343 Industries has revealed the minimum 1080p and 4K PC requirements for Halo: Reach. In addition, the team detailed the game’s cross-play support. According to the developers, Halo: Reach will only support cross-play between the Steam and the Windows Store versions at launch.
In other words, PC gamers will not be able to play with their Xbox One friends. However, 343 Industries plans to add cross-play support between these two platforms in the future via a post-launch patch.
Below you can find a detailed graph regarding the game’s cross-play and cross-progression support.
As said, 343 Industries has also revealed the game’s minimum PC requirements. PC gamers will at least need an AMD FX-4100 or an Intel i7-870 with 8GB of RAM and an AMD Radeon R7 360 or an NVIDIA GTX560Ti so they can run the game with 60fps on minimum settings at 1080p.
You can find below the fully detailed PC minimum requirements for Halo: Reach.
Stay tuned for more!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
4K on a 770, nice
yeah….but with very low graphics
game is from 2010.
With 2015 requeriments…
4k is 9x the pixel count of the original res…
Good work 343 and Splash Damage, that’s how PC requirements should look, with details not just bland info.
Except they omitted which OS is required…
Because they had already announced which ones were supported…? Win7/10
Why not put it again?
It says right there at the bottom that they have more detailed specs to come.
This one doesn’t need to be more detailed. OS requeriment is as basic as it gets.
You’re just looking for a reason to complain.
Better than shilling for micro$hit
Pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of shilling, it wont say “someone who points out when I’m wrong and looking for reasons to whine”
So microsoft omits an information that any other dev provides and i’m wrong for pointing it out? Ok shill…
ah cool
thanks
can i play with my win 98 master race?
Eh, games from that era still supported Win XP SP3, but nice try shill.
I had to use windows 10 just to use game pass. granted i didn’t pay for that overvalued spyware sh*t.
Slash Damage? The Quake Wars guys? Ooohh.. i didnt know they were around
8gb ram? wtf
Gold standard for PC porting from commenters in this section… Making a 2010 game need hardware from 2015 or so…
fake.
Shill.
Ye right? Even modern games dont need that much, and i have browsers open, plus Skype. I got 8 Gigs and i never still feel the need to upgrade. I will of course go to 16 gigs eventually.. but i’ve been using this 8 gig stick for like 10 years now. I got it around 2010.
So if a game from 2015 on the consoles needs 8, but i dont need 8 for even PC games in 2019.. then yea, wtf ;p
I fail to see what 2019 AAA releases you’re playing that only require 8GB unless they’re not graphically intensive or even complex games. Even games from 3-4 years ago could use up nearly 8GB of RAM so a system with only 8GB would have suffered massively, and some even have requirements for 16GB in the past 2 years. Especially if you’re playing at a resolution higher than 1080p. And all upcoming games on PC which are AAA reccomend 16GB RAM, too.
Sorry, but the 8GB train died about 5 years ago, you’re getting by barely, and you will continue do get by until you can’t, and that will happen very suddenly.
Pays to be prepared, dude. It’s why I got 16GB with my PC in 2014.
Anything really. CoDMW 2019, Battlefield V, some Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Borderlands 3,Assassins Creed Odyssey/Origins,Fallout 4,The Witcher 3, Metro Exodus and Rage 2 and Starcraft 2. All of those run with above 60 fps and none of them ever hit the 8 gigs. I’m on windows 10.
When people claim how games need 16, or even game companies and ask us to upgrade (aka crazy requirements) i never understood this. If you dont hit the 8 gig cap, your computer should run smooth and freeze free. Why bother to go above 8 then? My video editor doesn’t need more than 8 gigs either and i have made more than 500 videos for youtube with the same 8 gig ram stick that i got 10 years ago. I can literally play games and video edit with just 8 gigs (at the same time) I can link you many benchmarks that show good results. Gears 5 is my latest one that i just uploaded. Runs between 45-75 fps, average 60. Pretty great and smooth and i got one of those G sync monitors that make it even smoother, so i never notice dips to 50 fps. Anyways.. again why need 8 gigs of ram? For which game exactly? Is it a 4K thing? Is it a power user thing? People that want huge multi-tasking but also to play games at the same time?
