Deus Ex: Mankind Divided PC + DLC ( £21.84 with cdkeys 5% fbook like code ) - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
281

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided PC + DLC ( £21.84 with cdkeys 5% fbook like code ) £22.99

£22.99 @ CDKeys
Includes Covert Agent Packs: Intruder Pack Enforcer Pack Classic Pack Intruder Gear If you prefer to take the silent route, the Intruder gear provides you with custom skinned ver…
johnjohn44 Avatar
4m, 2w agoFound 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Includes Covert Agent Packs:

Intruder Pack
Enforcer Pack
Classic Pack

Intruder Gear
If you prefer to take the silent route, the Intruder gear provides you with custom skinned versions of Adam’s trench coat and Pistol from Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. Become a ghost in the wind, sneaking past any obstacle without so much as a glance in your direction.

Enforcer Gear
Just want to power your way through your opponents? The Enforcer gear contains custom skinned versions of Adam’s Combat Armor and Combat Rifle from Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. This pack will help to get you out of a tight spot, leaving only bullet holes in the wake of your onslaught.

Classic Gear
Go back to your roots with the Classic gear, granting you in-game access to Adam’s iconic Combat Armor, Trench Coat, and Revolver from Deus Ex: Human Revolution. No matter the path you choose, you’ll be sure to turn a few heads with your unparalleled style.

About the game:
The year is 2029, and mechanically augmented humans have now been deemed outcasts, living a life of complete and total segregation from the rest of society.

Now an experienced covert operative, Adam Jensen is forced to operate in a world that has grown to despise his kind. Armed with a new arsenal of state-of-the-art weapons and augmentations, he must choose the right approach, along with who to trust, in order to unravel a vast worldwide conspiracy.

Recommended Specifications:
OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K or AMD FX 8350 Wraith
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: AMD Radeon RX 480 - 1920 x 1080 or NVIDIA GTX 970 - 1920 x 1080
Storage: 55 GB available space
Additional Notes: 55GB HD space includes DLC
johnjohn44 Avatar
4m, 2w agoFound 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(24) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
It's going in the right direction...

Heated OP!
1 Like #2
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
#3
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
#4
The game looks pretty however its got a load of issues. The story is short and the world is tiny, 1 city which ends just as the story is getting started. They want to sell a bunch DLC chapter by chapter, which lasts about 4 hours. The biggest problem with this approach is our progress gets reset and it leaves us wondering why they didn't just add it to the main game.

The AI is really dumb too and needs updating. Also no mod support confirmed so the life span of the game is going to be a week at the most. The game isn't challenging enough either, only 1 boss battle at the end which is really easy.

I'm a huge fan of the series but I wouldn't recommend this one for the story/game play, it just has nice visuals.
1 Like #5
0BS1D1AN
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
63fps on a GTX 1080 at 1080p is just shocking. Why do some developers want PC players to all have to buy £2000 PCs to run their latest and greatest? After they realised the game hasn't been optimised at all they just make the minimum/recommended specs extremely high and tell everyone "you just don't have a powerful enough PC".
#6
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.

