Benchmarking a Video Game for Minimum & Recommended Specs on a Budget?

As a first-time developer (despite having dabbled in Unity for 4 years), I thought I should get some advice from some more seasoned/experienced developers on this matter.

That are the methods for benchmarking the minimum and recommended specs for game, short of buying 10 different towers at different spec and seeing how it runs?

Are there any programs out there that will help me simulate running specs or speeds to better understand how well my game will run on those specs?

This is something I am really stuck with, I have looked on and off the internet for a clear answer on this, and although I am nowhere near releasing, I feel it is something good to know for when I am ready so I can be prepared for this when I do come to need it. Additionally, I think it is good to know the technological limitations of each specification so I can see how far I can push them to get the most out of them graphically.

The easiest and most honest way is to make your minimum specs the same as your recommended specs.

1 Like

Is there any way inside of Unity (a script for example) to limit or set the CPU frequency/usage, RAM allowance, and video RAM usage for that application?

Maybe you can run the game in a virtual machine and therefore be able to pseudo emulate different computation abilities.

Just a tip for when you do end up setting them, people will always try and play your game with PCs below recommended specs, and some people will try and run it on their 10 year old laptops, and potentially complain when it doesn’t work as intended.
So, your best bet is to set your min specs higher than what you actually know them to be anyway, and I’ve found it’s also a good idea to put a notice like “Minimum spec assumes that the game is running at 720p/low settings” as well.

Not really, we had tech that was supposed to be able to do that type of stuff at big famous international bank so budget was huge and it doesn’t really work.

Minimum = Recommended and you’re done.

Or if you’re developing for the consoles you could take the same approach as Bethesda. They determined the PC hardware that would be equivalent to the PlayStation 4 and gave that as their specifications. At least that’s how it looks considering it’s way off from what you actually need.

Beta testers. They can find bugs while verifying that your game runs on their systems.

1 Like

Well I’m not a fan of ‘Minimum Specs’ because really you know that ain’t what they are testing and developing on don’t you? It’s like, really you’re saying to your poorer, potential customers, ‘ya, we’ll take your money too.’

Minimum specifications, at least for me, is what the game will run on with the lowest settings.

Personally I view it as ‘Yes, you bought a potato, whether because that’s the best you could afford or you are just clueless about computer hardware, but we made certain that as long as you meet these requirements you too can play our game’.

Both minimum and recommended hardware estimates are designed to assist your customer in making an informed decision when purchasing your game. Giving accurate answers is important as otherwise those estimates have no meaning.

Except they haven’t made sure that game will run on those minimum specs in most cases so you have a case of the irresponsible taking advantage of the irresponsible and blaming on the consumer rather than the manufacturer - 100% unacceptable.

Yet you’re advocating giving incorrect minimum specifications. How are you any different from those companies?

The only sure way you can know whether something will run on certain hardware is to test on it. Now, you don’t necessarily have you buy it - you can ask your friends to test it, get beta testers, etc.

1 Like

I don’t even know if I would put in minimum specs. You can pretty safely say how much ram you need, but otherwise just mention OpenGL/DirectX version or shader module, and maybe a dual or quad core. With crappy hardware, I wouldn’t be surprised that most bottlenecks aren’t even the CPU or GPU, but the motherboard and hard drive, and who ever mentions the specs for those.

@RockoDyne : I wonder if we’ll ever get to the point where a game requires a solid state drive. Considering HDDs have largely stagnated in speed but SSDs continue increasing it wouldn’t surprise me if games eventually started at least recommending them.

There has definitely been strong recommendations for SSDs. Arkham Knight definitely seemed to require one.

you can run the game in any 5.2+ version to simulate slow computer (i am not kidding) and then go back to 5.1

Minimum is what you personally have tested on. That becomes the recommended. If you have higher specs then those so much the better. How hard is that?

My minimum would be the hardware that can still play the game at low settings. My recommended would be the hardware necessary to achieve or come close to the results in the media used to promote the game while staying playable.

The entire purpose of minimum and recommended specifications is to allow the user to make a good purchasing decision.

1 Like

You could always throw some analytics in. Report on the hardware and software used by your users, as well as some performance critical factor (like frame rate) and crash reporting. Then launch the game with your development machine as recommended specs. A few months later do some data crunching on the stats you got from your users. Use that to provide a minimum spec.

Or you could just not bother figuring out a minimum spec. That works too.

For GPU testing, you can buy old used cards on ebay for cheap. Then just sell them again after testing and get your money back. For CPUs, you can try disabling cores or underclocking, though I’m not sure how reliable this would be. RAM is easy to just remove a stick or two and test.

1 Like