Sooner or later more than 3GB minimum RAM will become normal also for better optimised big 64bit-only games that aren't constrained by the limits of 32bit versions. But well optimised games will have more reasonable minimum requirements for CPU and GPU. Cheap RAM and vast address space mean that some space optimisations are things of the past, at least in those case in which using more RAM can increase performances, like, for example, keeping in RAM, once they have been loaded for the first time, as many parts of the game's world as possible, or using RAM for loop unrolling. This doesn't mean that sloppy memory management suddenly becomes acceptable, that's always bad.

LOL don't imagine anything.  There are already benchmarks that confirm a 3GB 780 Ti had massive stuttering problems with Ultra, although they said a 760 could somewhat handle high.

LOL, if they really did it, it could become the first hacking tool for 8th gen consoles!   

This will be a growing trend I think with PC games, with both XB1 and PS4 having 8GB of memory (roughly 6GB accessible), it makes sense that PC ports will start requiring similar spec's. PC games stagnated last gen because of developers targeting consoles first, why wouldn't the same happen this gen?

The other thing is that if Ubi sets the min requirements too low, they get flooded with complaints saying that the PC version is a stuttering mess, setting them high should avoid that. Of course if it turns out to be a stuttering mess despite the high requirements, then Ubi should rightly be grilled for it.

Well I never trust system requirements. An example of a recent game in which the system requirements meant nothing was The Evil Within. The minimum requirements were a quad core I believe and I just built a PC with a dual core Pentium K overclocked to 4.5 ghz and while I am sure my Cpu bottlenecks my R9 280x I still max the game at 1080p 30fps (at least.)

The RAM/VRAM requirements are pretty reasonable actually. It's the rest of the specs that are super high.

Sony and Microsoft payed Ubisoft to make a shitty PC version so people buys console version. You know that anonymous message from an Ubisoft developer who assures MS & Sony also payed them to cap games at 30fps maybe this is part of it.

Ps4 and Xbox One ar so weak that now PC version is gonna pay that with stupid requirements in many games so people doesn't notice how big the difference is.

But this is ridiculous if true.

Ubisoft has a long history of releasing their games a couple of months later on PC than on console, and while that made PC gamers angry now it is what you could call "usual business". No one (well, just a few) would complain about it because the games runned "just fine".

But in this case, they are releasing the game alongside the console versions (YAY for PC gamers!) and that it showing that Ubisoft needs those extra 2 months to make a reasonable port instead of the mess that Unity seems to be.

To sum it up, there's no need for anyone to pay Ubisoft to mess things up, they are more than capable of doing it by themselves alone.

This is why console gaming is superior to pc gaming, OPTIMIZATION

so the game will run only in 4k or wtf?