Crytek: Next-Gen Consoles Can't Match PCs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Hey, did you guys know that consoles can't match the power of a PC? Whoddathunkit? ;)

Crytek boss Cevat Yerli, restricted by non-disclosure agreements with both Microsoft and Sony, told Eurogamer Crysis 3 running on a powerful PC looks better than next-generation games due to be announced. Indeed, he said it is "impossible" for consoles to match gaming PCs.
Click to expand...
 
While that is the case, I think it is prudent to point out that Crytek has had... issues in the past with getting their games to run on high end PCs the year they came out.
 
And yet, PC will get games last.. if not at all. sad
 
Wanna see my shocked face?

Shockedface.jpg
 
"So, given consumer pricing, and given the cost of production of a gamer PC and the amount of watt of power it needs, which is like a fridge, it's impossible."
Click to expand...

It is impossible for Crytek to develop a decent engine, let alone a game worth playing.
 
mastaBlasta said:
Still talking about graphics in 2013 while this remains the top selling PC game of all time (source).
Click to expand...

"Also, sales from digital distribution stores (such as Steam, Direct2Drive, etc.) are omitted as a result of the NPD Group and similar organisations being unable to accurately track these sales."

From that very same link.
 
and yet they still develop games for consoles and PC players have to deal with crappy ports with dx9 instead of nice dx11 games.
 
ballistic90 said:
While that is the case, I think it is prudent to point out that Crytek has had... issues in the past with getting their games to run on high end PCs the year they came out.
Click to expand...

mainly due the having to port the console game to pc and increasing graphics as opposed to developing for pc and downgrading the graphics which is much much easier to do with less headaches.
 
It's going to be harder to say that console graphics are better then PC's. With the Xbox 360 or PS3 you could argue these.

#1 CPU clock speeds in these systems are 3Ghz while most PCs aren't.
#2 They don't have the Windows OS that slows down games.
#3 Over time developers will learn how to code better for the hardware.

These arguments are mostly valid cause we can't realistically benchmark game consoles. Though we know game consoles we slower then PC made 6-7 years ago, but you can't prove that cause there's no benchmark.

Though if rumors are true about Xbox 720, the CPU will be an AMD quad core at 1.6 Ghz, with built in DirectX11 graphics. Since it's an x86 CPU, we know that it can't touch today's PCs. Though I'd imagine the clock speed to be much higher in the final product.

Take into consideration that the AMD is technically a fusion chip, we know it can't compared to a Intel i7 or even AMD's 8 core Bulldozer in terms of CPU performance. The graphics core in the Xbox AMD chip is also not likely to compare to a dedicated graphics card in a desktop PC.

As for the low clock speed I'd imagine Microsoft is trying to avoid the catastrophic from the Xbox 360. The reason why the red ring of death plagued the 360 was that the chip would get so hot that it would melt the cheap solder, thus causing the RRD.

35041026.jpg
 
Actually the current gen Xbox and PS3 were relatively competative with PC's at the time they were first released. What they lacked in raw horsepower they made up in optimizations not possible in a PC. For a couple years there, without the most bleeding edge ($$$) PC you would be pressed to see much of a gap.

I also think it was become Microsoft and Sony took losses on the hardware, too. Something overtime that has probably reversed itself. Of course the gap has widened, a lot, in that time as well.

So there being a difference between next gen and current PC being a surprise is not a huge suprise to me.
 
Revdarian said:
"Also, sales from digital distribution stores (such as Steam, Direct2Drive, etc.) are omitted as a result of the NPD Group and similar organisations being unable to accurately track these sales."

From that very same link.
Click to expand...

Interestingly FarCry 3 is in the Steam Top 10 sellers. However, most of the other games in that top 10 are not there because of graphics.

And that was really my point - that graphics aren't a huge selling point anymore. They used to be 10 years ago, but when was the last time anyone here bought a game because it just "looked amazing". I'd rather a game spend their money and efforts more on gameplay and story rather than graphics. Otherwise you end up with a dud like Rage, which "looked amazing" but was highly unsatisfying to play.

