Developers of UT3 and Crysis are unhappy with PC sales of their games

[Moofasa~]

I already said that I agree that Crytek shouldn't be complaining about how sales are for Crysis. In fact, I think that a PC exclusive selling 86k copies in just 15 days, is actually pretty good.

It's not.

I'll try to explain one more time. BECAUSE CryEngine 2 is more advanced and allows FAR more advanced features, including near photo-realistic graphics, than any other engine out there, it WILL be more demanding than those games based on OLD (Source) engines that run well.

But the point is that a company could have the greatest graphics engine of all time, but if no one can run it, no one will buy it.

Do you understand the connection between "looking good and running well" and "looking jaw dropping and not running so well" ? That's as practical as I can get...

Yes, but do you?

So Valve is lazy and keeps on using the same old engine in their most recent games and they are praised for how well those games run, to which I ask: Was that so hard to predict ? Old engine on new hardware. Why wouldn't it run well ?
Now Crytek actually shows improvements in physics and graphics and is bashed to hell, because the game doesn't run at extremely high resolutions, with everything set to very high, on current hardware. Do you actually think you're making any sense ?

Valve's business model has always been to get their game to look as good as it can on the majority of their customers' computers. That's why they don't add features like DX 10, super advanced physics, etc (it's not because they are lazy ); why add it if hardly anyone can take advantage of it? Many people don't even remember that Valve for HL2 spent as much time working on their DX 8 rendering path as they did with their DX 9 rendering path because they wanted everyone (even those without decked out computers) to have an enjoyable experience. What seems strange is that you think this is a bad way of conducting a business. A company doesn't make money by selling games to the elite, they make it by selling games to the masses.

What you want is the impossible.

No I want a game to run half decently on my Q6600 and 8800 Ultra. I don't think this is impossible.

 

[Silus]

It's not.

From my perspective it's not that bad, but ok...

But the point is that a company could have the greatest graphics engine of all time, but if no one can run it, no one will buy it.

Again, sensationalism. The game runs fine. You just need to make some compromises, in terms of resolution and quality settings. Compromises that some of you are too stubborn to make.

Yes, but do you?

I do, but you and others don't. You seem to want the most stunning game ever, to run butter smooth at extremely high resolutions and quality settings, on current hadrware, which is over a year old. That's ridiculous to say the least.

Valve's business model has always been to get their game to look as good as it can on the majority of their customers' computers. That's why they don't add features like DX 10, super advanced physics, etc (it's not because they are lazy ); why add it if hardly anyone can take advantage of it? Many people don't even remember that Valve for HL2 spent as much time working on their DX 8 rendering path as they did with their DX 9 rendering path because they wanted everyone (even those without decked out computers) to have an enjoyable experience. What seems strange is that you think this is a bad way of conducting a business. A company doesn't make money by selling games to the elite, they make it by selling games to the masses.

LOL, right. Valve doesn't want to add anything like that. That's why Episode 1 and Episode 2 were delayed, because they were "updating their engine". Nothing of which was important for the episode and besides HDR, nothing major was even added, but they just wanted to "sell games to the masses" with those updates...it makes perfect sense

I swear, Valve has too many fanboys...

No I want a game to run half decently on my Q6600 and 8800 Ultra. I don't think this is impossible.

Again, sensationalism and the lack of going with the middle-ground, which is to lower your uber resolution and some quality settings. Hey my lowly system, which is now over 2 years old, runs the game quite good @ 1024x768. And your system is just ten times better and you can't run it "half decently" ? Right...

 

[SlimyTadpole]

You are comparing both engines, when there's nothing to compare. CryEngine 2 is superior to Source Engine therefore, is much more demanding to the hardware. If that's not clear yet, then I give up...

CryEngine 2 is more demanding, and more powerful than Source Engine. I got that. I stated I got that. But you don't seem to understand is that there is more to a graphics engine than what it is capable of, graphically. If that was all that matters, then yes, CryEngine 2 is the best engine out there. But that's not all that matters. There is also the issue of how well it runs on the hardware of people who are buying games. If you can't run it, it doesn't matter how good the engine is.

And doesn't Crysis offer an awesome gaming experience ? You only criticize it based on how it performs. Isn't the gameplay better than most of the games out there ?

Actually, If you look back at my first post in this thread (back on page one) you'll find that I'm in agreement with you there. The gameplay in Crysis is fun.

You're right: I'm only criticizing it based on how it performs. Why? Let's look back at the post that started this little back and forth...

You make a very good point, Crysis system requirements are extremely prohibitive for the average PC gamer. Sure I know most [H] forum users here have excellent PCs but I for one know 3 people that simply cannot play Crysis at a decent framerate so they didn't buy the game. In many ways Crytek only have themselves to blame. Value aren't stupid as The Orange Box plays superbly on most systems.

To which I agree completely. Crysis is a great game, but the requirements put it outside the reach of most PC gamers. Orange Box is great, too, but ran well even on my old Radeon 9800Pro. CryEngine 2 is a more powerful engine, but it doesn't play well on 90% of the systems out there. That's spicey's point. And he's right. You claim Source engine is showing it's age? You're right. But is sold Orange Box because if you've built your PC in the last 3 years, can actually run the damn thing, and have an enjoyable playing experience. And if you've got an 8800, like I do, it looks damn fine.

Point was, they've done nothing more than re-use the aging Source Engine, which is what...4-5 years ? You may be fine with it, but that's not innovation.

I'm not looking for innovation. I'm looking for a good time.

That's being lazy.

Just becuase something isn't cutting edge, doesn't mean it's a result of lazyness. Not using an Engine that was as GPU intensive as CryEngine 2 was a good buisness decision.

Valve does produce quality games, but they take so long to get them out, that there's little to no interest left in them. I speak for myself of course.

I know you speak for yourself. The sales figures, and the posts in this very thread show that.

Actually, by your own words, it sounded like you were surprised to see an old engine, perform so well, in current hardware,

I'm not surprised. I was acutally surprised that they made Source Engine look as good as they did. There's no doubt that Source is getting long in the tooth, and it wouldn't shock me if they changed the engine for Episode 3. But I don't think they would switch to something like CryEngine 2, as it would leave too many people in the dust.

while you were surprised to see a new engine, perform not so good. Shocking indeed..

Nor am not surprised that a new engine would perform not so good.

We are talking about PERFORMANCE.

No. We're talking about both graphics, and performance, in the context of accessability to the PC playerbase.

I think you should step out of this thread, because you keep missing the point. We are not evaluating Crysis as a whole. We are talking about how it performs on current hardware and that is related to how it looks.

Actually, we're talking about how Crysis performs on the machines of the majority of the PC game-playing demographic. You're the one who is trying to take the latter half of that out of the discussion.

