I didn't think Crysis sucked balls. Loved it. But I also liked Farcry which people said the same things back then too (pretty game but nothing else)
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Crytek: Piracy Ratio Is About 20:1
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I didn't think Crysis sucked balls. Loved it. But I also liked Farcry which people said the same things back then too (pretty game but nothing else)
SO that's a 1:4 ratio in a very extreme condition. Nowhere near the 1:20 ratio being tossed arounf.
Pigpen, Just look at how pathetic the implementations of said measures developers took to curb piracy.
The only reason they are going ahead with Warhead(IMHO) is that it's still a bloated sack of code and therefore is nowhere near ready to go the console route. Believe me, after their recent comments, they would drop the PC as soon as humanly possible.
Exactly, I almost feel the same way. I used to respect Crytek a whole lot until they released Crysis and disappointed me.
That is a point many people fail at realizing when they form their "anti-piracy" retorts. Many other industries have adopted a try before you buy(demo) program with their products. The problem is that its IP and not a traditional object(paper, car, house).
I was gonna respond to bonsai, but you beat me to the punch. Thanks. =)
Hedron, where your "im too poor" argument fails is that if you can afford a $1000 PC you CANNOT assume they can afford the $40 game. You can at best assume one of two things. That $1000 they spent was all they had, or the more money a person might drop on a purchase the less he has left to purchase other stuff. The other thing is that yes, he would have $40 if you spent $1000 on the PC. You CANNOT however assume one over the other unless you know the person.
What effort did Crytek make? The effort they showed in releasing patches for the game? The effort they put into making the game playable at the quality the developer intended? The effort they put into promised SLI/CF support? The effort they put into the gameplay after the island portion? The effort they put into accusing their potential customers as pirates. Cmon man, take a trip into reality...
I don't get to warm and fuzzy over that to much. I still think the main reason that was done, equals generated intrest in future titles / Diablo 3.
hamm3rhead
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Well said.
Well, they said the game should fine on medium and it does but I'm sure you don't care and you want very high settings. Despite them saying over and over again this is scalable 5 years from now. 5....YEARS. we aren't even in the first year.
Can't speak on SLI/CF since I don't have it so I don't know the issues. wont speak on it.
The game is intended to be a trilogy. And they simply stated many people pirated the game. I mean...OK they are pirates. They aren't potential customers. They are playing the game for free.
Inglix_the_Mad
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2004
- Messages
- 332
Demos, good demos, released at least 2 weeks before the game would cut piracy.
As the people behind Sins of a Solar Empire said though, if you make a game worth buying, people will buy it. Making expensive tech demos, that are difficult for even top-end computers to run, is going to lead to piracy.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
maybe at 800X600, or 20 FPS.
Who the hell thinks 20 frames per second is acceptable for a first person shooter?
I think 20 million is pretty exagerated. I'm not a mathemagician, however lets just assume that most pirates come from America. Lets assume that there are 400 million people in the United States. If that were the case then every 20th person would have played Crysis. If we assume now that the world has 4 billion people, then every 200th person played Crysis. I sincerely doubt either of those numbers. I work in a fairly small department at my work. Roughly 50 people, I am the only one who knew of Crysis. In my department there are maybe four "gamers". I'd say Crysis sold right where it should.
Default setting i'm sure for most of us is 1024x768 (game settings not your monitors) which most likely is what your computer recommends for it too. But no one here likes recommended settings right?
Just saying.
I don't know if his charge is true or not, but it seems rather high with respect to Crysis.
Crysis had extremely high h/w requirements. So I think that most who wanted the game that had the H/W to play it would fork out the 40 or 50 bucks.
But as a whole, I'm not so sure if the d/l numbers are necessarily meaningful. If over all sales are dropping precipitously, while high end GPU sales are rising (or even maintaining parity), then it's a problem.
But one thing that can happen is that people may d/l a game and never play it. I think I downloaded WIC 2 or 3 times and never played it....I eventually bought it and I still haven't played it. At my last job, the company had a game club, where dues paid for games, and you could take a game out for a week or 2 (longer if nobody else was on the waiting list). I tried many games, but rarely played them beyond a few days.....and he tended to copy them all.