The DX11 client ran well on my I5 GTX970 ... the DX12 client was a dog

Given that there is no graphical improvement with DX12 it was fine to run in DX11 :)
#7
joe94
0BS1D1AN
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
63fps on a GTX 1080 at 1080p is just shocking. Why do some developers want PC players to all have to buy £2000 PCs to run their latest and greatest? After they realised the game hasn't been optimised at all they just make the minimum/recommended specs extremely high and tell everyone "you just don't have a powerful enough PC".
Wow, my results weren't that bad. I'm on a 7950 running at 2560x1440, most settings on about Medium or so and I got about 40 fps or so but with fluctuations.
The biggest thing that p****d me off was the random closing of the game, no warning or anything. Or the fact it would just freeze.
#8
0BS1D1AN
joe94
0BS1D1AN
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
63fps on a GTX 1080 at 1080p is just shocking. Why do some developers want PC players to all have to buy £2000 PCs to run their latest and greatest? After they realised the game hasn't been optimised at all they just make the minimum/recommended specs extremely high and tell everyone "you just don't have a powerful enough PC".
Wow, my results weren't that bad. I'm on a 7950 running at 2560x1440, most settings on about Medium or so and I got about 40 fps or so but with fluctuations.
The biggest thing that p****d me off was the random closing of the game, no warning or anything. Or the fact it would just freeze.
Maybe there is something funny with their higher settings, but still not a great game for those of us with a GTX 1060...
#9
joe94
0BS1D1AN
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
63fps on a GTX 1080 at 1080p is just shocking. Why do some developers want PC players to all have to buy £2000 PCs to run their latest and greatest? After they realised the game hasn't been optimised at all they just make the minimum/recommended specs extremely high and tell everyone "you just don't have a powerful enough PC".
Sure, other games will achieve higher framerates but how is 60+fps, 1080p on Ultra quality settings something to complain about? You don't need to be running this thing at something stupid like 200fps. What you have described is an absolutely ideal standard to play at.
#10
mrvengeance
joe94
0BS1D1AN
joe94
I'm sure it's a great game but from what I've seen on review websites/YouTube it runs like crap on both AMD and NVIDIA.
Last I played it, it was really bad, gave up playing it. But it has seen quite a few patches so I think they're definitely working on it. Haven't had the chance to give it another go yet though.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
63fps on a GTX 1080 at 1080p is just shocking. Why do some developers want PC players to all have to buy £2000 PCs to run their latest and greatest? After they realised the game hasn't been optimised at all they just make the minimum/recommended specs extremely high and tell everyone "you just don't have a powerful enough PC".
Sure, other games will achieve higher framerates but how is 60+fps, 1080p on Ultra quality settings something to complain about? You don't need to be running this thing at something stupid like 200fps. What you have described is an absolutely ideal standard to play at.
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
#11
Currently playing this on xbox, great game. Got this after giving up on "the division", this is miles better than that
#12
Cheers OP, good price
#13
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?

I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. PC gaming has always been a hugely expensive hobby if you want the absolute cutting edge. £2000+ machines are always the benchmark for the absolute top fidelity results in gaming.


Edited By: mrvengeance on Oct 09, 2016 22:02
#14
mrvengeance
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?
I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. That just sounds like your trying to justify your £600 purchase.
Where did they say they owned a GTX 1080?

Think they're saying that a game these days doesn't and shouldn't have a recommended pc spec that's in line with a £2000 machine.

I agree with them.
#15
Zeipher
mrvengeance
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?
I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. That just sounds like your trying to justify your £600 purchase.
Where did they say they owned a GTX 1080?
Think they're saying that a game these days doesn't and shouldn't have a recommended pc spec that's in line with a £2000 machine.
I agree with them.
Yeah my bad, I read that part wrong. Have updated my post.

The fact is the recommended specs of the game is not a £2000 machine. Nowhere near. To achieve absolute top results with this game is, however, and that's a big difference to "recommended". Look at any game's high/top specs requirements relative to when the game released and it will be no different, to single this game out just seems dumb.

Edit: Just had a quick look, the recommended GPU for this game can be bought for £240 (from the first and only site I checked, so may be cheaper elsewhere). £2000 machine is way off.

Edited By: mrvengeance on Oct 09, 2016 22:15
#16
mrvengeance
Zeipher
mrvengeance
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?
I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. That just sounds like your trying to justify your £600 purchase.
Where did they say they owned a GTX 1080?
Think they're saying that a game these days doesn't and shouldn't have a recommended pc spec that's in line with a £2000 machine.
I agree with them.
Yeah my bad, I read that part wrong. Have updated my post.
The fact is the recommended specs of the game is not a £2000 machine. Nowhere near. To achieve absolute top results with this game is, however, and that's a big difference to "recommended". Look at any game's high/top specs requirements relative to when the game released and it will be no different, to single this game out just seems dumb.
Personally, my concern with the game is that it's said to run poorly on powerful machines that can easily run other games with similar graphics.

In other words, it's poorly optimised.

Keep in mind, I haven't played the game, so I'm unaware of how it looks in game, but while the screenshots and videos I've seen look great, they're not much better than Doom, Hitman or Forza Horizon 3.

All those games run perfectly fine on much lower powered machines. In fact, I have DOOM running on my Alienware Alpha on high.