I often have a browser open with more than 5 tabs. Second browser for Skype too. I have never filled the 8 gigs, but on a few occasions i did hit 8, and actually this is the first year in like 15 years that i have managed to hit the max ram. I had more than 70 tabs open in chrome, and around 55 for firefox. That maxed my ram big time and computer froze for 1-5 secs. I didn’t even know it will happen, it never happened to me so i learned a new thing = What happens when u max your ram usage. Again, if you dont go crazy on the browsers or do huge multi-tasking, 8 gigs is really all that most people need. Power users? I guess 8 wont cut it.
P.s. Why wouldn’t i upgrade if ram is dirt cheap, think about it. Its cuz i dont see the point really lol, at least not yet..
If you run games at 144FPS, or higher than 1080, you’re gonna need more than 8GB, basically. And yeah, for intense multi-tasking too.
I mean even basic programs take up a lot more than you notice, like Discord, which takes up about 150MB by itself at all times, whilst just running.
Do you use MSI afterburner 24/7 and show the performance levels so you know what resources are being taken by the game you’re playing? Because otherwise, you’re not gonna know if you hit the cap or not, really.
Yea, MSI, Discord, Skype, a few other apps and 8 gigs is still enough. Gaming at 1440p or 4K for some other games. Yea, not hitting 144 fps for most games past 2018 but thats normal for GTX 1080. Anyways, 8 Gigs is really fine with everything i listed. I have yet to notice freezing’s. It only happened 1 time because of overkill firefox tabs ;p
Just to edit, i got addicted to having Afterburner on all the time, plus the Nvidia recording tool, so both of those also eat abit of ram, and when you add Esset Nod (anti virus) and i even start to wonder how 8 gigs is enough, but somehow it is lol.
Recently i noticed my ram usage got around 7400, close to the 8 gigs. If i was on my laptop where the system reserves like 200. and my usage is 7400, it would have been very close to the max.
Strange. For me some games use over 11GB, like Just Cause 3.
I played JC 4 only, i got no idea for how 3 would run ony my system.
4 ran pretty well, i made a couple of bombastic videos and you can see they don’t really lag or freeze while recording and playing on 1440p.
It requires 8GB RAM….For the whole system.
It’s not going to use all 8GB of RAM for just the game…
Steam version, ok does it work on win7?
Was about to post this. So many details but they leave a fundamental aspect out of it: What OS is required? And since Micro$hit doesn’t like to support Win7…
Will the whole series be launched on PC? I really want to play them properly with a mouse.
Launching them in chronological order, next is CE remastered I believe. I still haven’t actually seen a release date for Reach tho.
Yep. The entire MCC is coming to PC.
reach, ce, 2, 3, odst and 4. No word on 5 yet. not that anyone cares about 5 but still.
My rtx 2080 is good for 8k then..
no
Guys, Halo Reach is not a very graphically impressive game and they did next to zero “remastering” for PC.
It ran well on the XBOX 360, so it’s easy to understand the ridiculously low requirements.
Like 8gb ram?
What’s wrong with that?
Game is from 2010, when Ram requeriments where in the 2gb range
Yes but in 2010 it was on XBOX 360 not PC. On PC the OS needs RAM too. On console everything is dedicated to the game.
The minimum requirements for Windows (7 & 10) is 2 GB RAM. Imagine sharing that with a videogame.
Besides, almost all PC’s have 8GB RAM nowadays, this is basically a non issue.
Still the requeriments are not “ridiculously low” as you claim. For example Mass Effect 2 recommended ram was in the 512 mb range (at least from the official system req), releasing a 2010 game with 2015-16 requeriments better have some heavy graphical enhancements for me to take the shilling seriously.
Mass Effect 2’s requirements was 512MB~256MB for VRAM, not RAM. Two completely different things.
Btw, RAM is really not that important when playing games.I was referring mainly to the GPU and CPU requirements being ridiculously low.