This doesn't mean it's not a problem, because even if only one of the 15 or 20 like the game and play it, that's one player that's a lost sale.
New games require expensive hardware, so unless all the stolen games are Dear Hunter and Wheel of Fortune, those d/l have the money to buy the games.
With that said, I think Crytek's decision not to continue fixing Crysis is a bad move. It will only make those who steal software feel justified, while making those who bought the software feel duped.
Some cliches are true: 2 wrongs don't make a[it?] right.
Crysis had extremely high h/w requirements. So I think that most who wanted the game that had the H/W to play it would fork out the 40 or 50 bucks.
But as a whole, I'm not so sure if the d/l numbers are necessarily meaningful. If over all sales are dropping precipitously, while high end GPU sales are rising (or even maintaining parity), then it's a problem.
But one thing that can happen is that people may d/l a game and never play it. I think I downloaded WIC 2 or 3 times and never played it....I eventually bought it and I still haven't played it. At my last job, the company had a game club, where dues paid for games, and you could take a game out for a week or 2 (longer if nobody else was on the waiting list). I tried many games, but rarely played them beyond a few days.....and he tended to copy them all.
This doesn't mean it's not a problem, because even if only one of the 15 or 20 like the game and play it, that's one player that's a lost sale.
New games require expensive hardware, so unless all the stolen games are Dear Hunter and Wheel of Fortune, those d/l have the money to buy the games.
With that said, I think Crytek's decision not to continue fixing Crysis is a bad move. It will only make those who steal software feel justified, while making those who bought the software feel duped.
Some cliches are true: 2 wrongs don't make a[it?] right.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
I tried recommended settings (in my case was 1680X1050), and I got mid teens for avg FPS. I went down to a lower resolution (1024 X 768) with no aa no af, and the best I could get AVG of 20fps. I sold the game soon after.
Anyways...1024 X 768? WTF? Y2K called and wants it typical resolution back. Crysis is a POS. Im glad some people like it, but many people think its a POS. Dont blame pirates, blame the fact that people with good hardware can only get it run on such a low resolution that you defeat the purpose of having a beautiful engine. OH LOOK ITS SO PRETTY..at terrible resolutions and FPS.
Bioshock looks great, Mass Effect looks great, COD4 looks great, HL2 looks great...and can actually be played on decent hardware with decent FPS and resolutions.
Crysis is a slideshow demonstration. Them blaming pirates for lack of sales is the epitome of the modern western psyche, why blame yourself for your bad situation when blaming others makes you feel better?
IW did bring up piracy actually. They said about 70 percent of the hits their authentication server receives is from pirated copies. It was on one of the developer's blog. I think the headline was "and they wonder why no one makes PC games anymore".
Hahaha as if renaming the detail levels would stop people from crying like little babies when they can't run it at whatever the maximum level happens to be called. They could name it "This detail level is much too high for any PC in existence, don't even bother trying. No, really." and people would still be claiming "poor coding".
Manaknight
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,446
i read that. I know they complain, and i understand it. But I still stand by the fact that there are way more, and far more damning factors to the poor sales of crysis than piracy. CoD4 is doing well even WITH piracy.
The way the crysis thing comes off is trying to hide mediocrity behind an outside factor such as piracy.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
If medium settings @ 1024 X 768 is "maximum" level you can STFU
medium settings at @1024x768 is still better looking than any game out there I'd say.
btw
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-upgrade,1928-8.html
They have always stated that medium pretty much meant "High" by todays standards. No one ever remembers or wants to remember that. They have always stated (and we're pc gamers so we should know better!) that the game can be played on systems that are...3 years older? and 5 years ahead. Too many pc gamers are expecting full everything. When they were showcasing the game, they were at 1024x768.
What's your system settings btw? Mine (sig) said 1024x768. Do I push it? Yes but when it dips I know I'm asking more of the game.
hamm3rhead
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Maybe the "game should fine" on medium but it doesn't. No developer can predict HW for 5 years.. I'm sorry but that statement is asinine. They have enough trouble predicting HW through the dev cycle let alone 5 years beyond.