I'll try to make it simple for you:
The most stunning game ever = doesn't run that good.
Good looking game = runs well

Yep. Got that covered. Just as I explained in a previous post.

And you don't have to think about them. You just set them to what your hardware allows and play the game. Crysis with everything @ medium, looks better than most other games, set to their highest. Just enjoy the game and stop complaining about how it performs.

Actually, at medium, the game will stutter in both the alien ship, and the carrier, unless you have an 8800. The other 90% of people are left in the cold.

The 8800s are the best cards on the market, but they are only the best, because little to no competition has been given to NVIDIA. This is actually one of longest periods we have had, without a new generation already in the wild.

No argument there. This long a delay between GPU generations is unprecedented. But regardless of where the blame lies, it it also the reality of the situation. When the guys I work with who own last gen cards are looking for a game to buy, they are passing up Crysis, and picking up Orange Box.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

I do, but you and others don't.

Actually, he does get it. He understands that if presented with 2 games, one of which is "looking good and running well" and one that is "looking jaw dropping and not running so well", the former will attract more people, all things being equal.

You seem to want the most stunning game ever, to run butter smooth at extremely high resolutions and quality settings, on current hardware, which is over a year old.

No we don't. I already pointed this out. Look at the title of this thread, and the OP. This isn't a pissing match about who has the most powerful engine. If it was, we could all crown CryEngine 2 the king, and lock the thread.

No, this is a thread about getting the games into as many hands as possible.

 

[Moofasa~]

That's why Episode 1 and Episode 2 were delayed, because they were "updating their engine". Nothing of which was important for the episode and besides HDR, nothing major was even added, but they just wanted to "sell games to the masses" with those updates...

Those updates Valve chose to implement did run on the masses' computers. Valve even chose to use int based HDR instead of floating point HDR so it could run on all DX9 computers (which at the time was what most people had). That's just another example of Valve's business model.

runs the game quite good @ 1024x768

Which does a lot of good on my 1920x1200 LCD.

You seem to want the most stunning game ever

I don't. I want a game that can look as good as possible while still maintaining decent performance. By your logic an engine with a ray tracing lighting system that's superiror to all other lighting systems would be the "best" engine ever even if it didn't perform well on any computer. There's a reason why no developer uses ray tracing. And once you figure out that reason, you'll know why Crysis didn't sell well.

 

[Silus]

I'm not quoting anyone anymore, because it's too damn long, so this is for you SlimyTadpole:

For the last time, you CAN run Crysis. Stop with your sensationalist posts about how you can't run it. You can run it and you can run it well. You just have to make some compromises, mainly in terms of resolution. If you're too stubborn to acknowledge that, that's your problem.

And you still didn't get it. The way a game LOOKS graphically is directly connected to how well it RUNS. Sorry for the caps, but you don't seem to understand the key words I already said countless times...
A game that looks stunning, will perform worse than a game that just looks good. Is that too hard to understand ?
So that's why Crysis doesn't perform as well as other games, simply because Crysis is on a league of its own, in terms of graphics fidelity. Again, I'll make it simple for you:

Better graphics = more demanding to the hardware
Not so good graphics = less demanding to the hardware

I mean, I've been saying this for my past 3 or 4 posts and you are still running around, saying that it's amazing the games that use Source Engine, run so well...
Of course they run well. The Source Engine is an old engine. Why wouldn't it run better than the NEW CryEngine 2 ?

And you're also not looking for innovation. Then why complain about Crysis graphics and how they impact performance, if THEY ARE one of key aspects, of the new stuff that Crysis brings to the table ? You make absolutely no sense...If you don't care about innovation, just play with Far Cry's graphics, which is a few options set to medium and others to low and you'll be happy.

And the game is pretty accessible to everyone with an old machine, which is my case. It runs the game quite well, all things considered. Yet the uber high-end rigs that are seen in people's sigs in this thread, can't. Is it because they want to run the game maxed at insanely high resolutions ? No, that can't be...

Oh and Valve didn't use an engine as good as CryEngine 2, simply because they don't have one.

Anyway, If it was HL3, CoD 5 or whatever, that was looking as good as Crysis and performing just like Crysis, I would be here doing the same thing. Being the most beautiful game ever, brings some penalties in how that games runs/performs. That will be fixed as more powerful hardware is out. Right now, one just has to make some compromises, in terms of resolution and/or quality settings,
But no, you and others want it now @ extremely high resolutions, with everything set to max. That or the game sucks, is unoptimized and CoD 4 / Orange Box games are better...

On top of all this, there are also those that complain about Crysis not looking as good, as what was shown in the promotional videos, which makes me laugh even harder.
So they already complain about how it performs, when, in their words, "it doesn't look as good as promotional shots", but they still want those unlocked settings, to get "promotional shot" quality. For what ? To complain even harder on how it performs bad and that Valve, with the Orange Box, is the second coming of Jesus ? It's hilarious really...

Oh well, this thread clearly shows that you really can't please everyone...

 

[lopoetve]

Silus, with everything on medium, at 1152x864 (the lowest res I'll use on a 21" 4:3 screen), I get sub 30fps in many open areas. On top of that, the game looks worse, and plays worse, than the Source engine games. This is on an overclocked BE5000+, 8800GT, and 4gb of ram in DX10 mode.

THATS his point. At playable settings, Source looks better and plays better, crysis looks worse and plays worse. Sure, it can look even better than source can, but it's not even remotely playable there. To get playable settings (25-30fps), you'll have crysis looking pretty poor, and Source looking pretty awesome.

I'm personally putting Crysis on hold till either 1, the engine gets patched to the point it runs better on current hardware, or 2, A gen or two of video cards pass and it's actually really playable at decent-looking settings. The game isn't compelling enough to play at lower settings: I'd rather work on my home-made SAN, or play something else.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

I'm not quoting anyone anymore, because it's too damn long, so this is for you SlimyTadpole:

For the last time, you CAN run Crysis. Stop with your sensationalist posts about how you can't run it. You can run it and you can run it well. You just have to make some compromises, mainly in terms of resolution. If you're too stubborn to acknowledge that, that's your problem.

I can run it, and I can run it OK, on my 8800GTS 640. As can anyone who has an 8800. The other 90% of PC gamers can't.

And you still didn't get it. The way a game LOOKS graphically is directly connected to how well it RUNS. Sorry for the caps, but you don't seem to understand the key words I already said countless times...
A game that looks stunning, will perform worse than a game that just looks good. Is that too hard to understand ?

I already told you, 3 times in fact, that I understand this. Worse performance can be mitigated by expensive hardware, but that's not a choice most people have. Do you understand this?

