@Reuwsaat:I'm looking at www.systemrequirementslab.com and it shows 1GB (Windows XP), (2GB pre Windows Vista) under the recommended section for Devil May Cry 4. The RAM recommendations would likely be higher if there was a Windows 7 recommendation because the Windows 7 OS simply uses more RAM while running anything. Devil May Cry 4 was recommended for different Operating Systems (Windows XP / Vista) than FF9 and Tomb Raider, and that would explain the lower RAM requirement.

As before, I'm suggesting that the minimum and recommended RAM for Final Fantasy 9 has more to do with the OS it will run on - not that the game itself will use all of that RAM. Take a look again directly at the Tomb Raider 2013 minimum requirements: 1 GB (Win XP), 2 GB (Win Vista/7). That's twice as much RAM for the same game just because it's running on a newer version of Windows. Starting to see the pattern?

What you're saying about the recommended GPU's not running DirectX11 doesn't give me any implication that the minimum and recommended GPU's are "bloated" specs. How would running 2 instances of the game have anything to do with the GPU's compatibility with DirectX11? You lost me there. My suggestion had more to do with it being easier for the programmers to account for newer hardware and API's when it comes to GPU's. It would likely be extra work to support older GPU's regardless.

You might already know this, but video takes up a lot of hard drive space - exponentially more space than in game cut scenes. Let's just suppose the FF9 video takes up 4-5 times as much space as the FF8 video (the games are 20 GB versus 4 GB.) Does that sound reasonable given that it's now fit to widescreen, higher resolution, and likely uncompressed? It would make sense to me after spending a few semesters studying media design, and experimenting on my own with the file size of video under different quality, aspect ratio, and compression rates.

Edit: btw API stands for Application Program Interface for any non-programmers reading this. It's basically a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications.

@Dark_Mits: A lot of Steam games ask for my birthday that should have no age restriction... I find it pretty strange. Perhaps they'd be better off offering some sort of adult / parent filter for those whose kids use their account. I shouldn't have to keep entering my birthday when I'm the only one who uses my account.

@Reuwsaat: It's going to be easier and much more efficient for the programmers to code the game to modern standards which includes using the latest DirectX and Operating System. It wouldn't be a great use of developer resources to program it for a PC that was used 10-15 years ago that's now essentially obsolete. Having it run on Windows 7 or later means it's going to need more RAM than a game would have back in 2000, (and I don't know enough about DirectX 11 to suggest if it eats up more resources as well, but this would likely mean it wouldn't be compatible with outdated graphics cards.)

As for the 20GB of storage, that doesn't surprise me after seeing the new quality of the video.

Well said, @dannyodwyer

@Alurit: As I mentioned earlier, if I have any trouble running VR games smoothly with the Rift, it just means that I'll upgrade my GPU earlier than I hoped. I think Oculus is being pretty cautious by announcing only recommended specs (meaning if you meet those specs, the launch games will run as intended at 90 fps and that's all I'm expecting at launch.)

In other words I'm basing my expectations off of the official announcement from Oculus, rather than forum speculation about my PC's ability to run games at 4k and 45 fps. Either way, I'm going to upgrade my GPU within a year or two from now, and that will be enough to keep up with more demanding VR games as they are released. The longer I wait, the more bang for the buck I'll likely get when I do buy a new GPU :)

btw: Unfortunately, Gamespots comment system doesn't take you directly to a response if it's not on the first page. We're currently on page 6 to save you some time if you want to respond.

@saturatedbutter: Lol, yeah looking at this it seems that recommended and minimum are one in the same.

@saturatedbutter: My current GPU currently runs any game I've wanted to play at 60 fps and I play on an HDTV that's capped at 60 fps and 1080P. Games like the Witcher 3 required me to use High instead of Ultra on a few settings (to keep 60 fps), so spending $600 on a better GPU to get a barely noticeable improvement in detail at the same frame rate doesn't currently sound worth it to me. $600 for a more immersive VR gaming experience however, is going to be a big difference.

I'll invest in the better GPU when it will give me more of a difference in quality, and I'll save money by waiting.

Edit: I suppose another reason is that I'd also have to invest in a more expensive monitor to see a big difference from a better GPU (such as one capable of 1440P and a higher refresh rate.)

@saturatedbutter: I've got a 970 (with a 4790k processor) and pre-ordered the Rift. Since they're calling the 970 the "recommended" rather than "minimum" GPU, I feel pretty confident that I'll be able to run at least the 1st gen VR games just fine (at 90+ fps).

Eventually, the 1st thing I plan to upgrade on my rig is the GPU anyways. Worst case, I'd end up upgrading the GPU earlier if it can't handle VR games, but I think that would be very unlikely for this 1st generation of VR.

I was hoping it would be $500 at the most, but I pre-ordered it anyways. If I change my mind I can easily cancel, plus I'll be 2 months into my new career by the time it ships and easily afford it.

A friend of mine has spent over a year with the latest Oculus Dev Kit and says great things about it. I talked to him a bit before deciding whether to pre-order, and it sounds like a premium service I'm willing to pay for.

It sounds like the developers put some thought into Cindy and her nice pair of traits.