I like to reply to this post, just as a confirmation.
I love the game, and follow its development.
Myself im a bit of a pc hardware junkie on a tight budget.
Performance per Buck, and in the current state its true if you dont want to reduce your game play resolution, the game runs pretty heavy.
I dont mind this as its a difficult process creating a game like this, on a low budget with only a few staff members, but depending what kinda audience you want to reach performance could be very important.
But i have to say the games does run on 720p with every thing on low, on a low end video card.
But with the expectations of people playing the game,at home or on schools. every thing on low wont satisfy the users.
the game looks decent on 1080p with graphics at medium view distance medium. not great but decent,
Its a very raw game at the moment, functional i would say but not very pleasing on the eyes, if you dont know what kinda game your getting into.
But to play the game at 1080p, medium settings, the average pc wont be powerful enough, most new pc's have a Intel I3, or AMD cpu that's about the same speed and that is enough for eco, but the game runs very heavy on its gpu and most people with low budget, laptop, or potentially using eco at a education facility wont have the gpu power to run the game decently, in its current state.
This post is just a confirmation to the post made by @DonkeySurvivalist
and not ment as criticism,
1: the game is in alpha, so i have no expectations in any aspect, and every development is a surprize ;)
2: gameplay: The basics is done and looks good and promising.
3: Performance: On a game pc it runs, decent to good. - pc systems with a gpu cheaper then 125$ from 2017 and the game runs bad.
For a alpha game published to small public its good so far, If the game would be released on steam in its current state, i feel it would do more damage then good. cause of the heavy gpu requirements in its current state.