So that's why Crysis doesn't perform as well as other games, simply because Crysis is on a league of its own, in terms of graphics fidelity.

Yeah. Got that. Just like I did every other time you said it. And that's is why Crysis hasn't turned 100K copies.

Again, I'll make it simple for you:

Better graphics = more demanding to the hardware
Not so good graphics = less demanding to the hardware

I mean, I've been saying this for my past 3 or 4 posts and you are still running around, saying that it's amazing the games that use Source Engine, run so well...

Straw man argument. I never said it's amazing that Source Engine runs so well. In fact, I said it's predictable. Are you even reading my posts?

Of course they run well. The Source Engine is an old engine. Why wouldn't it run better than the NEW CryEngine 2 ?

There's no reason for it to not run better. Already covered this in a previous post.

And you're also not looking for innovation. Then why complain about Crysis graphics and how they impact performance, if THEY ARE one of key aspects, of the new stuff that Crysis brings to the table ?

I'm not complaining about Crysis graphics performance. I'm merely pointing out that that innovation of CryEngine2 puts Crysis out of the reach of a large percentage of the PC game crowd. Nothing more, nothing less.

You make absolutely no sense...If you don't care about innovation, just play with Far Cry's graphics, which is a few options set to medium and others to low and you'll be happy.

Actually, that's what I ended up having to do. Started playing on all-high, 1280x960, 2xAA. By the end of the game, I was at 1024x768, no AA, medium settings across the board. That's with an 8800GTS 640mb, which is a hell of a lot more GPU than most people have, regardless of what you may read in [H] forum signatures.

And the game is pretty accessible to everyone with an old machine, which is my case. It runs the game quite well, all things considered.

then you are the exception.

Yet the uber high-end rigs that are seen in people's sigs in this thread, can't. Is it because they want to run the game maxed at insanely high resolutions ? No, that can't be...

Again, I don't care about the uber rigs. We're talking about the game being inaccessable to the masses. The masses aren't running uber rigs. The masses aren't running 8800s. The masses don't spend more than $150 on a video card.

Oh and Valve didn't use an engine as good as CryEngine 2, simply because they don't have one.

And they don't have one yet because they don't need one to sell games.

Anyway, If it was HL3, CoD 5 or whatever, that was looking as good as Crysis and performing just like Crysis, I would be here doing the same thing. Being the most beautiful game ever, brings some penalties in how that games runs/performs.

Now we're communicating! Yes, it brings penalties. Penalties that many people either can't make, or don't feel they should have to.

That will be fixed as more powerful hardware is out.

And when that hardware arrives, I'll be willing to say that CryEngine2's time has arrives. Not before then.

Right now, one just has to make some compromises, in terms of resolution and/or quality settings, But no, you and others want it now @ extremely high resolutions, with everything set to max.

No, we don't. As I, and others, have plainly said time and again, in this very thread.

Oh well, this thread clearly shows that you really can't please everyone...

No, you can't. That's what I've been trying to point out. You can either please the eye-candy crowd, who are running around with latest-gen hardware, or appeal to the wider audience, most of whom have never dropped more than $150 on a graphics card. Crytek chose to appeal to the former, and Valve to the latter. In terms of selling a lot of copies, (the point of this thread, if you recall), Valve's Source Engine proved the better engine. If you want to start a thread about eye-candy, I'll be happy to post in it how CryEngine 2 is the better engine.

 

[Silus]

Those updates Valve chose to implement did run on the masses' computers. Valve even chose to use int based HDR instead of floating point HDR so it could run on all DX9 computers (which at the time was what most people had). That's just another example of Valve's business model.

Yeah, I know. Valve is great and Crytek sucks...

Which does a lot of good on my 1920x1200 LCD.

God forbid you lower your resolution...

I don't. I want a game that can look as good as possible while still maintaining decent performance. By your logic an engine with a ray tracing lighting system that's superiror to all other lighting systems would be the "best" engine ever even if it didn't perform well on any computer. There's a reason why no developer uses ray tracing. And once you figure out that reason, you'll know why Crysis didn't sell well.

Yes, that's right. Excellent, excellent example... Because Crysis doesn't run on any machine...

I give up...

 

[phide]

That's why [Valve doesn't] add features like DX 10, super advanced physics, etc (it's not because they are lazy ); why add it if hardly anyone can take advantage of it?

Yep, Valve is far from lazy...just selective. They typically prioritize features based on their processing demands and how they can be utilized by typical PC owners. Look at the facial animation system, for example. It's the most advanced facial animation system yet seen in a game engine, yet uses few resources to achieve its goal. Rather than using advanced rendering techniques like subsurface scattering to make the human face seem more visually catching, Valve uses another, less intensive technique to create believable characters.

You just have to make some compromises, mainly in terms of resolution.

That's a serious compromise. Let's not forget also that AA and AF are things people like us want to keep at respectable levels (say 4x and 8x respectively), and we really can't take advantage of those unless we drop Crysis down to Medium or a mix of Medium and Low settings. I haven't played Crysis at Medium-Low settings, but I'd guess that I'd find HL2, Portal or TF2 more visually satisfying at the Very High settings offered by those games. That also gives me room to jack up AA and AF, which I completely maxed during my playthrough of EP2. AA just fills me with glee.

This is really just a matter of preference. I'd rather developers strive for reasonable hardware targets than overshoot the way that Crytek does (and id does too, to some degree). You can have your own preference, and that's fine.

And you still didn't get it. The way a game LOOKS graphically is directly connected to how well it RUNS.

Isn't always quite that easy. Look at, say, Morrowind, which frequently drops down to the sub-30's on my Ultra in some limited cases, and that game's about as visually stunning as UT2003 (and not even that good). Granted, that's an extreme example, but there are others. The point is that it's not always so clearly black and white.

Of course they run well. The Source Engine is an old engine. Why wouldn't it run better than the NEW CryEngine 2 ?

You're making the same mistake countless others do: you're evaluating the performance of engines based upon the games that use them. That's no kind of metric.

Crysis runs at the frame rates it does because it's Crysis, and not so much because it's built upon a different foundation than HL2 is built upon. You get 27fps in Scene X in Crysis because it has this many trees, this many characters with this many polygons and so on and so forth.

HL2 is a less-complex game that runs on Source while Crysis is a more complex game that runs on CryEngine 2. That doesn't mean that Source 'runs' any better or any worse than CryEngine 2.

Oh and Valve didn't use an engine as good as CryEngine 2, simply because they don't have one.

Who are you to decide which engine is better than another? Is CryEngine 2 better suited to the types of games Valve is making than Source?

The "best" engine is the one that's best suited to the developer's goals for a given title.

Oh well, this thread clearly shows that you really can't please everyone...

