Halo Infinite's Latest PC Patch Shifts Minimum GPU Spec Requirements, Below 4 GB of VRAM Insufficient

[T0@st]

The latest patch for Halo Infinite has introduced an undesired side effect for a select portion of its PC platform playerbase. Changes to minimum system specification requirements were not clarified by 343 Industries in their patch notes, but it appears that the game now refuses to launch for owners of older GPU hardware. A limit of 4 GB of VRAM has been listed as the bare minimum since Halo Infinite's launch in late 2021, with the AMD Radeon RX 570 and Nvidia GTX GeForce 1050 Ti cards representing the entry level GPU tier, basic versions of both were fitted with 4 GB of VRAM as standard.

Apparently users running the GTX 1060 3 GB model were able to launch and play the game just fine prior to the latest patch, due to it being more powerful than the entry level cards, but now it seems that the advertised hard VRAM limit has finally gone into full effect. The weaker RX 570 and GTX 1050 Ti cards are still capable of running Halo Infinite after the introduction of season 3 content, but a technically superior piece of hardware cannot, which is unfortunate for owners of the GTX 1060 3 GB model who want to play Halo Infinite in its current state.



343 Industries is yet to respond to these VRAM limitation findings, but those affected are remaining hopeful that the developers are working on a fix. The system requirements for Halo Infinite have not shifted much between 2021 and 2022 on the Steam product page. The Microsoft Store listing has not be updated to reflect the latest VRAM limitation introduced in the Season 3: Echoes Within update. Ray tracing is a notable addition to the latest version of Halo Infinite, since it has been long promised graphical feature - 343 Industries did announce an ongoing collaboration with AMD on ray tracing acceleration implementations in late 2021.



Those affected by the 4 GB VRAM limit will likely have to move on and upgrade to a more modern graphics card, and the timing is not too bad due to the GPU market stabilizing - with improved availability and slightly more sensible pricing in effect. Intel's Arc series has even injected some much needed extra competition into the sector, despite a rocky launch last year. There are some deals to be had out there, due to aggressive price cuts and transitioning to newer GPU architectures.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[adilazimdegilx]

I dont know why they 'force' this on players. They could have just threw a warning window similar to that error window and let them choose to continue to try to play it if they want. If it crashes, it crashes. They already warned them and it's stated in the minimum requirements. I could understand if this was about system memory. But vram usage can be countered with simply lowering the resolution. Or by using any upscaling method (third party ones can be used if it's not in the game already). I'm pretty sure 1060 3GB would run the game just fine with correct settings. Maybe they underestimate how far people would go just to get it playable on low end systems (1060 isnt even low end tho). There in the world, there is a guy playing Halo Infinite at 480P and still enjoying it big time. And they just ruined it for him. For literally no reason at all...

 

[Nuke Dukem]

"We want to guarantee a flawless experience for our fans, so those of you with hardware we deem inferior can f@©|< right off. Thank you."

How lovely...

 

[ZoneDymo]

"We want to guarantee a flawless experience for our fans, so those of you with hardware we deem inferior can f@©|< right off. Thank you."

How lovely...

just stop buying Nvidia teehee.

(just a joke people, calm down)

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

just stop buying Nvidia teehee.

(just a joke people, calm down)

Says a lot about them that you have to beg for calm

(Just a joke people, calm down)

 

[Gmr_Chick]

entry level RX 1050 Ti

Hiccup I found.

Also, I don't play Halo, but I am one of those filthy peasants who games on an old GPU, a 1660 Super to be exact. While I would like to get something a bit newer (6650XT) the card does pretty much everything I want it to and is great for 1080p. The point I'm trying to make is, people on "older" hardware shouldn't be denied in playing a game they enjoy, that's worked just fine before a stupid gatekeeping patch, simply because their hardware isn't X or Y once said patch drops. That's a guaranteed way to piss off MANY people.