High end graphics remain extremely expensive to produce, despite all the improvements in tools. So if you're a small to mid level company with not a lot of spare capital in your hands, you're better off going for an interesting (but cheap) art style (Lone Survivor, FTL), rather than an extremely time consuming realistic style.
 
mastaBlasta said:
Interestingly FarCry 3 is in the Steam Top 10 sellers. However, most of the other games in that top 10 are not there because of graphics.

And that was really my point - that graphics aren't a huge selling point anymore. They used to be 10 years ago, but when was the last time anyone here bought a game because it just "looked amazing". I'd rather a game spend their money and efforts more on gameplay and story rather than graphics. Otherwise you end up with a dud like Rage, which "looked amazing" but was highly unsatisfying to play.

High end graphics remain extremely expensive to produce, despite all the improvements in tools. So if you're a small to mid level company with not a lot of spare capital in your hands, you're better off going for an interesting (but cheap) art style (Lone Survivor, FTL), rather than an extremely time consuming realistic style.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you really have to adjusts for costs, those non-graphically intense games are probably dirt cheap..
 
Crytek tries to do everything they can to appeal to PC gamers --except release decent PC games.
 
blkdrgn613 said:
mainly due the having to port the console game to pc and increasing graphics as opposed to developing for pc and downgrading the graphics which is much much easier to do with less headaches.
Click to expand...

What? I meant the original Crysis. Back when it came it, it wasn't exactly the most hardware friendly PC game out there.
 
It should be a very simple thing to create a DEDICATED unit that can produce superior graphics than the average PC, because they can optimize the hardware and software 100% for gaming keeping it lean and mean.

So its not that they CAN'T, its that they CHOOSE to put subpaar cheap components in the systems, and also aim for quite a small form factor that remains reasonably quiet.

This means that we get mid-low grade gaming laptop specifications, and of course that isn't going to match a desktop PC with a quality current graphics card. And Sony had even warned us in advance, stating that they would NOT emphasize modern hardware specs. Sad but true.
 
jpm100 said:
Actually the current gen Xbox and PS3 were relatively competative with PC's at the time they were first released. What they lacked in raw horsepower they made up in optimizations not possible in a PC. For a couple years there, without the most bleeding edge ($$$) PC you would be pressed to see much of a gap.
Click to expand...
From what I remember with comparisons between PC vs console, was the PC back then had better graphics. Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering were nearly none existent.

Here's a comparison to a launch title on the 360 that is also on PC. But there are plenty of examples of games that look way better on PC hardware from 2006.
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-pc-xbox-360-comparison

Also keep in mind the 360 and PS3 weren't cheap either in 2006. Xbox 360 with a HD was $500, and the PS3 was $600. I never build PCs for more then that much for gaming. You never needed a top of the line PC to beat game consoles. I never did.
 
Ducman69 said:
It should be a very simple thing to create a DEDICATED unit that can produce superior graphics than the average PC, because they can optimize the hardware and software 100% for gaming keeping it lean and mean.

So its not that they CAN'T, its that they CHOOSE to put subpaar cheap components in the systems, and also aim for quite a small form factor that remains reasonably quiet.

This means that we get mid-low grade gaming laptop specifications, and of course that isn't going to match a desktop PC with a quality current graphics card. And Sony had even warned us in advance, stating that they would NOT emphasize modern hardware specs. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

Game companies need to make money. And for the console to make money and to sell consoles, there needs to be games coming out for it. For publishers to make games for the console, there needs to be a large enough player base to sell their game to.

Therefore, console manufacturers must compromise on their consoles to reach a price where they can sell the console to a large enough audience, and eventually make their investment back.
 
At least the rhetoric is more encouraging and putting the focus where it should be.
 
Ducman69 said:
It should be a very simple thing to create a DEDICATED unit that can produce superior graphics than the average PC, because they can optimize the hardware and software 100% for gaming keeping it lean and mean.
Click to expand...
I don't think a lot of people here understand how programming works. Yes these machines are dedicated but that's not why they're fast. For the most part a game console is a legacy free PC.

PCs use API's to make things easy to code. Consoles though can do "Direct to Metal", which is much faster. So these API's or middleware tend to take away a lot of performance. Otherwise we'd have AMD or Nvidia only games. But Direct 3D still exists for Xbox 360 as well. Also direct to metal approach doesn't make code compatible with PS3. If you develop games, then you'd want your game on PS3 and 360. So either way developers have to spend time and effort to make games run their best on these machines, and make sure their code works on both.