The really amusing thing is when others are offended that some individuals don't share their viewpoints. Wherever you stand on the "Crysis fence", there's no denying that it's being ritualistically shoved down our throats by fanboyism until we concede to admitting that we like it

 

[FunkeyPunk]

am running Crysis on 8800gts, e6600 @2.4 and 2 gig ram and at those specs Crysis still looks better than any game i have played so far.

Yup im gonna have to agree with that, game looks great on my rig

 

[SlimyTadpole]

Yeah, I know. Valve is great and Crytek sucks...

Why do you keep trying to turn this into a fanboy debate? No one is saying Crytek sucks. Both Crytek and Valve had the choice of making a game accessible to the masses, of making a game that pushed the envelope. Valve when the former, Crytek went with the latter. Neither decision was wrong, or bad. But on the criteria upon which this thread is based (number of games sold, if you recall), the latter wins out.

God forbid you lower your resolution...

I with an 8800GTS 640Mb card, had to lower it to 1024x768, medium, with no AA, to get through the carrier. At that point, it looked worse than any scene in HL2. Not HL2:Ep2. HL2. How much lower should the 7800 owners go?

 

[Silus]

This is my last post in this thread, because some of you just complain for the sake of complaining. You can run the game fine, but since you can't max it, then the game sucks. So here's what I want to say for the last time:

I can run it, and I can run it OK, on my 8800GTS 640. As can anyone who has an 8800. The other 90% of PC gamers can't.

I beg to differ, because I'm in those 90% of gamers.

I already told you, 3 times in fact, that I understand this. Worse performance can be mitigated by expensive hardware, but that's not a choice most people have. Do you understand this?

Yeah. Got that. Just like I did every other time you said it. And that's is why Crysis hasn't turned 100K copies.

No you didn't, that's why you keep coming back to the same point. And Orange Box is NOT a PC exclusive. Point me the Orange Box PC sales and then we can talk.

Straw man argument. I never said it's amazing that Source Engine runs so well. In fact, I said it's predictable. Are you even reading my posts?

You know very well what I meant by that. You didn't use amazing, but you praised it enough, even if you acknowledge that the Source Engine is old and can't possibly be compared to CryEngine 2.

There's no reason for it to not run better. Already covered this in a previous post.

So why insist on using he damn Source Engine as an example against CryEngine 2 ? Again, you make no sense....

I'm not complaining about Crysis graphics performance. I'm merely poining out that that innovation of CryEngine2 puts Crysis out of the reach of a large percentage of the PC game crowd. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can only laugh at this. You're not complaining about Crysis graphics performance ?! That's all you've been saying...

But you don't seem to understand is that there is more to a graphics engine than what it is capable of, graphically. If that was all that matters, then yes, CryEngine 2 is the best engine out there. But that's not all that matters. There is also the issue of how well it runs on the hardware of people who are buying games.

And this one too

You're right: I'm only criticizing it based on how it performs

So how are you NOT complaining on graphics performance ? It doesn't perform that good, due to the amazing graphics it provides. So graphics performance is the problem for you, but now you're not complaining about graphics performance ? You contradict yourself in every post you make...
It's the very same graphics performance, that hurts those 90% you so eagerly use and you're not complaining about graphics performance...

Actually, that's what I ended up having to do. Started playing on all-high, 1280x960, 2xAA. By the end of the game, I was at 1024x768, no AA, medium settings across the board. That's with an 8800GTS 640mb, which is a hell of a lot more GPU than most people have, regardless of what you may read in [H] forum signatures.

It's really amazing how I can run it @ 1024x768, no AA, medium settings across the board, except for shaders and textures, which are set to high and it's very playable, considering my aging system. I guess I don't need to upgrade, since I can beat a system equipped with a GTS 640...

then you are the exception.

Seems like it.

Again, I don't care about the uber rigs. We're talking about the game being inaccessable to the masses. The masses aren't running uber rigs. The masses aren't running 8800s. The masses don't spend more than $150 on a video card.

You can get a X1950 Pro or a 8600 GT/GTS for something around that price, and they play it better than my aging 7800 GTX. There goes 60% of your 90% user base...

And they don;t have one yet because they don't need one to sell games.

You're right. They don't need to, but it would be nice to see innovations like what they did in the first HL. But with Valve, that's wishful thinking I guess...

Now we're communicating! Yes, it brings penalties. Penalties that many people either can't make, or don't feel they should have to.

They don't feel they should have to ?!? Then go ahead and don't buy the game. Don't like it or don't like how it performs, don't buy it. Problem solved.

And when that hardware arrives, I'll be willing to say that CryEngine2's time has arrives. Not before then.

Fair enough. When that time arrives, I'll be on my second, third of forth run through Crysis, actually enjoying the game, instead of complaining about graphics performance. Oh right, you never did complain about graphics performance...

No, you can't. That's what I've been trying to point out. You can either please the eye-candy crowd, who are running around with latest-gen hardware, or appeal to the wider audience, most of whom have never dropped more than $150 on a graphics card. Crytek chose to appeal to the former, and Valve to the latter. In terms of selling a lot of copies, (the point of this thread, if you recall), Valve's Source Engine proved the better engine. If you want to start a thread about eye-candy, I'll be happy to post in it how CryEngine 2 is the better engine.

No need. That's pretty much settled I guess. But that's what gets me. If you understand that CryEngine 2 is superior in every way, why can't you understand that that superiority, actually means some penalties in terms of performance, with CURRENT hardware, which will be mitigated, when new hardware arrives, as always happened, in the gaming industry. Oblivion and FEAR, being two of the most recent examples, of games that pushed the current hardware of that time, beyond its limits.

Crysis is no different. You and others like you, still fail to understand that. And I'm off!

 

[phide]

I can only laugh at this. You're not complaining about Crysis graphics performance ?! That's all you've been saying...You contradict yourself in every post you make...

He criticized its performance, he wasn't complaining about it. There's no contradiction there within the scope of the context.

If you understand that CryEngine 2 is superior in every way, why can't you understand that that superiority, actually means some penalties in terms of performance, with CURRENT hardware, which will be mitigated, when new hardware arrives, as always happened, in the gaming industry.

He never said "in every way". He said that, when it comes down to eye candy, he'll beat the Crysis drum. Why do you feel the need to resort to spinning?

 

[Silus]

Ok need to eat my words of the previous post, about it being my last post, just to answer this one.

Yep, Valve is far from lazy...just selective. They typically prioritize features based on their processing demands and how they can be utilized by typical PC owners. Look at the facial animation system, for example. It's the most advanced facial animation system yet seen in a game engine, yet uses few resources to achieve its goal. Rather than using advanced rendering techniques like subsurface scattering to make the human face seem more visually catching, Valve uses another, less intensive technique to create believable characters.