A Triple A title should not look like a blocky bland mess at lower settings or resolutions, we've been accepting it though and look where it's gotten us.
FYI a pirate is not a gamer, a pirate wears an eyepatch and has no depth perception. A gamer supports his community by puchasing worthwhile titles and railing against shoddy ones.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Yes, I like to post lies on the intarwebs so I can win e-arguments.
Well that's really weird of you!
Then pc gamers would complain the game is being dumbed down graphically jsut so everyone can play. In reality, they should have never had those game settings available. It would have been a lot better for them. No one complaining about the Witcher getting graphical updates a year later.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Witcher looks good on decent hardware with decent resolutions and FPS.
See the difference?
Dumbed down, LOL thats funny.
Witcher looks horrible. Ok well not horrible but it's not cutting edge. An xbox (the original) could run it. The engine is ancient. It's a fun game but it doesn't look good. That's a joke *waving hand at you with ever sentence a la Witcher discussion*
But your proving a point for me here. You were fine with the Witcher's graphics. Crysis went well above and beyond what anything the Witcher can do graphically but showed you NOW that one day you will be gaming like this.I definitely agree. Oblivion is a great example of a game that did it right. When it came out, it was GORGEOUS, but you could still run it at high settngs and getting very playable framerates (30-40 FPS) on the highest-end cards of the day (x1900/x1950 XTX), and it did still have room to grow (it took until the 8800 GTX to be able to really enable EVERYTHING on the highest and get ~50-60 FPS). Crysis was what Oblivion had been like had they released it as is back when x850s were top of the line. It was either stupid marketing or stupid developing, maybe a little of both. All I know, is that when I drop ~$2000 on a PC, I expect it to play recent games decently. Crysis barely started. Enough said.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Witcher looks horrible. Ok well not horrible but it's not cutting edge. An xbox (the original) could run it. The engine is ancient. It's a fun game but it doesn't look good. That's a joke *waving hand at you with ever sentence a la Witcher discussion*
Who cares how good it looks if its unplayable? Who cares how good it looks if you have to lower the rez SO low its looks WORSE than a "regular game"? And why the hell would anyone want to buy a slideshow game to see how something might look in the future? Jesus your arguments are inane. Give me a game that looks normal but is playable over some shiny POS thats not playable for 5 years.
Why don't you play the game on low settings then!? You don't care about Witcher's graphics (and old engine), but Crysis you're holding to a higher standard?! I'm playing the game at 1280x1024 with most settings on medium, some high. What can I say, It's not a slide show and it's gorgeous.
(I wish there was an edit button)
I also know that I would probably have better frame rates if every setting was on medium. It would play even better if was at low! But as a pc gamer i know IT'S SCALABLE. That's why we game on a PC! Because our old systems can play new games and our new systems make old games look better! That's what PC gaming was all about! When did we lose focus on this?!
I also know that I would probably have better frame rates if every setting was on medium. It would play even better if was at low! But as a pc gamer i know IT'S SCALABLE. That's why we game on a PC! Because our old systems can play new games and our new systems make old games look better! That's what PC gaming was all about! When did we lose focus on this?!
First off, I don't have Crysis, Pirated or otherwise! I do buy PC games, and I also know plenty of other people who DO pirate as many PC games as they can. I don't let them install, and / or copy, games I've bought. But the fact is that most of them can't afford games, or a decent computer to play them on. So regardless of whether they "pirate" games, or not, they probably couldn't run Crysis at all. And I don't know any of them who plays Crysis, though that doesn't mean they've never downloaded a copy.
Titan Quest was a game they could run. And I knew a bunch of them that did pirate that and played it. But guess what? The cracked version that they had actually ran better than my "legally purchased" copy, because they had disabled the SecureROM protections. I could hardly play that game because it crashed so often. And eventually I had to get a cracked copy of the same, so I could play. (I reverted to my legal copy, and lost my characters and progress, after they finally fixed the game. But the damage had already been done and most people had quit playing...)