I'd like to think games these days, especially cross platform games, should run at 60fps at a minimum on good machines.
#17
mrvengeance
Zeipher
mrvengeance
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?
I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. That just sounds like your trying to justify your £600 purchase.
Where did they say they owned a GTX 1080?
Think they're saying that a game these days doesn't and shouldn't have a recommended pc spec that's in line with a £2000 machine.
I agree with them.
Yeah my bad, I read that part wrong. Have updated my post.
The fact is the recommended specs of the game is not a £2000 machine. Nowhere near. To achieve absolute top results with this game is, however, and that's a big difference to "recommended". Look at any game's high/top specs requirements relative to when the game released and it will be no different, to single this game out just seems dumb.
Edit: Just had a quick look, the recommended GPU for this game can be bought for £240 (from the first and only site I checked, so may be cheaper elsewhere). £2000 machine is way off.
Please calm down. All I said is as shown in the review I linked, it requires a GTX 1080 to play this game at 1080p 60fps on Ultra. That is unreasonable in my opinion.
#18
mrvengeance
Zeipher
mrvengeance
joe94
With a GTX 1080.... A £600 graphics card. That test system is like a £2000 system. Absolutely unacceptable.
So a game running to very nice standards is totally unacceptable? 60+fps is an extremely nice framerate that most enthusiasts aim for. Plenty of fantastic games can't achieve 60fps, either through design or fault. If you refuse to play a game based on framerate then I guess you'll be missing out on some really great games. I'd find it hard to believe you'd even notice the difference between say 60fps and 100fps with the naked eye. If the game runs to a standard most people consider optimal (60fps), why get upset over it not achieving results you wouldn't even notice without the use of a framerate counter?
I'm running a 3 year old GPU that cost ~£200 back then and this game ran fine on settings that suited my card (mostly medium settings). I got a nice, solid framerate and it looked pretty damn nice. At the end of the day if you find the game fun you shouldn't be worrying about whether it runs at 200fps or not. That just sounds like your trying to justify your £600 purchase.
Where did they say they owned a GTX 1080?
Think they're saying that a game these days doesn't and shouldn't have a recommended pc spec that's in line with a £2000 machine.
I agree with them.
Yeah my bad, I read that part wrong. Have updated my post.

The fact is the recommended specs of the game is not a £2000 machine. Nowhere near. To achieve absolute top results with this game is, however, and that's a big difference to "recommended". Look at any game's high/top specs requirements relative to when the game released and it will be no different, to single this game out just seems dumb.

Edit: Just had a quick look, the recommended GPU for this game can be bought for £240 (from the first and only site I checked, so may be cheaper elsewhere). £2000 machine is way off.
What's more, as I said, the reviewers use an i7-5960x overclocked to 4.4ghz on the x99 platform. Please go and find out how much that chip and an average x99 mobo costs. Add in the GTX 1080 and HDD + RAM etc.
They needed a £2000 system to achieve 60fps at 1080p on Ultra. That is ridiculous.
#19
Zeipher
Personally, my concern with the game is that it's said to run poorly on powerful machines that can easily run other games with similar graphics.
In other words, it's poorly optimised.
Keep in mind, I haven't played the game, so I'm unaware of how it looks in game, but while the screenshots and videos I've seen look great, they're not much better than Doom, Hitman or Forza Horizon 3.
All those games run perfectly fine on much lower powered machines. In fact, I have DOOM running on my Alienware Alpha on high.
I'd like to think games these days, especially cross platform games, should run at 60fps at a minimum on good machines.
It looks miles better than Hitman and I'd say probably about the same as Doom (haven't played FH3). But it is a very different game to Doom, with much larger environments which have much more interaction, NPCs, etc. It's a much "busier" game than Doom and as such will require more system resources. Doom was a fairly straightforward, tight-corridor shooter, Deus Ex is basically the opposite.