And that's great. I never said otherwise, except for the fact that I consider them lazy and you think they're selective. You pick your words and I'll pick mine.

That's a serious compromise. Let's not forget also that AA and AF are things people like us want to keep at respectable levels (say 4x and 8x respectively), and we really can't take advantage of those unless we drop Crysis down to Medium or a mix of Medium and Low settings. I haven't played Crysis at Medium-Low settings, but I'd guess that I'd find HL2, Portal or TF2 more visually satisfying at the Very High settings offered by those games. That also gives me room to jack up AA and AF, which I completely maxed during my playthrough of EP2. AA just fills me with glee.

This is really just a matter of preference. I'd rather developers strive for reasonable hardware targets than overshoot the way that Crytek does (and id does too, to some degree). You can have your own preference, and that's fine.

And as an enthusiast myself, I agree with that. But Crysis is NOT as simplistic looking as TF2, Portal or HL2 Episode 2. Current hardware can't keep up, because it's the cutting edge of graphics. And you know it.
That's fine. You like cartoony games. I strive for realism in visuals, without tampering with gameplay. Different opinions and tastes. No one is wrong.

Isn't always quite that easy. Look at, say, Morrowind, which frequently drops down to the sub-30's on my Ultra in some limited cases, and that game's about as visually stunning as UT2003 (and not even that good). Granted, that's an extreme example, but there are others. The point is that it's not always so clearly black and white.

And you clearly quoted the wrong person. I already said in this very same thread, that to code a game as graphically stunning as Crysis, you can't expect to run at extremely high resolutions, maxed out and expect smooth gameplay. It's not linear as that, especially when coupled with the current hadrware, which is not exactly new.

You're making the same mistake countless others do: you're evaluating the performance of engines based upon the games that use them. That's no kind of metric.

Crysis runs at the frame rates it does because it's Crysis, and not so much because it's built upon a different foundation than HL2 is built upon. You get 27fps in Scene X in Crysis because it has this many trees, this many characters with this many polygons and so on and so forth.

HL2 is a less-complex game that runs on Source while Crysis is a more complex game that runs on CryEngine 2. That doesn't mean that Source 'runs' any better or any worse than CryEngine 2.

I think you quoted the wrong person again. I've said countless times, that NO ONE should compare the Source Engine to CryEngine 2. It makes no sense, specifically for some of the reasons you mentioned.

Who are you to decide which engine is better than another? Is CryEngine 2 better suited to the types of games Valve is making than Source?

The "best" engine is the one that's best suited to the developer's goals for a given title.

Where exactly was I trying to decide which one is better ? It's obvious though, that CryEngine 2 is superior to Source Engine. It has a whole lot to offer. As to the decision of choosing an engine to use, that's the software houses responsability.

The really amusing thing is when others are offended that some individuals don't share their viewpoints. Wherever you stand on the "Crysis fence", there's no denying that it's being ritualistically shoved down our throats by fanboyism until we concede to admitting that we like it

You overshot the point I was making by thousands of miles. Why ? Because you're assuming I'm defending Crysis or Crytek. I'm not. As I said before, I would do the same if it was HL3, CoD 5 or any game that pushed the boundaries of graphics fidelity, while providing an excellent gameplay experience (IMO) and performing not so good. That's the price of innovation and it's also what makes this software / hardware duality, move. If you think that's fanboyism, I don't care and it may very well be it. But it's not towards a game or company. It's towards tech evolution.

 

[Slade]

I think this thread is spiraling out of control, both UT3 and Crysis are good games, but because of a combination of hype, poor business execution, and unrealized expectations, they are pretty much failures when compared to other titles.

A game can't just be all graphics, Doom 3 should have been a lesson well learned to the industry, but was ignored by the Crysis team. Using the excuse that no hardware today can play it well ahem correction they implied the opposite is already a large problem. Even the behind the counter people at EB Games where I got my copy asked me if I knew that I may not be able to run Crysis well with a standard PC. As far as my sig goes, my PC isn't the standard, but it isn't the extreme either. If that's the general thinking of "behind the counter" drones, then you can only imagine the concept of the game to the sparse public aware of Crysis's existence. We had one forum member trying to sell us on how great Crysis is, but newsflash MOST of us here already bought, played AND beat the damn game already. Who's try to convince who of what now?

My thoughts on UT3's execution stems from the, I think 2004 was better crowd. Other than the improvement in graphics, the dumbing down of playmodes to the frustrating large CTF maps (I played a few demo matches to only get to combat to fire a few rounds only to be killed by an errant driver!~) made me feel 2004 was better.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

This is my last post in this thread, because some of you just complain for the sake of complaining. You can run the game fine, but since you can't max it, then the game sucks.

Straw man argument. No one is is saying that the game sucks because they can't max the engine. They are saying the game is inaccessible to a large audience because it's engine is demanding.

I beg to differ, because I'm in those 90% of gamers.

And you're the exception. I know of no one in my office (includes 12 avid PC game players) that was capable of running this on anything less than an 8800, without turning the graphics down so low that it didn't look good.

No you didn't, that's why you keep coming back to the same point.

Yes, I did. You keep brining up the fact that a better engine performs worse, yet you can't understand that that's not an option for most people. When you're running a GPU that's just enough to make a game look good (Source Engine), then moving to an Engine that make the game look jaw-dropping isn't an option.

And Orange Box is NOT a PC exclusive. Point me the Orange Box PC sales and then we can talk.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but since you're the one who want them, why don't you look them up? I'm not doing your homework for you.

But if you think that Orange Box's PC sales are anywhere near as low as Crysis, I don't know what to tell you.

You know very well what I meant by that. You didn't use amazing, but you praised it enough,

I know exactly what I meant by it, and I've been crystal clear about why I've praised it. But I'll repeat myself in the hopes that you get it this time: I praised it for being the right tool for the job. It looked good enough for a 2007 release, without shutting out a large segment of the PC game crowd in the process.

even if you acknowledge that the Source Engine is old and can't possibly be compared to CryEngine 2.

I can compare the two. Source Engine is a step down from CryEngine 2 in terms of capabilities. But it's also performs satisfactorily on most hardware.

So why insist on using he damn Source Engine as an example against CryEngine 2 ?

Because Source Engine runs satisfactorily on more machines.

Again, you make no sense....

Just because you refuse to understand that a more powerful engine isn't always the right tool for the job dosn''t mean I'm not making sense.

I can only laugh at this. You're not complaining about Crysis graphics performance ?! That's all you've been saying...

I'm not complaining about crysis graphics performance. I'm merely pointing out that "better graphics = more demanding to the hardware", and that's not a sacrifice that many people can make, because their systems are already taxed by "good" graphics.

