be terribly wrong.

I guess it's just matter of opinion.

An average player is just that, someone that plays at times but does not invest tons of time (and resources) to playing, just average. Ones that play all the time, play all the new games, and use a good portion of their resources to playing games I would label as hard-core gamers.