But anyway, the game absolutely can run at 60fps on a wide range of machines. As I said, my GPU is what I'd call a fairly cheap GPU (~£200) and that was bought 3 years ago. Ran the game at 60fps on medium settings. The example used by joe94 was Ultra settings which are very demanding. It's also likely those stats were taken from launch, where it had issues (hardware specific - I played at launch and it was fine). I think it's also worth pointing out those games you mentioned all use well-established game engines. DXMD uses a brand new engine that hasn't been used by any other game before, which is a rarity in the industry. I kinda feel you have to cut them some slack for that.
#20
mrvengeance
Zeipher
Personally, my concern with the game is that it's said to run poorly on powerful machines that can easily run other games with similar graphics.
In other words, it's poorly optimised.
Keep in mind, I haven't played the game, so I'm unaware of how it looks in game, but while the screenshots and videos I've seen look great, they're not much better than Doom, Hitman or Forza Horizon 3.
All those games run perfectly fine on much lower powered machines. In fact, I have DOOM running on my Alienware Alpha on high.
I'd like to think games these days, especially cross platform games, should run at 60fps at a minimum on good machines.
It looks miles better than Hitman and I'd say probably about the same as Doom (haven't played FH3). But it is a very different game to Doom, with much larger environments which have much more interaction, NPCs, etc. It's a much "busier" game than Doom and as such will require more system resources. Doom was a fairly straightforward, tight-corridor shooter, Deus Ex is basically the opposite.
But anyway, the game absolutely can run at 60fps on a wide range of machines. As I said, my GPU is what I'd call a fairly cheap GPU (~£200) and that was bought 3 years ago. Ran the game at 60fps on medium settings. The example used by joe94 was Ultra settings which are very demanding. It's also likely those stats were taken from launch, where it had issues (hardware specific - I played at launch and it was fine). I think it's also worth pointing out those games you mentioned all use well-established game engines. DXMD uses a brand new engine that hasn't been used by any other game before, which is a rarity in the industry. I kinda feel you have to cut them some slack for that.
Strange. I think Hitman looks loads better than Doom.
#21
joe94
Please calm down. All I said is as shown in the review I linked, it requires a GTX 1080 to play this game at 1080p 60fps on Ultra. That is unreasonable in my opinion.
I don't think I gave any indication of not being calm. I thought we were both being civil in our discussion.

And your opinion is fair enough of course, I was just giving mine. I'm no staunch defender of the game, I actually have a lot of issues with it myself (the story sucks, characters are boring, environment variety is poor). I had a handful of crashes to desktop while playing but had a steady framerate. A mate never had crashes but sometimes had framerate drops. Like any PC game, what hardware you run can have massive effects on your experience.

Ultra settings are very demanding and the equivalent settings on any major AAA game require similarly expensive machines. If you want to play the game, then by no means can you only enjoy it on Ultra settings. Optimisation for DX12 is/was supposed to be poor (may have been fixed). But if DX12 runs poorly you can easily just switch to DX11 which seemed to work well for a wide range of machines.

It just sounded to me like you were refusing to buy a game you (presumably) are interested in because the absolute top graphical settings required expensive hardware. Well... that sort of applies to every game. Me and a friend ran the game fine at launch on years old hardware, and it has since received several patches so performance (you'd hope) has improved. I think a more balanced view of the game's performance would be based on medium-high settings on the recommended system specs, which are reasonably priced components.
1 Like #22
Zeipher
Strange. I think Hitman looks loads better than Doom.
Really? The new episodic Hitman? Maybe I'm not a good judge of graphical fidelity then :D
#23
mrvengeance
joe94
Please calm down. All I said is as shown in the review I linked, it requires a GTX 1080 to play this game at 1080p 60fps on Ultra. That is unreasonable in my opinion.
Ultra settings are very demanding and the equivalent settings on any major AAA game require similarly expensive machines.
Here, we fundamentally disagree. You'll have to show me the AAA titles that require a £1000 CPU and a £600 graphics card to just about average 60fps at 1080p.
#24
FlashDave
The game looks pretty however its got a load of issues. The story is short and the world is tiny, 1 city which ends just as the story is getting started. They want to sell a bunch DLC chapter by chapter, which lasts about 4 hours. The biggest problem with this approach is our progress gets reset and it leaves us wondering why they didn't just add it to the main game.

The AI is really dumb too and needs updating. Also no mod support confirmed so the life span of the game is going to be a week at the most. The game isn't challenging enough either, only 1 boss battle at the end which is really easy.

I'm a huge fan of the series but I wouldn't recommend this one for the story/game play, it just has nice visuals.


​When you think you can still replay the original and find new stuff on its sprawling levels that's just sad

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!