Crysis coming to the PS3?

[Neb]

Don't know for sure, but it seems as if this interview with Cevat Yerli hasn't been mentioned in this thread, yet:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/10783.html

It's old. But later in the video interview (from around 08:15 min) Cevat Yerli made some interesting statements about future CryEngine 2 licensing and Xbox 360 / PS3 development and so on.

Well from his latest statements it seems like they will work on next-gen consoles titles/multiplatform and skip PS3/xbox360.

This is interesting comment in a interview with Cevat.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198054.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=hot-stories&tag=hot-stories;title;2

GS AU: So does that mean the games of today will be visually as good looking as we can expect to see for the next few years?

CY: For the next two to three years, for sure, yes. There will be some refinements here and there: We [are limited] by the PS3 and 360 hardware, but maybe on the PC we can scale some more. This will bridge the gap to some degree between current and next-gen on the PC without any new code. The possibilities we have are limited right now by the console generations.

GS AU: You've mentioned that the next-gen for Crytek starts in 2009? What does that mean?

CY: What that means is none of it will be visible in a commercial game. We may disclose it at conferences and start licensing beforehand and whatnot. What I mean is we won't see games ship until 2012, because for a next-gen game to ship then, we have to start developing in 2009/10. So we have to start the next-gen now. We are laying the groundwork by researching the fundamentals right now. So we'll start in 2009, probably start disclosing it at conferences in 2010, and 2012 will probably be when the first title ships.

 

[Acert93]

I am sure Epic, id, Crytek, Valve, etc are keeping their eyes on the 2011-2012 window. They saw how Epic made a big splash this gen and I am sure there will be a market for quality engines that tackle some of the issues publishers face (and cram the product down the throat of developers!).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

The Xbox 1 version only ran at medium because it was a 3-year old platform with 733 mhz Pentium and 64 mb of total RAM. Today's consoles currently have much much more parity in relation to gaming PCs than the previous generation did.

No they do not. They had much closer to PC parity AT LAUNCH.

Numbers speak for themselves the GPU's used to obtain 30fps at very high in Crysis is tremendously faster than the GPU sitting in current gen consoles. There is absolutely no contest in terms of raw power. A 8800GTX is more powerful than a RSX+Xenos is combined, not to mention the newest PC GPU's.

consoles do have 1 benefit thought, and that is optimization Everything is optimized to run on a fixed hardware setup, by this achieving more impressive results in relation to hardware power, compared to what PC games can do.
Ofcourse, optimization can only do a little to level the gap when the power of the competition is several orders of magnitude faster.

 

[user542745831]

This interesting comment in a interview with Cevat.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6198054.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=hot-stories&tag=hot-stories;title;2

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, i know about that interview:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1221017&postcount=1112



The interesting part about that old GameTrailers.com interview was, that they were saying, that Crytek hasn't planned to develop Crysis or whatever for PS3 / Xbox 360 and that they want to focus on PC.

But they said, that the CryEngine 2 can be licensed, and that the lincesee will be able to use the engine not only for PC, but for PS3 and Xbox 360, too. And that Crytek will support the licensee. It's all on this video interview (topic begins at around 08:15 mins).

Probably nothing new. But it seemed as if it hasn't been mentioned in this thread .

Well from his latest statements it seems like they will work on next-gen consoles titles/multiplatform and skip PS3/xbox360.

So, what about this: http://www.crytek.com/jobs/frankfurt/ps3-programmer/ ?

Old?

 

[SedentaryJourney]

No they do not. They had much closer to PC parity AT LAUNCH.

Numbers speak for themselves the GPU's used to obtain 30fps at very high in Crysis is tremendously faster than the GPU sitting in current gen consoles. There is absolutely no contest in terms of raw power. A 8800GTX is more powerful than a RSX+Xenos is combined, not to mention the newest PC GPU's.

consoles do have 1 benefit thought, and that is optimization Everything is optimized to run on a fixed hardware setup, by this achieving more impressive results in relation to hardware power, compared to what PC games can do.
Ofcourse, optimization can only do a little to level the gap when the power of the competition is several orders of magnitude faster.

It's not a straight-up GPU to GPU comparison. The consoles have different memory architectures and yes, less memory. It's also not a level playing field on the CPU side; to the advantage of the consoles I should note. Despite all this PCs and consoles are probably more similar than they've ever been, to the point where the line between PC and console development is blurring.

 

[Neb]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, i know about that interview:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1221017&postcount=1112

The interesting part about that old GameTrailers.com interview was, that they were saying, that Crytek hasn't planned to develop Crysis or whatever for PS3 / Xbox 360 and that they want to focus on PC.

But they said, that the CryEngine 2 can be licensed, and that the lincesee will be able to use the engine not only for PC, but for PS3 and Xbox 360, too. And that Crytek will support the licensee. It's all on this video interview (topic begins at around 08:15 mins).

Probably nothing new. But it seemed as if it hasn't been mentioned in this thread .

