Add Witcher etc, no royalty to Sony or MS, lower dev costs. many have made themselves big on the PC market.. like Crytek..
[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Add Witcher etc, no royalty to Sony or MS, lower dev costs. many have made themselves big on the PC market.. like Crytek..
I don't even know why we are talking about what level of PC is required to exceed the consoles. Whatever level it is, its far more common today than it was when Crysis was originally launched but that didn't stop Crytek then.
Today there are sub $100 GPU's which far exceed consoles, no doubt the install base is lesser than that of the 360/PS3 install base by a large amount but thats not the point is it? The point is that some people expect this unfortunate fact to mean the PC version of Crysis 2 will be compromised.
And no offense to Fran but his earlier comments in this thread seem to confirm that view (i.e. devs would rather not cater to modern menium - high end PC's if that means the content couldn't be seen by console gamers).
Its a downwards spiral that I see no end too. People like shifty are only content with consoles because the devs see no value in leveraging the power of modern PC's because they have a smaller install base. Which in turn reduces the instal base because the PC's advantages are further eroded.
Today there are sub $100 GPU's which far exceed consoles, no doubt the install base is lesser than that of the 360/PS3 install base by a large amount but thats not the point is it? The point is that some people expect this unfortunate fact to mean the PC version of Crysis 2 will be compromised.
And no offense to Fran but his earlier comments in this thread seem to confirm that view (i.e. devs would rather not cater to modern menium - high end PC's if that means the content couldn't be seen by console gamers).
Its a downwards spiral that I see no end too. People like shifty are only content with consoles because the devs see no value in leveraging the power of modern PC's because they have a smaller install base. Which in turn reduces the instal base because the PC's advantages are further eroded.
The HD 2900 far exceeds the graphical capabilities of either console. Which just goes to show how badly the power of PC's is leveraged if you consider that low end!
But the muted success of Crysis meant Crytek have changed tack and are now targetting consoles! If the PC, with it's easier development and lack of licensing fees, was that healthy, why would Crytek take up trying to squeeze their games onto the limited consoles?! Cevat Yerli told us why...
Whether piracy is to blame or not doesn't affect the choice. The reality is console games sell more. So why target a PC space and pour in resources to make the ulitmate game if you're not going to get sales? Doesn't matter if it's because the hardware install base isn't powerful enough, or if people just pirate instead of buy, it all leads to the same thing - PC exclusives aren't making economic sense for some genres.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
But SHifty I wasn't talkig about whether the game will sell better on PC, I was saying that if developed only for PC, it would be a better game. Now that it is being made for the consoles too, it will not recieve the same advancements in gameplay, as it might if it was a PC exclusive.
That is the point of discussion here, I guess.
That is the point of discussion here, I guess.
@ Shifty: Yes, your right. As I said, the install base of PC's capable of exceeding consoles graphically is relatively small.
What i'm saying is that I expect the financial implications of this to result in a compromised game compared to what it would have otherwise been if Crytek had stuck with a PC focussed game like the original. In other words, devs don't care about any PC's with more power than consoles because there are not enough of them - relatively speaking.
Lets not lose sight of the fact though that it doesn't take an unrealistically high end or expensive PC to exceed console capabilities these days though so another game of the originals fidelity would have been well within reach of most PC gamers via only a modest upgrade.
What i'm saying is that I expect the financial implications of this to result in a compromised game compared to what it would have otherwise been if Crytek had stuck with a PC focussed game like the original. In other words, devs don't care about any PC's with more power than consoles because there are not enough of them - relatively speaking.
Lets not lose sight of the fact though that it doesn't take an unrealistically high end or expensive PC to exceed console capabilities these days though so another game of the originals fidelity would have been well within reach of most PC gamers via only a modest upgrade.
You assume 8800 owners will only play WoW? Thats an insanely ridicolous claim!
Nope, that's not what I said. What I said was that most PC gamers play WoW. If 8800s are incredibly common, then they're being used for WoW.