So how are you NOT complaining on graphics performance ? It doesn't perform that good, due to the amazing graphics it provides. So graphics performance is the problem for you,

It's a minor problem for me (carrier level and alien ship). But it's insurmountable by anyone who doesn't have cutting edge hardware.

but now you're not complaining about graphics performance ? You contradict yourself in every post you make...

I'll be as clear as I can: I'm not saying that CryEngine is bad. It's performance is worse than Source Engine, but it brings more to the table. But that perfomance hit is something that most people can't afford.

I'm not saying CryEngine is bad because it performs worse than Source. I am saying that it will keep Crysis out of the hands of a lot of gamers.

No contradictions here.

It's the very same graphics performance, that hurts those 90% you so eagerly use and you're not complaining about graphics performance...

I'm not complaining that it hurts that 90%. It's not a complaint. It's an acknowledgment. Somebody has to push the envelope. It's a good thing that someone is trying to take graphical capabilities to a new level. If your goal is to knock people's socks off, CryEngine 2 accomplishes that. But f you goal is to sell a game to a ton of people, CryEngine 2 isn't going to do it. Not yet. Not in 2007.

It's really amazing how I can run it @ 1024x768, no AA, medium settings across the board, except for shaders and textures, which are set to high and it's very playable, considering my aging system. I guess I don't need to upgrade, since I can beat a system equipped with a GTS 640...

Yes, quite amazing indeed

You can get a X1950 Pro or a 8600 GT/GTS for something around that price, and they play it better than my aging 7800 GTX. There goes 60% of your 90% user base...

Keep in mind that most people don't constantly upgrade their cards. They upgrade when they get their new PC every few years. So yes, as people upgrade their systems, and buy their new x1950, or 8600GT/GTS (or 8800GT if they leave extra cookies out for Santa) more people will be able to play Crysis.

They don't feel they should have to ?!? Then go ahead and don't buy the game. Don't like it or don't like how it performs, don't buy it. Problem solved.

Um, yeah. That's kind of what we're discussing. We're talking about why people didn't buy the game.

No need. That's pretty much settled I guess. But that's what gets me. If you understand that CryEngine 2 is superior in every way, why can't you understand that that superiority, actually means some penalties in terms of performance, with CURRENT hardware, which will be mitigated, when new hardware arrives, as always happened, in the gaming industry.

I can accept that. All of that. And I have said as much before. That's what gets me. You acknowledge there's a performance hit, but you can't seem to understand that the performance hit is not something that many people can take on their current hardware. Right now. Not a year from now. Not 6 months from now. We're not talking about which engine is more powerful. We're talking about why Crysis, as of now, hasn't sold 100K copies.

 

[phide]

That's fine. You like cartoony games.

I wouldn't describe HL2 or Portal as cartoony. More imaginative, yes, and less visually realistic, but certainly not cartoony. TF2 is obviously quite cartoony, but that doesn't mean that, visually, it's any worse off than Crysis, as it needs less complexity to achieve visually appealing scenes. There are different goals there.

I think you quoted the wrong person again. I've said countless times, that NO ONE should compare the Source Engine to CryEngine 2. It makes no sense, specifically for some of the reasons you mentioned.

No, you were indeed directly comparing the two engines in terms of performance:

Of course they run well. The Source Engine is an old engine. Why wouldn't it run better than the NEW CryEngine 2 ?

I don't think an engine's age really determines anything. One might guess that an older engine might be more "refined", but it's just as likely that it's "fallen out of fashion" in terms of not newer methods of doing things more efficiently. Given the fact that Source keeps getting extended, rather than being rebuilt from scratch each iteration, I'd guess that it's actually somewhat worse off in terms of 'efficiency' (maybe).

Where exactly was I trying to decide which one is better ? It's obvious though, that CryEngine 2 is superior to Source Engine.

Right here:

Oh and Valve didn't use an engine as good as CryEngine 2, simply because they don't have one.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on the concept that CryEngine 2 is really superior to Source. In some respects, it is. The sound engine is obviously much more robust (yet for running on FMOD, still not that much so), but I don't know what else I'd describe as being superior. Physics, probably, but only in terms of environmental type stuff: wind affecting particles and so on. I'd guess that the toolset is rather archaic, but I haven't looked at it much, either. I honestly don't have enough experience with either to make any kind of judgment about it. Everything I know about both engines is just what's exposed to me on the surface through playing games that use them, and that's far less than half of the "total picture".

I think you're using Crysis as some sort of benchmark for CryEngine 2, however. It certainly isn't that difficult to make every object cast shadow maps, or to use a shader to simulate leaves rustling, or a shader to cast a distorting texture map on the sea floor (or whatever). It isn't as if these functionalities can't be executed in Source without much difficulty and without really having to extend the platform. For a good deal of it, it's simply a matter of writing compatible shaders -- something any game developer is going to have to do a lot of regardless.

You overshot the point I was making by thousands of miles. Why ? Because you're assuming I'm defending Crysis or Crytek. I'm not.

Nah. I was just pointing out how rampant the pro-Crysis agenda is here, and I didn't mean to make it seem like I was lumping you in that bunch.

 

[crewzen]

I'm a little slo and wait at least 6 months before I try something new. Then when I need to upgrade my computer to play it on my 30" monitor I will wait longer or never try it at all.

I could try it on my wifes 28" monitor but it isn't for games.

 

[BladeVenom]

Crysis was a sales success.

EA had expected 60,000 sales in November, instead they sold 86,000. That 40% better than expected.

The game topped the charts in the Germany

http://www.gamedrone.net/2007/12/18/the-american-sales-debacle/

 

[TheNuker]

Oh my, this thread became unreadable with this quoting spree. It seems every thread around here gets ruined by this kind of habit.

Anyway, it's like it's been said already. Too much hype and way too much effort put into graphics instead of gameplay, just like Doom3.

 

[Big D.]

double post, sorry

 

[Big D.]

Tried UT3 demo, didnt like it. So no buy.
Can't run Crysis on my machine. So no buy.

Probably how it goes for most people so hence low sales? lol

Cod2 and Oblivion ran badly and sold millions.

For UT3 I blame Epic for not releasing a Warfare demo. People still play the UT2004 demo TODAY because Onslaught has such great replayability (even with just 1 map in the demo). UT3 had freaking deathmatch and CTF...why not a Warfare map?

I doubt most people even realize UT3 is more than just about deathmatch. Warfare is its main mode. It's like taking the vehicles, large maps and flags from BF2 and making it a demo expecting to advertise your full game. Of course people will think it's not too fun. That was by far their worst move.

Also, listen to this man and read this article:

Crysis was a sales success.