Yeah I think it was back at '05 they said it was built with console support in mind to (CryEngine 2).

So, what about this: http://www.crytek.com/jobs/frankfurt/ps3-programmer/ ?

Old?

Yeah they listed that some year(s) ago. It might be that their priorities have changed. But someone able to handle the PS3 should do good for the PS4. After all it would be strange if they said "searching for PS4 dev"!

 

[pjbliverpool]

It's also not a level playing field on the CPU side; to the advantage of the consoles I should note.

Umm, no.

Xenon is not at all in the same league as the average dual core CPU, nevermind the quads.

Cell has some advantages of course but it also has some hefty disadvantages. And its questionable as to what Cells advantages can offer in a gaming environment when facing a system with a more traditional CPU and more powerful/capable GPU.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It's not a straight-up GPU to GPU comparison. The consoles have different memory architectures and yes, less memory.

In this case it pretty much is.

It's also not a level playing field on the CPU side; to the advantage of the consoles I should note. Despite all this PCs and consoles are probably more similar than they've ever been, to the point where the line between PC and console development is blurring.

The Xenos is slower than todays quad-cores.

The Cell is rather fast in theory, but i have to ask one question:
so what? Even thought the Cell is fast, its still a cpu. This really only comes down to memory and graphics processor.

What do you want to do with the cpu power in this case? You certainly cannot make up for the dramatic loss in graphic power in terms of presentation.

The cell is fast at rendering graphics compared to a cpu, its dog slow compared to a gpu. The cell is at best comparable with a geforce 6800, which is 10-20x slower than a current gen high end card.

Its really a clear shut case.

You simply cannot make up for the lack in memory, bandwidth, and graphics processing power, certainly not when the only thing you have to go for you optimization and some cpu power, not in this scenario.

Look at the X360 and the PS3. The Ps3 has all this cpu power, the x360 has a slightly better gpu. They do pretty much the same, the differences are minor at best. A current gaming pc has a significantly better cpu than whats sitting in the X360, a GPU thats easily 2x better at doing anything the Xenos can do and then some, and much more memory. PC gpu's are rather effective, they are streamlined with Direct X etc, if Crysis runs a 8800GTX down its knees, it will certainly trash the ps3 and x360 unless they take a serious hit in graphics compared to high settings (maybe even medium) on the pc. I dunno how you can argue that the neglible cpu power gain is somehow going to make up for the loss in "horsepower"

 

[SedentaryJourney]

The Cell is rather fast in theory, but i have to ask one question:
so what? Even thought the Cell is fast, its still a cpu. This really only comes down to memory and graphics processor.

What do you want to do with the cpu power in this case? You certainly cannot make up for the dramatic loss in graphic power in terms of presentation.

The cell is fast at rendering graphics compared to a cpu, its dog slow compared to a gpu. The cell is at best comparable with a geforce 6800, which is 10-20x slower than a current gen high end card.

Its really a clear shut case.

You simply cannot make up for the lack in memory, bandwidth, and graphics processing power, certainly not when the only thing you have to go for you optimization and some cpu power, not in this scenario.

Look at the X360 and the PS3. The Ps3 has all this cpu power, the x360 has a slightly better gpu. They do pretty much the same, the differences are minor at best. A current gaming pc has a significantly better cpu than whats sitting in the X360, a GPU thats easily 2x better at doing anything the Xenos can do and then some, and much more memory. PC gpu's are rather effective, they are streamlined with Direct X etc, if Crysis runs a 8800GTX down its knees, it will certainly trash the ps3 and x360 unless they take a serious hit in graphics compared to high settings (maybe even medium) on the pc. I dunno how you can argue that the neglible cpu power gain is somehow going to make up for the loss in "horsepower"

First off, I'm not advocating that the $500 consoles of 2005/2006 are on equal footing with today's high-end PC. I simply don't believe they're as antiquated you do, and I think your comparison dismisses certain factors as insignificant when they aren't. For example the CPU is an important factor when you can extend the graphics pipeline onto it and speed up rendering performance. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by GPUs "streamlined with DirectX".

A strict GPU to GPU comparison, which you say is pretty much the case, has the PS3 performing the same as a wintel machine with a 7800. Once again, I'm not so sure.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

For example the CPU is an important factor when you can extend the graphics pipeline onto it and speed up rendering performance.

The CPU is not an important factor when you can extrend the graphics pipeline Not when cpu is so slow at rendering graphics as they are today.

Even if we used everything the cell had of cpu power for rendering graphics and the gpu it has no chance in hell of competing with a current gamer pc. The cell is way to slow to render graphics for that.

CPU power has very little do to with how pretty you can make graphics, there is a reason why we have gpu's. That reason is because GPU's are 50 times more effective at rendering graphics.

The Cell is at best as good as a geforce 6800 at rendering graphics, cpu power is completely insignificant in this scenario, considering how slow a 6800 is to todays gpus.