My mistake, the Ram is actually 1gb. My point still stands, either i can run the game with 2007-10 graphic cards or the requeriments are not “ridiculously low”
It’s really not that binary. The original game on console ran at a lower resolution and didn’t run at 60 fps.
If you can’t run this game on your PC at minimum specs, I doubt you’re gaming much anyway, since nearly all fps games released in the last decade would probably be hard for you to run.
The fact that a game runs at a higher resolution and double the framerate on hardware of the same year pretty much confirms that the requirements are very low.
I’m sure the requirements to run this game at 30fps are even lower.
Then they should state the requeriments to run at console peformance, which is not that hard to do. I remember games like Stalker had multiple rendering directx (8,9,10 and 11) so it could accomodate old hardware just fine, and we are talking about a directx 9 game originally.
Reach is part of the MCC. Presumably the excess RAM is a buffer for when all the games are in the collection so that moving between them is quick.
Sounds stupid tbh.
“It ran well on the XBOX 360”
On Xbox 360 the game,
– was capped at a lowly 30fps
– was sub-720p
– used double-buffered v-sync so the frame-rate sometimes dropped to 20fps
– suffered mild screen-tearing
– suffered blurring/ghosting issues due to the poor temporal AA
Source: Digital Foundry
Wow, didn’t know that. On my Xbox 360 slim I never had those issues.
Anyways, this just makes the PC requirements look even better.
You did have those issues on your Xbox 360 slim. It’s simply that you didn’t notice them at the time.
I’ve experienced a similar kind of thing with other old games whereby they seemed to run mostly well at the time on console hardware but, after having been ‘spoiled’ by the superior standards on PC in the intervening years, I now instantly notice the issues when returning to playing them nowadays.
Agreed! I don’t know why some people are criticising it when the game is going to be both looking and running much better than it ever did on the original console hardware. 4K/60fps on an i5 3450 and GTX 770 for a game of this type and origins is impressive.
You need to get your eyes checked if you did not notice anything on your 360 slim
That’s standard experience for console owners, still it doesn’t excuse having the need to own a 2015 rig or equivalent to play a 360 game.
That was a stellar experience for console gamers of the time because, according to Digital Foundry, its standards of visual fidelity were a major improvement over the previous Halo game on Xbox 360 and the hugely popular CoD 4 Modern Warfare was a mere 600p on consoles!
I suppose so, the problem with big budget games with big graphics on consoles of the time would always be 30 fps.
These issues existed on the XBOX One via backwards compatibility too. I gave up on Reach in the first mission because it just looked so horrible because of those issues.
LOL people surprised by the spec of a well optimized title from 2010. Of course it will run great! and the graphics hold up very nice too!
Can’t wait!
No, if anything this collection will show how middle of the road are this games por PC standards, Halo is a overrated series praised by console players because they don’t know any better.
This might be a new gold standard of how to do a proper PC version for other games to follow.
You mean the 45fov part or the weapon models being twice as large as they were on console filling up half the screen? Or is it the low refresh rates?
Wha? I have a few friends that got into the testing. There is unlimited frames supported and FoV slider will be added in by launch.
Like, waiting 10 years or so to do a port?
The shills are out in force downvoting comments critical of micro$hit it seems…
These normies only want to hear about 4k. Eventhough most of them sit behind 60hz screens with pcs only capable of running LoL. Statistics dont lie.
RX 480 on par with GTX 770.
Right, gold standard.
Also, 560 Ti min spec for a 1080p on a Last-Gen game? Lmao. A 560 Ti could (almost) max any any last-gen at 1080p60 easily.
You must be joking, those requirements for a decade old game? with not major enhancements on sight…
the weapons occupy half the screen the fov is horridly low. this is a shameless console conversion
Microsoft should release official xbox360 emulator,so some title doesnt need a remaster or something…
Gotta ask, do people here literally think when they say the RAM Requirement is 8GB, that the game is gonna take all of that 8GB?
Did everyone forget how game requirements work or are they trolling? I’m genuinely so confused by some of these comments….