007 First Light gets PC specifications released and that's a lot of RAM needed

Maybe they’re trying to push people toward GeForce Now 🙄

At this point that kind of requirements are in a very poor taste.

So you're saying I can run it on my Steam Deck?

I, for one, thank the Devs for eliminating a game from the to-buy list. I think I'll limit myself to 'steamdeck compatible' titles (or equivalent) going forward as I am not confident I could replace that super-computer level of hardware if the PC dies and not break the bank. I can play Witcher 3, BG 3, New Vegas, etc ... Should last me a while.
Thanks Liam, spot on reporting.

Quoting: wytrabbitSo you're saying I can run it on my Steam Deck?

🤔🤣

The Pitchford strategy - just buy a RTX 6090 Ti bro or you're not a gamer.

These are about as confusing as buying Hitman if you inspect a bit closer.

Min. VRAM = 8GB. Makes sense in 2026. Recommended nVidia card: GTX 1660. Which is a 6GB card.

Recommended VRAM: 12GB. 1080p aside... sure, let's roll with it. Recommended nVidia card: 3060Ti. Which is an 8GB card.

Maybe it's about the features, maybe they tried to account for the bandwidth, maybe they rounded up, who knows. GTX 1660 does not make sense to me as an example even then, though.

If they're as specific as this they should've gone further, because right now I have no idea what runs the game and how. IOI might have benchmarked 3060 vs 3060Ti, but few consumers have the luxury, so it'd be helpful to have a comment on the VRAM situation there given that's the example they went with (I realise it's probably driven by the Steam survey. It's still not helpful to me).

Requirements for 1440 / 4k: Cray Supercomputer? Easily accessible I'm sure right.

Yeahyeah, it also says you need Microsoft Windows to play this; nobody needs Microsoft Windows to play games anymore in 2026. 😆

GoldenEye for N64 run like crap, but it was a revolutionary game on a limited platform. What this game have of so special to need so much RAM?

I will not be surprised if the answer is DRM related.

Last edited by M@GOid on 7 Jan 2026 at 3:14 pm UTC

To be fair, 32GB RAM have been sort of standard for gaming PCs for a while now. Also, these decisions were very likely made before the RAM prices went out of control, which started only a few months ago.

What I don't get is the 12GB VRAM. Even in the 50xx series, NVidia stubbornly refuses to put more than 8GB in most GPUs, so what's the target audience here?

Quoting: KimyrielleTo be fair, 32GB RAM have been sort of standard for gaming PCs for a while now. Also, these decisions were very likely made before the RAM prices went out of control, which started only a few months ago.

What I don't get is the 12GB VRAM. Even in the 50xx series, NVidia stubbornly refuses to put more than 8GB in most GPUs, so what's the target audience here?

GPU chop shop customers?

https://www.techpowerup.com/340880/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-gets-a-48-gb-mod-and-step-by-step-tutorial

They may have hoped for that 50xx refresh that ended up getting postponed for at least a year.

They may have hoped for that 50xx refresh that ended up getting postponed for at least a year.

Well, typically you don't design games for hardware that's not even out yet. You go for stuff that has been out for 3-4 years, so there is an installed basis. Even IF the upgraded 50XX GPUs become a thing (there are rumors that they might get canceled), the game will likely launch before any of these has reached a customer.

Quoting: KimyrielleTo be fair, 32GB RAM have been sort of standard for gaming PCs for a while now. Also, these decisions were very likely made before the RAM prices went out of control, which started only a few months ago.

Not as long as you might think, and you don't design games for the top-end. You go by averages. Part of the point of PC gaming is having settings to bring things down to more acceptable levels is it not? Going by the Steam survey, over 50% have 16GB or less RAM. It's absolutely mad to make 1080p at 60FPS need a minimum of 32GB lol, locking away over half your potential sales for what people expect from a game.

Quoting: Liam Daweou go by averages. [...] Going by the Steam survey, over 50% have 16GB or less RAM.

Well, if 50% have 32GB, that's pretty much your median user. I fully agree (and said so above) that it's silly to design for hardware without an installed basis, but the 32GB RAM I'd give a pass, personally. In the end you don't design games around the slowest PC out there either, and people shouldn't reasonably expect to be able to run the newest visual wonders on a 10 year old potato.

12GB VRAM is still way out there, when only a handful of GPU models have more than 8. In the end, your point still stands. It's pretty ridiculous.

I remember seeing similar reactions towards Indiana Jones and the Great Circle before that released, and once it actually released it turned out to be better optimized than people first expected. It scaled quite well towards modest hardware and still looked quite good even on lower settings. IOI's recent Hitman games were also running quite well in my opinion so I won't judge this one solely on these requirements, rather I will wait and see.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

They may have hoped for that 50xx refresh that ended up getting postponed for at least a year.

Well, typically you don't design games for hardware that's not even out yet. You go for stuff that has been out for 3-4 years, so there is an installed basis. Even IF the upgraded 50XX GPUs become a thing (there are rumors that they might get canceled), the game will likely launch before any of these has reached a customer.

You'd think that... When was the last time you tried cranking up a game to max settings? A 5080, arguably the top consumer card right now, straight up crashes if you try that at 1440p in Indiana Jones, a game from 2024, one released prior to the paper release of this generation of GPUs. And that's after a year of patching and some optimisation. Not enough VRAM. 007 was supposed to release roughly at a point where nVidia typically released (or would've been close to releasing) their refreshes. 12GB VRAM for 1080p60 sends a clear message here, from my point of view.

I mean, just a peek at raster performance a notch above 1080p (a reminder that nVidia was advertising Turing GPUs as 8k-capable) tells you where the current ceiling is, and it's not at 16GB VRAM where the top consumer cards card are, which is also well past what's reasonable to spend on graphics.

007 will function on 8GB, I don't doubt that, but if you need a current xx90 GPU to play a current game possibly on max settings that game isn't designed with current-gen hardware in mind on the high-end. What used to be GPUs intended basically for professionals is now needed for silly games to not even run that well at resolutions that match the current TV standards?

Basically, looking at those requirements I don't see how IOI wasn't counting on the industry to finally move on from 8GB to 12GB, and consequently from 16GB to whatever nVidia would deem us consumer peasants worthy of...

Quoting: KimyrielleTo be fair, 32GB RAM have been sort of standard for gaming PCs for a while now.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

no 55,69% of the market have less than 32GB of RAM.

One possibility regarding RAM is just that outside of the oddball 24GB configuration 32GB is simply the next stop. So, if a game realistically utilises 18ish at the ultra-high end of... 1080p60 (or 360p240, if you're feeling like braving those high frame rates) you slap 32GB on the requirements and you're done with it, no biggie. RAM is cheap, after all.

Quoting: suchOne possibility regarding RAM is just that outside of the oddball 24GB configuration 32GB is simply the next stop. So, if a game realistically utilises 18ish at the ultra-high end of... 1080p60 (or 360p240, if you're feeling like braving those high frame rates) you slap 32GB on the requirements and you're done with it, no biggie. RAM is cheap, after all.

Ram was cheap.

you have a point, but there is also another thing to consider.

you can have 24GB of ram by having 16+8 or 8+8+8...

it makes a difference!
in theory 3 channels of 8GB is faster than 8+16GB but i think there is a trade off for having everything you want to access in the same chip vs spliting it into multiple chips, so im not sure if 3 channels is always better

Last edited by elmapul on 7 Jan 2026 at 9:33 pm UTC