EA had expected 60,000 sales in November, instead they sold 86,000. That 40% better than expected.
http://www.gamedrone.net/2007/12/18/the-american-sales-debacle/
Midway opted to promote it’s mediocre shooter Blacksite Area 51 for multiple platforms, but not it’s star, PC-oriented, title Unreal Tournament 3 - which actually didn’t receive any advertising whatsoever.

 

[lopoetve]

Cod2 and Oblivion ran badly and sold millions.
e:

They were both awesome games, that's why.

 

[eeyrjmr]

BooHooHoo serves them both for being arrogant
Crysis hyped themselves up too much stating DX10 gonna be great

In practice.... not that impressive (yer ok gamewise personal preference)

UT3 made a MASSIVE mistake is making it so consoles & PC can play together, this ment that the gameplay had to be gimped to the lowest common denominator.. console players, completely removing part of the gameplay that made UT2004 and others great!!!

Neither are that innovative and are just re-spins of old gameplay with better gfx

 

[WesM63]

This is a tough one for Crytek and Epic.

I own Crysis, played it for 4-5hrs maybe, didn't finish the game, just went back to playing TF2. There was just something about it that didn't keep me interested. It was fun, don't get me wrong, but it just didn't keep me entertained enough to keep playing.

I skipped UT3 because I need a game with a SP and MP. I play through SP first to get the hang of the game then move onto MP. I lost interest in the UT series after 2k3. I did however ask for it for Christmas, so I may still get to try it.


On TF2 being cartoony. I thought so as well, at first. After playing it, its not as bad as most expect.

 

[pigpen]

For people with anything other than the latest gen Hardware, Far Cry is going to look better at playable Frame Rates than Crysis does. That's unacceptable.

UT3 just flat out sucks. No offense to those of you who enjoy it, but it was a major major let down for me. Everything from graphics, to gameplay, to non-existent ingenuity.

That they are surprised by sales does not surprise me. Both were relying more on hype to push numbers than the actual content. I'm sure both are now going to use it as an excuse to get out of PC games and move completely to consoles. If so, peace out. Hopefully a couple developers who actually care about the content will take their spots and make a ton of dough in what should be a very lucrative market.

 

[BladeVenom]

UT3 made a MASSIVE mistake is making it so consoles & PC can play together, this ment that the gameplay had to be gimped to the lowest common denominator.. console players, completely removing part of the gameplay that made UT2004 and others great!!!

They can't play together, and the console version is 20% slower.

 

[TheGooch69]

COD4 could of been an online game only and I would still pay $50 for it. Multiplayer is just amazing.

 

[Roufuss]

Wouldn't be surprised if Call of Duty 5 went back to being console exclusive again.

There are no official number, but I doubt it came anywhere near 1.66 million... I would wager it only did marginally better than the PS3 version, probably around 80k if that. And as the PS3 gets a bigger userbase, the PS3 will probably outsell the PC too.

But is anyone really surprised? Look how many PC gamers boycott games for the silliest of reasons, and then are pissed when developers don't bother to put games on the PC, or just put a shitty port on there because sales will be weak either way.

Yea, The Witcher sold a million, but I'm sure it was worldwide, and The Witcher is apparently popular in Europe.

UT 3 was hyped, big time, in PC Gamer and other publications that covered PC stuff, same with Crysis... I mean, shit, Mass Effect came out the same time as a ton of other awesome games and still sold great, so nobody can just say "Oh, they came out at the wrong time".

This was supposed to be PC's big year but for many dev's and pub's it was a disaster. Shit, Crysis on the 360 would have probably sold 85k the first day rather then the first 15 days... 85k isn't that good when you think that sales go way down after the first two weeks, Crysis barely breaking 100k for all the work gone into it isn't that good at all. When it comes out for the 360, and you better believe it will now, it'll blow the PC one away sales wise, and we'll see less and less PC games in the future.

I love PC games, but I didn't touch Crysis or UT 3 at all... Crysis just didn't interest me, and nobody is playing UT 3. I went for CoD 4 instead (well, gonna get it for xmas), and I'm still playing TF 2. I guess, if anything, if you're putting out an FPS in this day and age it better be amazing for it to sell well. Or just be on a console.

 

[eeyrjmr]

... I guess, if anything, if you're putting out an FPS in this day and age it better be amazing for it to sell well. Or just be on a console.

and how long before console players get annoyed with the same-old same-old? one maybe two more knock outs of the same stuff

Do you think a Halo-4 will be any good? if it follows the same recipe


game-houses have to get it in their heads that gamers are not just gonna spend their money because they pay some reviewer to say its good (or fire negative reviewers )

 

[Big D.]

UT3 just flat out sucks. [...] That they are surprised by sales does not surprise me. Both were relying more on hype to push numbers than the actual content.

Actually, they relied ONLY on hype because the publishers didn't advertise them.

Imagine if Nike had never made an commercial on TV. Would anyone be wearing Nike?

UT 3 was hyped, big time, in PC Gamer and other publications that covered PC stuff, same with Crysis... I mean, shit, Mass Effect came out the same time as a ton of other awesome games and still sold great, so nobody can just say "Oh, they came out at the wrong time".

Mass Effect didn't come out on the PC, and also it had tons of advertising money thrown at it, unlike Crysis and UT3.

You guys should really read about these things...The Area 51 game which got shit reviews sold much better than most recent PC games (which got great reviews). Also, its publisher ran ads for it all over, even though the game sucked, just because it was a console game...yet ran NO ADS for UT3 (the better game)...coincidence? Do you think it sold more because it was a better game?

People only buy the products they hear about. That's all there is to it. If all the mainstream console kids saw any gameplay from Crysis on TV they would have pissed themselves and bought at least a million copies (had it been aimed at console "gamers").

 

[oqvist]

Crysis was great optimized for even slower computers.... The problem is people doesn´t check the visuals they check at what settings they run...

You have an 8800 GTX and think wow I will max this out like every other title... What the heck only medium settings? It still looks way better then say COD 4 but medium settings? The game is poorly optimized for my e-penus

Only joking but I don´t think I was the only one tweaking the title for a week to get it playable at very high settings. I managed to get almost all out of Crysis with my 3,6 Core 2 Duo and 8800 GTX actually. It looks so much better then COD I can tell you that run at 150 fps...

I also ran medium and guess what it still looks better then COD 4 maxed out with 16x aniso and 16xaa vs 0xaa and 4x aniso for Crysis.
You have to look what kind of image quality you get rather then starring blind on what settings...

I do believe that all this hype has boost hardware sales but also made more people think my computer won´t run this game or "I wait until I have a computer that can max it out"
Hopefully this won´t mean that Crytek will go for the "everyone will max this out" route next time...