Except Gabe Newell is releasing games day and date with consoles. Does it really matter what people's theories are when the truth is that devs have moved to console? That probably signals the truth more than anything else.
So then what releveance has that to this discussion then? People play different games. People with 8800 also plays retro games.
Moved to multiplatform realeases yes. Same as many former PS3 exclusive devs and 360 exclusive dev houses.
Yeah, precisely. Almost any dev of note these days that doesn't hail from Japan has made a name on PC first. That's essentially my point.
Those aren't terribly good examples. Battlefield's last major entry was console-only, unless you include a free-to-play webbrowser game. AoE (assuming you mean Age of) is dead, Microsoft killed Ensemble after the team created a console-only RTS. Bioshock was a FPS made slower, probably for console controls. Crysis... now console also. The only one still focused on PC are Witcher, Sims and STALKER. And Sims, graphically, is meant to run on PCs that are worse than consoles.
Maybe id will surprise me and show the PC versi on of Rage as the far and away superior version.
The relevance is that claiming the hardcore PC-gaming 'market' is of a given size just because they're capable of playing more advanced games is invalid. That's usually the metric people use to come up with numbers like '400 million gaming-capable PCs' -- while at the same time PC-only devs migrate further and further to gimped multiplatform development.
Which is essentially the problem. It's a downward spiral: how do you justify paying a premium for (highly) superior hardware when your experience is being tailored to match that of console gamers, except maybe with a couple more bells and whistles (when the publisher doesn't relegate the PC port to some 3rd stringer). Unless you're an enthusiast, as clearly you are, you can't.
green.pixel
Veteran
Pircay exists on one of the HD consoles, and it was especially strong on the PS2 too. So that can hardly be an excuse.
The problem seems to be that developers want their games to sell as much as Halo or COD series
, which is quite unreasonable. AFAIK, Crysis sold in more than 1M copiesm, that's 50M+ profit. Not enough maybe ? How much did the Crysis development cost ? Let's make an analogy - how much did KZ2 sell ? How much did the delopment cost ?"If you're making a PC game, make a great PC game and people will buy it" - CD Projekt's Tom Ohle.
^ This is the whole point. The problem with most developers/publishers is that they are never satisfied with the ammount of money they make.
Well, yes, but as Fran said, that's a moot point because you could always wish for a game to be written for higher performance hardware to get a better game. I wish inFamous or Alan Wake were written for the Petaflop roadrunner as they'd be better games, but they won't be, with good reason!
Maybe they're looking at the ratio of piracy to sales, which is what we usually hear about, before the defense chorus of 'you can't establish actual purchasing intent based on piracy' rings out.
The problem seems to be that developers want their games to sell as much as Halo or COD series
That's 50M revenue, and that's before EA, gamestop/valve, logistics/distributors get their cut. And yeah, they want to reach more people.
We don't have either of those numbers. We also don't have Crytek's growth forecasts or sales forecasts. We don't know what they planned on earning. Maybe they were below expectations, even if they turned an actual profit. Is it enough? For you, it is. For the Yerlis, who actually have a say, maybe not so much.
^ This is the whole point. The problem with most developers/publishers is that they are never satisfied with the ammount of money they make.
Damned capitalists.
It's actually beyond 1.5m, as said by EA some year+ ago.
Also seems multiplatform is the trend despite sales and income. MGS next on the plate.
Naturally! It'd be ridiculous to have anything less than multiplat for one of the biggest IPs out there. But in this case, it's not like the game will lose much going from the PS3 to 360 -- maybe the FMV. It's not like the clear downgrade from PC to console.
Who said PC version would have a downgrade?
What? The PC won't downgrade from the console version, unless you're saying that the console version will be equal in features to the PC version, which is in itself a downgrade given PC's vastly superior tech. To make it clear, one would expect better performance out of better technology.
Oh but what says Crysis 2 wont utilise the full potential of the PC hardware out? After all Crysis was playable on low with huge scenery..
L. Scofield
Veteran
Just release Sandbox 3 and I'll be happy
Similar threads