I never bought Crysis because I immediately recognized it as an unoptimized PoS. I refuse to pay for software like this, regardless of how good the screenshots look! Crytek Studios can collectively go fück themselves and the horse they rode in on.... If they want to push software out like this, I won't ever buy it! They couldn't give me a FREE copy of that game!
So if you're going to argue in favor of a company's claims of being "damaged" by piracy. At least choose a different company and a BETTER game. Because I refuse to listen to your BS!
(Actually if you had made a similar argument with THQ and Titan Quest I might have agreed with you... that's why I even included it as an example. But the fact there was that THQ screwed themselves over by putting a boneheaded copy protection scheme on their discs and not doing any QA to check the finished product. That is not to say that I don't like copy protection, just that it can't interfere with playing the game, or damage my hardware {like Starforce} as one of it's measures.)Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Witcher looks great to me. ME looks great to me. Bioshock looks BEAUTIFUL to me. HL2 looks great, COD4, etc, need I go on?
Crysis looks like blah-blah at PLAYABLE FPS. 1024X768? @ 20fps? Seriously?
Its looks AWESOME at slideshow speeds on the latest hardware? Thats a win? Not in the book of common sense.
youre not paying attention to me. at playable FPS, Crysis looked WORSE than normal games at much higher speeds. If you cant understand that, im done arguing with you.
Manaknight
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,446
I think the reason crysis gets held to higher standards is because its marketed for he graphics. Witcher was not marketed for graphics as far as i can remember. The game itself isn't anything that fall into new territory, really the game itself is a mid line story(ish) driven shooter that's been the flavor of the month as late.
crysis had its graphics as it's selling point to be different from the rest of the pack. Therefore i can understand when people are unsatisfied when the engine scales poorly and doesn't look compelling at low settings. There just isn't all that much that makes it stand out beyond the graphics
There is seriously something not right with your computer if you are only getting 20 fps at 1024x768. I'm sorry. Most people with your computer aren't getting that. And if you did a poll, people with your sig aren't that bad. Even [H] benchmarks are going higher than your or my settings.
Bioshock (Console in mind) HL2 (Old computers in mind) CoD4 (not pushing much since CoD2 really) You're looking at the BEST looking game out there.
Bioshock (Console in mind) HL2 (Old computers in mind) CoD4 (not pushing much since CoD2 really) You're looking at the BEST looking game out there.
hamm3rhead
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 537
So we have to dumb down the graphics to playable levels.. ok then. Why can't the "playable levels" still look really pretty? The tradeoff for loss of fidelity to gain of performance is severely skewed, that's the problem being experienced by people with medium/high end machines. Bioshock/COD4/etc can be played at prettier levels with better performance then Crysis on the same machine. That's where the problem lies... not in Crytech being too awesome for their own good.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Whatever, theres nothing wrong with my computer, and im not talking about consoles.
Go play some more slideshow Crysis on hardware 5 years from the future.
It is pretty. You just know it looks a fuck-ton better looking on high! So did Farcry when it first got released.
Everyone keeps doing an apples to apples on games. Bioshock/CoD4/etc is doing nothing as impressive (techincally speaking) that Crysis is doing. I'm playing CoD4 at work with old machine specs. I know what it looks like on my PC. You really think CoD4 is looking as good on an older machine? You're comparing a weaker engine that isn't doing as much. What you don't want is advancement yet that's what everyone is saying. We are happy with the tech that is 2 years old. We don't want something more dynamic in nature. We don't want to really shoot down trees or have real smoke effects. We want everything scripted. Well shit they really should have done that.
OOOh Ho HO you got me Zingzing Zingler!
I mentioned consoles because it's a fix PC spec that is playing games and lower res (The Target) You're also comparing older tech to newer.
hamm3rhead
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Seriously? Destructable environments are not new... UE3 is not an old crappy engine.. AND I am not talking about old machines, I am talking about current machines medium-high end that play other games at better looking settings. Yet they are unable to match the quality/performance with Crysis. BECAUSE Crysis is not as optimized for current gen hardware as it should be. It should not be mutually exclusive to have a forward-looking engine yet still meet or better your competition at current hardware levels.