Sad though because it´s not even really ugly at low settings it scales down very well.
As for UT 3 I think it´s mostly because everyone thinks it´s the same essentially and it got out after everyone already got Mass Effect, Assassins Creed etc...

 

[Roufuss]

Mass Effect didn't come out on the PC, and also it had tons of advertising money thrown at it, unlike Crysis and UT3.

You guys should really read about these things...The Area 51 game which got shit reviews sold much better than most recent PC games (which got great reviews). Also, its publisher ran ads for it all over, even though the game sucked, just because it was a console game...yet ran NO ADS for UT3 (the better game)...coincidence? Do you think it sold more because it was a better game?

People only buy the products they hear about. That's all there is to it. If all the mainstream console kids saw any gameplay from Crysis on TV they would have pissed themselves and bought at least a million copies (had it been aimed at console "gamers").

The point is that Mass Effect was coming out in more of a crowded arena than any of these PC games were, and RPG's don't tend to do good on the 360 in the first place, so any excuse of "XXXX game just released at the wrong time" is bullshit. If the game is good, it will sell good numbers, end of story. To say "Maybe UT 3 came out at a bad time" is pretty lame, because if the game was awesome, it would still make decent sales, like any other game that was a top seller for November.

That's always the excuse that is used when a game that is supposed to do good ends up doing poorly. UT 3 just wasn't as good as Epic promised, it got shitty sales, end of story. Of course a console game sold more than a PC game, because every 360 can play Area 51, yet about 10% of all the computers out there could run Crysis decently, and about half of that 10% of people probably just pirated it, and another 3% just didn't bother to get the game.

Yea, Crysis would have done much better on the 360, every game will always do much better on a console simply because of ease of use. The average joe doesn't want to spend an hour getting Crysis up and running only for it to look nothing like screenshots / back of the bob / some commercial simply because their PC can't hack it.

 

[Frosteh]

One thing to note here is that Crytek and Epic both made new ENGINES, and using them engines powered games which are amongst the earliest games to use the new engines.

The engines are built to be sold to other developers who want to create game content but don't want to have to write their own engine, in this respect the game engine has to be way ahead of it's time simply because it's going to power the companies revenue over the coming years, you don't want people buying your engine for a year and then giving up, you want them, to be buying your engine for 3-4 years because it can still power games that look good on newer hardware.

As a matter of fact, Crysis was the first game to use the new Crytek engine and as such looks the best, it runs no where near max settings even with the very best hardware, and we already know that there are components of the engine which simply aren't present in Crysis, most likely due to how badly they would run.

UT3 is a different story, there has actually been several games powered by the new Unreal engine, the engine is older than Cryteks and as such the game has a lower graphical fidelity and runs quite a lot better.

Epic will make way more money from licencing their engine over the coming years to other game developers than they will ever make from UT3, It's hard to say if the same holds true for Crytek since their a much younger team with less proven results from past engines, typically epics engines are used a LOT.

The whole "I'm not going to buy a game because I can't max out the graphics" is quite frankly retarded, the Crytek engine is really well optimised and displays some really outstanding graphical scenes with a high graphical fidelity, the only reason most people cannot run this game at max settings is because it's been built future proof so that the engine is capable of not only powering todays games but the next generation games as well. When money is involved you build things to last, it just makes financial sense.

 

[oqvist]

Roufuss Crysis can´t be made on the 360... and ease of use? You don´t have to tweak but you will be fighting with the controls instead... the physics, AI, graphics everything need to be dumbed down and then the question is would it sell? Since the strong points of Crysis isn´t it´s story it´s the gameplay and there the environment, physics, AI everything plays together.

It´s not like Half Life 2 that have below average gameplay, dumb AI, weapons you have seen 10 times before, not much action but people like the journey anyway

 

[Wrench00]

Don't worry boys eventually consoles will destroy PC game market. Actually let me re-phrase that.. Microsoft will kill PC gaming. DX10 is a flop their. Game for Live is bullshit, its buggy and its really to closely retarted looking like coxbox360. I lost my games twice in Gears. I just said fuck it, I gave up uninstalled the game until they fix lost save games bullshit. I am kind of happy microsoft is doing this because once they kill games on the PC, Opensource OS's will have a bigger penetration and MS will just start destroying their bread and butter that the OS is for them. There will be less games and OR they will be multi OS capable. Heck even Apple might make some very big breakthroughs, although I like apple less then MS.

Mark my words in 5 years or so games on the PC will be a dying market. Only MMogs or shity console ports available. You can also kiss player made content goodbye. Microsoft is a business so is Sony both want to make the quickest buck and they don't care if they turn Gaming entertainment into 6 hour 50 dollar experience (whichi is already happening).. Look at EA and lots of game companies. It sad cause most of the popular games NOW have been made popular due to player made content. It seems developers don't really know how to make a game FUN. Ask your self, How many game do you really play, then ask yourself WHERE are the origins/roots for these games?

 

[oqvist]

That is far from the truth. In europe the consoles don´t stand a chance to the PC . And there is also the indie market. Much easier to make games for low budget on PC then on consoles . Talking real games like Aquaria not arcade titles.

PC will always have it´s place as well will the consoles... That is until the consoles are essentially PCs

 

[Roufuss]

Roufuss Crysis can´t be made on the 360... and ease of use? You don´t have to tweak but you will be fighting with the controls instead... the physics, AI, graphics everything need to be dumbed down and then the question is would it sell? Since the strong points of Crysis isn´t it´s story it´s the gameplay and there the environment, physics, AI everything plays together.

It´s not like Half Life 2 that have below average gameplay, dumb AI, weapons you have seen 10 times before, not much action but people like the journey anyway

Crysis itself can't be made on the 360, but I've heard numerous times a Crysis spinoff is headed to 360 / PS3 similar to the Far Cry spinoff's.

It will probably sell three times as good, and by ease of use I mean you put the game in and play, and it looks exactly as advertised for the most part. Casual Joe Gamer doesn't understand why the PC game he just bought looks nothing like what he saw elsewhere, while all console games look the same.

And you honestly think it wouldn't sell? Anything that is an FPS sells on a console, and Crytek and EA will make a Crysis that is tailor made for the next gen systems. Look at how much they pimped out Far Cry.

I mean, I love my PC as much as anyone and always choose PC over anything else first, but if two big name developers are lamenting poor sales on the PC for two huge games, the rest of the industry is going to look at that as a sign to not even bother with the platform anymore. I wish someone, somehow, would get CoD 4's PC numbers to see if they even come anywhere close to the 360's 1.6 million.

 

[Khaydarin]

A possibility came to mind...that people are waiting to buy some games after they upgrade at Christmas. I wouldnt be surprised if game sales (of games that require high requirements) go up after the holidays.