I mean, think about it: You pay $X for a game, play it for a while on your 1060 3GB card and it chugs along just fine... But then comes to this new "patch" that basically renders your lowly 1060 3GB unable to play the same game you've been playing just fine for X amount of time....?

That's just a shitbag tactic right there.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

I mean, think about it: You pay $X for a game, play it for a while on your 1060 3GB card and it chugs along just fine... But then comes to this new "patch" that basically renders your lowly 1060 3GB unable to play the same game you've been playing just fine for X amount of time....?

I mean, it would only make sense to further patch the launcher to offer you a full refund if their glorious patch rendered the game unplayable for you, essentially robbing you of what you paid for it. Amirite?

 

[T0@st]

Hiccup I found.

Cheers for the spot - now fixed.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I mean, it would only make sense to further patch the launcher to offer you a full refund if their glorious patch rendered the game unplayable for you, essentially robbing you of what you paid for it. Amirite?

I'm sure their response (and the response on most other sites so far) will be " well it says 4GB minimum, you were playing on unsupported hardware, sorry about your luck".

Which is total BS anyway, a 10603GB runs this game WAY better then the "official" minimum GPU, the 1050ti, or the rx 570. Lets not forget mobile GPUs, the 970m or 1060m.

But het, we got bolted on ray tracing that literally does not shop up in their official comparison images. So yay?

 

[Dr. Dro]

The catch is, almost no current-generation game behaves well on 4 GB VRAM either. The RTX 3050 mobile often requires lower settings than it can handle and/or DLSS to run newer games stutter free.

Honestly, i said it once and will say it again... gaming PCs targeting AAA games in 2023 should have both 32 GB RAM and at the very minimum a 6 GB GPU (GTX 1660 series). GaaS (Games as a Service) titles, due to piling spaghetti code and/or increasing amount of assets or graphical overhauls, should always more or less be accounted for as a current-year AAA, unless they are known for being exceptionally optimized.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

I'm sure their response (and the response on most other sites so far) will be " well it says 4GB minimum, you were playing on unsupported hardware, sorry about your luck".

I expect nothing less than the standard corporatese gibberish. Heck, it's probably buried somewhere in the terms of service that they have the right to do that. Won't make it any more acceptable in my book.

The catch is, almost no current-generation game behaves well on 4 GB VRAM either. The RTX 3050 mobile often requires lower settings than it can handle and/or DLSS to run newer games stutter free.

The player should be able to launch and play the game on any technically compatible hardware. If the hardware is slower than what's listed in the minimum requirements, but still technically compatible (think instruction sets, APIs, OS and driver etc.) then inform the user that the experience would be suboptimal, but let him have the freedom to choose what to do. Don't make this choice for him.

Now, if a patch does something huge like upgrading a major API version (thus rendering older hardware technically incompatible) that's a different thing. But what we have here is a clearly artificial limitation. There is a giant difference.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I expect nothing less than the standard corporatese gibberish. Heck, it's probably buried somewhere in the terms of service that they have the right to do that. Won't make it any more acceptable in my book.

The player should be able to launch and play the game on any technically compatible hardware. If the hardware is slower than what's listed in the minimum requirements, but still technically compatible (think instruction sets, APIs, OS and driver etc.) then inform the user that the experience would be suboptimal, but let him have the freedom to choose what to do. Don't make this choice for him.

Now, if a patch does something huge like upgrading a major API version (thus rendering older hardware technically incompatible) that's a different thing. But what we have here is a clearly artificial limitation. There is a giant difference.

Yes, agreed that launching shouldn't be blocked, but my point was that we're in a season of rising system requirements and people should get used to things like this (higher requirements, not a deliberate block)

 

[Nuke Dukem]

Yes, agreed that launching shouldn't be blocked, but my point was that we're in a season of rising system requirements and people should get used to things like this (higher requirements, not a deliberate block)

Alright, gotcha. I agree, as long as any patch that ups the hardware requirement introduces meaningful visual or functional upgrades and ideally the options to set them on/off.