Just look at the numbers, even theoretical numbers doen't have a chance of matching up, its a case closed scenario, there is no uncertainty here, memory size, bandwidth and gpu power makes the case clear shut

 

[GuestLV]

The Cell is at best as good as a geforce 6800 at rendering graphics, cpu power is completely insignificant in this scenario, considering how slow a 6800 is to todays gpus.

combine with RSX ,6800+7600(7800) not that bad for graphics at 720p

 

[Rangers]

combine with RSX ,6800+7600(7800) not that bad for graphics at 720p

He's got a point, that would be 50% more power. Generally the 6800 series is half as fast as the 7800 series.

 

[GuestLV]

Generally the 6800 series is half as fast as the 7800 series

But Cell not a 6800 and RSX 7800 and they dont need run windows, drivers, DX etc

 

[Cheezdoodles]

But Cell not a 6800 and RSX 7800 and they dont need run windows, drivers, DX etc

Windows doesn't run on the GPU.

Drivers simplifies programming and increases efficiency..

Direct X gives uniformity and optimization oppurtunities..

Either way, what your trying to say is optimization for the unique hardware right?

How much do you think that gain is?

Aspecially when this discussion is about if Crysis on consoles would take a graphics hit compared to Crysis on PC.

He's got a point, that would be 50% more power. Generally the 6800 series is half as fast as the 7800 series.

But still to little bandwidth. And still to little omph for crysis.

A 8800 not to mention the current gen cards (8-series is old), is still tremendously more powerful than a RSX or even 7900GT x 1.5

RSX is 300m transistors (and extremely unefficient shader setup, not unified shaders are terribly unefficient compared to unfied setups. (Xenos has much less transistors, but unified shaders.)

A 8800 clocks in at 650million transistors, with 5x the amount of shader pipes and 2x the bandwidth of the entire PS3 (4x of the RSX), and more RAM than the entire ps3.

Simply math tells that if a 8800GTS cannot run it properly, graphics gotta take a severe hit .

All you and Sedetary Journey have presented as arguments so far is "i think cpu power super important". You have not told us why you think so. Have you seen whats done realtime with the Cell? Its not particularly impressive stuff compared to what a 3 year old GPU can do.

You just say i dismiss important factors, but you have NO argument as to why you think they are important factors. I give you numbers, explanations, your argument is "i think cpu power is important." that it.. atleast try to make a proper argument, unless you can tell us WHY you think cpu power can make up for this and HOW it can make up for the extreme lack in graphics power, its pretty much pointless to keep continuing this debate, as so far you have presented nothing to help your case.


So. How can you make up for the loss in 50% bandwidth in crysis, a very bandwidth hungry game?

How can you keep the same quality textures? A 640mb 8800 geforce still could benefit from more vram in crysis..

What are you going to do for shader power? How are you going to make up for the lack of SM 4?

 

[Nesh]

Probably he means that the PS3 unlike the PC is not running an OS with a very large memory footprint and all kinds of applications and drivers (registries?) that are not associated with game performance. All these are supposed to consume performance in a PC. When you run a game on a PC its not just using whats necessary to play the game. Its using more for other things

 

[ultragpu]

didnt Yerli already mentioned they had ps3 running cryengine 2.0 on med-high setting already? would it be too difficult to imagine that they have reached ful high setting by now?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I know exactly what he meant.

But driver and direct X are not hurting GPU performance on the PC, its increasing it. Windows does little to affect GPU power avaliable.

The console benefits from having a single hardware setup, i understand that was his point, its just that drivers and direct X are there to try and make up for the fact that hardware comes in a variety of setups on the PC. Its not a negative for the PC platform that direct X is there, it streamlines pc programming and hardware.

 

[user542745831]

didnt Yerli already mentioned they had ps3 running cryengine 2.0 on med-high setting already?

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Neb]

didnt Yerli already mentioned they had ps3 running cryengine 2.0 on med-high setting already? would it be too difficult to imagine that they have reached ful high setting by now?

Either it was xbox360 or both doing med-high on X demonstration according to PR man. Though no info was revealed on what was shown but Crysis in any form it was not. :smile:

 

[pjbliverpool]

didnt Yerli already mentioned they had ps3 running cryengine 2.0 on med-high setting already? would it be too difficult to imagine that they have reached ful high setting by now?

Yep it would.

The 360 will never hit full high settings, the power just isn't there.

An 8800GTS 640MB can just barely manage playable framerates at 720p with no AA at all high.

And an 8800GTS packs roughly double the raw power of Xenos with almost 3 times the memory.

Programming for a single setup to the stregths of the 360 will net some gain but nowhere near enough to double its effective output. Plus I think Crysis was actually developed on the 8800 series anyway so its already going to be using the architecture pretty efficiently.

I expect Crysis on the 360 would be mostly medium with a very few minor tweaks that would encroach on high terriitoy in the PC. They would probably have to cut other areas as well though that go lower than medium on the PC (texture resolution perhaps).