Ok everyone, I own Crysis and will say this the patches did speed up performance on my rig. I play medium to high with most on high and get about an average of 39fps. The problems with that game are with its poor online play and performance and the fact that it did nothing freaking new. The game wasn't as free roaming as people give it credit for. I beat and was saying at the time that it looked like you could do more but you couldn't you could either go up the left side of this path or the right side and that was supposed to be free roaming. Further more on medium settings it didn't look as good as the Unreal 3 engine games and just didn't hold up very good. The game starts to shine on high and further more I saw little difference on dx10 very high. The fact is if you spend $2000 and up on a rig you expect high settings on games. Crytek screwed them selves with that whole five years in the future crap. Your moment is now and only now, you don't build a game for five freaking years down the line. Who on earth is running out and grabbing morrowind right now hopping it will still look even more killer.
And back on the Piracy note I don't hear dev's trying to defend putting out crap ass code with no demo and then running to the bank as something that doesn't lead to piracy. Case in point games that I bought in the last year that played like crap for me and had no freaking demo when releasesd. Crysis, The Witcher, and Oblivion. Out of those three the only one I have finished is Crysis as of yet. that was a $150 I am out of with on 1/3 completed because of poor performace. Also the other games I have bought that played like crap and had a demo. GTR2, Race 07, World in Conflict, DIRT, and Dark Messiah.
Right now I look for games made with the unreal 3 engine, or from Valve because I know they will play and I can enjoy them. To hell with will it run, want to know it will run like Bioshock, The orange box, Fear, COH, Medal of Honor Airborne.
Oh and before I go, nobody has even brought up the point about consoles gamers have a secondary market to utilize and PC gamers do not. They can buy that game beat it or say it sucks and trade it in. PC gamers are stuck with it. So no way does freaking Crysis, or Bioshock, Medal of Honor AB, WIC deserve their inital $50 price tag. We get stuck with freaking games that have no after life but still get to command the same amount as a TF2 which can be moded or Company of heroes, or even The Witcher which can have user created quest. Hell Oblivion has one hell of a Mod community!
And back on the Piracy note I don't hear dev's trying to defend putting out crap ass code with no demo and then running to the bank as something that doesn't lead to piracy. Case in point games that I bought in the last year that played like crap for me and had no freaking demo when releasesd. Crysis, The Witcher, and Oblivion. Out of those three the only one I have finished is Crysis as of yet. that was a $150 I am out of with on 1/3 completed because of poor performace. Also the other games I have bought that played like crap and had a demo. GTR2, Race 07, World in Conflict, DIRT, and Dark Messiah.
Right now I look for games made with the unreal 3 engine, or from Valve because I know they will play and I can enjoy them. To hell with will it run, want to know it will run like Bioshock, The orange box, Fear, COH, Medal of Honor Airborne.
Oh and before I go, nobody has even brought up the point about consoles gamers have a secondary market to utilize and PC gamers do not. They can buy that game beat it or say it sucks and trade it in. PC gamers are stuck with it. So no way does freaking Crysis, or Bioshock, Medal of Honor AB, WIC deserve their inital $50 price tag. We get stuck with freaking games that have no after life but still get to command the same amount as a TF2 which can be moded or Company of heroes, or even The Witcher which can have user created quest. Hell Oblivion has one hell of a Mod community!
Hell it isn't optimized for next gen hard ware. Did you see the bench marks for the GTX 280 on it. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUxOCw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
.....1920x1200 with pretty much everything set on high...on a game that already stated future scalable. Not good enough for you...
OK
Crysis Critics: Unrealistic expectations
The level of destructable environments is no where near the level of what Crysis is doing. And that's just one example anyway.
UE3 has been in development since the 6800 generations of graphics cards. It was running demos back then. That game engine that was delayed year after year. It was UT 2006, then 2007, then UT3.because they had no f'ing clue if it woudl still meet it's deadlines. Ya it's good but it's not Cryengine 2 good.
I'm sorry I just don't know what's wrong with peoples eyes. The water, the massive draw distance, out doors, smoke moving to wind, chaos of war, plants moving because you interact (not just a floating texture) Full time lighting effects, tactical AI. There is a lot of THINGS going on.