There is already a solution where moving as much possible scene setup to the GPU is the future. Something developers don't bother with since porting console games to PCs just doesn't matter. A proper port would require less hardware, but why bother when PC hardware is so much faster?
 
cheaper console hardware specs = more profit...
 
Ashbringer said:
Also keep in mind the 360 and PS3 weren't cheap either in 2006. Xbox 360 with a HD was $500, and the PS3 was $600. I never build PCs for more then that much for gaming. You never needed a top of the line PC to beat game consoles. I never did.
Click to expand...

Where do you guys keep getting this shit? A Xbox 360 had a launch price of 399. It was NEVER higher.

Only the PS3 had a launch price above 400 and at the time it included a Blu Ray player, which at the time the cheapest Blu Ray player was over 100 dollars.

Computers were also higher in cost in 2006, with most mid range graphics cards being above 200, and dual core processors weighing in at about 300 ish.
 
I think he is saying "oh hey PC gamers did you see we are going free to play? We love you long time".

How well does Free to Play work on Consoles? Not really.
 
NA-UH! NA-UH NA-UH!! You cannot possibly get all the greatness and immortality of an XBox 360 for 200-300 dollars and so what if your stupid computer can do things other than game it's a game console stop moving the goalposts Christ all you stupid people can't understand just how much consoles rule.

At least, that's what a doggy told me.
 
Stiletto said:
NA-UH! NA-UH NA-UH!! You cannot possibly get all the greatness and immortality of an XBox 360 for 200-300 dollars and so what if your stupid computer can do things other than game it's a game console stop moving the goalposts Christ all you stupid people can't understand just how much consoles rule.

At least, that's what a doggy told me.
Click to expand...

Are you high?
 
roaf85 said:
So what you are saying is this pointless comment was directed at me as some sort of a personal insult or mock?
Click to expand...

No, I just said I thought you'd understand. I thought we were kinsmen, you and I. Why hast thou forsaken me??? :eek:
 
iakona said:
Yeah, but you really have to adjusts for costs, those non-graphically intense games are probably dirt cheap..
Click to expand...

We if we are going to adjust for costs shouldn't we do the same for consoles? I mean what sort of computer could you build for the $400 xbox 360 launch price, and how would be it doing with todays games?


Ashbringer said:
From what I remember with comparisons between PC vs console, was the PC back then had better graphics. Anti-aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering were nearly none existent.

Here's a comparison to a launch title on the 360 that is also on PC. But there are plenty of examples of games that look way better on PC hardware from 2006.
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-2-pc-xbox-360-comparison

Also keep in mind the 360 and PS3 weren't cheap either in 2006. Xbox 360 with a HD was $500, and the PS3 was $600. I never build PCs for more then that much for gaming. You never needed a top of the line PC to beat game consoles. I never did.
Click to expand...

I am not a console fan, but I'm forced to ask, is the PC you used for gaming when the 360 was released, six and a half years ago, the same you use today?

Sure when building a PC you don't need top of the line components, but if you cut to much then you sacrifice length of service for lower price


roaf85 said:
Where do you guys keep getting this shit? A Xbox 360 had a launch price of 399. It was NEVER higher.

Only the PS3 had a launch price above 400 and at the time it included a Blu Ray player, which at the time the cheapest Blu Ray player was over 100 dollars.

Computers were also higher in cost in 2006, with most mid range graphics cards being above 200, and dual core processors weighing in at about 300 ish.
Click to expand...

You are correct, although a stand alone Blu Ray players cost more then the PS3 for a considerable length of time after Sony release of the PS3. and as I recall it was over a year before stand along players reached the $300-400 price range, and even then there were compatibility issues which drove many wanting Blu Ray players to spend the little bit extra on a PS3 as it's software could be updated if the standards changed.
 
Crytek says whatever they believe is going to earn them points with whatever demographic they're currently scrambling for. Right now, it's PC gamers. Next year, the pendulum might swing back to console gamers. At which point they'll be talking about how much the next-generation consoles rock and how console gamers are the super-elite.

Don't mean a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top