Crytek: "It's physically & financially impossible to go higher than the PS4 & Xbox ∞"

He's said more
Crytek's CEO and president Cevat Yerli says that the next generation of consoles will have much more in common with traditional PC development, giving PC focused developers the upper-hand in creating games when compared to developers of the current generation who focus solely on developing for consoles. In an interview with Official Xbox Magazine, Yerli said: "I think the next console generation is going to be more a mix of the top devs - they'll be much more PC-driven this time around," Yerli told us in issue 97, on sale now. "In fact, I believe - oh, I can't talk more about that. Let's say this: PC devs will be much more comfortable than last gen console devs.

"Last gen, the move from PS2 to PS3, or Xbox to Xbox 360, for many devs was back-breaking," he explained. "But for us going to Xbox 360, we had to work backward, we had to bring down all our tech to make it happen. As opposed to finding ourselves in that situation with today's PC... I'm already talking too much."
 
Again, that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. If he's saying nobody will be making technology, than he's right, we'll have UE4. Now everyone can simply focus on creating content and we'll have our renderman. You still can't get CE3 on mobile.
 
Davros said:
He's said more
Crytek's CEO and president Cevat Yerli says that the next generation of consoles will have much more in common with traditional PC development, giving PC focused developers the upper-hand in creating games when compared to developers of the current generation who focus solely on developing for consoles. In an interview with Official Xbox Magazine, Yerli said: "I think the next console generation is going to be more a mix of the top devs - they'll be much more PC-driven this time around," Yerli told us in issue 97, on sale now. "In fact, I believe - oh, I can't talk more about that. Let's say this: PC devs will be much more comfortable than last gen console devs.

"Last gen, the move from PS2 to PS3, or Xbox to Xbox 360, for many devs was back-breaking," he explained. "But for us going to Xbox 360, we had to work backward, we had to bring down all our tech to make it happen. As opposed to finding ourselves in that situation with today's PC... I'm already talking too much."
Click to expand...
So he's repeating exactly what everyone else is already saying... that the consoles are more like PCs in their architecture, therefore easier to develop for. We've known this for a while now, everyone figured that out within about ten seconds of Sony's announcement. Not much of an earth-shattering revelation.
 
Jedi2016 said:
So he's repeating exactly what everyone else is already saying... that the consoles are more like PCs in their architecture, therefore easier to develop for. We've known this for a while now, everyone figured that out within about ten seconds of Sony's announcement. Not much of an earth-shattering revelation.
Click to expand...

Actually, when you think about it with the following...

Davros said:
"Last gen, the move from PS2 to PS3, or Xbox to Xbox 360, for many devs was back-breaking," he explained. "But for us going to Xbox 360, we had to work backward, we had to bring down all our tech to make it happen. As opposed to finding ourselves in that situation with today's PC... I'm already talking too much."
Click to expand...

It may be confirmation that Durango will be based on the Windows 8 kernel and APIs. Hence PC developers will have a head start over Console developers who use a PC dev house to port their games to PC.

As well it could indicate that not only is the hardware similar, but that Sony have geared development to be as PC like as possible. In fact, if one wanted to go far enough with that, there is an argument to be made that there is a possibility that PS4 could be Linux based. Again in theory giving a leg up to developers that actively develop on PC versus those that develop console games and then pay someone else to port their games to PC.

Regards,
SB
 
How many of the people making definitive statements about the engines' abilities have practical experience to back their opinion? You know, like, working on a game built upon at least one of these engines.

So, anyone?
 
Ghostz said:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/123639/rein-weve-been-working-on-unreal-engine-4-for-two-years/

http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/cryengine_3

UE4 started development in 2003, CE3 2008.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between when an engine started development, and when it was completed to the point that finished games could be released on it and it can be licensed to third party developers. And even if UE4 was in a fully completed state 2 years ago, it's still irrelevant to the original point. Cevat stated that CE3 was 3 years ahead of UE4, in terms of being released to market with a full DX11 featureset in a licensable form, he was absolutely correct. Whether Epics decisions not to release UE4 to market in 2011 were technical or business related does not matter to Cevats point. CE3 still came to market 3 years earlier.
 
pjbliverpool said:
There's a difference between when an engine started development, and when it was completed to the point that finished games could be released on it and it can be licensed to third party developers. And even if UE4 was in a fully completed state 2 years ago, it's still irrelevant to the original point. Cevat stated that CE3 was 3 years ahead of UE4, in terms of being released to market with a full DX11 featureset in a licensable form, he was absolutely correct. Whether Epics decisions not to release UE4 to market in 2011 were technical or business related does not matter to Cevats point. CE3 still came to market 3 years earlier.
Click to expand...

Also based on that time line, UE4 was started 3 years before UE3 was done in 2006. And according to Wikipedia, it was just Tim Sweeney from 2003 until mid-2008, which I would probably guess is a lot of pre-production work.
 
I think epic made the right call by designing unreal 4 around next gen and not having to have it run on ps3 and xbox 360.
 
Xbat said:
I think epic made the right call by designing unreal 4 around next gen and not having to have it run on ps3 and xbox 360.
Click to expand...

It's all about each companies focus.

Had Epic been as focused on pushing the tech and releasing the highest tech possible on PC as Crytek has been, then UE4 likely would have been out much sooner. It likely also would have been similar to CE3 although with some differences potentially due to a different focus on what might be most important to spend rendering cycles on.

However, Epic have been focused on where the money is, and that is consoles. Hence, there's no reason to push anything higher than UE3 + enhancements because of what Cevat Yerli is stating.

Going beyond UE3 into CryEngine 3 territory means a massive increase in your game development budget. Is that massive increase in development budget warranted when the only platform capable of showcasing it is the PC?

Hence, despite the fact that CE3 was significantly more advanced than UE3, it wasn't in developer's best interests to ditch the engine platform they were most comfortable using in order to use a much more advanced engine.

And on Epic's side. Why invest the money to full implement UE4 when the only platform that could take advantage of it is PC? And especially when most games on UE4 would have looked just like the games on UE3 due to the console limitation. IE - developing games for PS3/X360 means that there would have been only slight differences between UE4 and UE3.

So basically Cevat Yerli is absolutely correct when he points out that no one is likely to make an engine more advanced than they have/will.

It isn't that other's aren't capable of it. It's just that the costs involved are huge, and if there isn't a monetary payback involved, then there is no incentive to do it.

Crytek has been unique in that respect, as they have been interested in pushing the technology regardless of cost because they desire to push the technology.

There was a point back around 1999-2002 that Epic were also all about pushing the technology. But at some point along the way, the accountants took over, and they only build engines up to what consoles can handle and not much further. And most of the work is spent on adding incremental updates as well as improving the development tools.

From a business POV, that is probably the best way to do it. From an, OMG, I can't believe they can do that POV though, Crytek certainly holds the crown. Not because they are better than Epic (personally I'm not sure anyone is more brilliant than Tim Sweeny when it comes to implementing 3D rendering engines, not even Carmack), but just because they are willing to do it and Epic aren't.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
It's all about each companies focus.

Had Epic been as focused on pushing the tech and releasing the highest tech possible on PC as Crytek has been, then UE4 likely would have been out much sooner. It likely also would have been similar to CE3 although with some differences potentially due to a different focus on what might be most important to spend rendering cycles on.

However, Epic have been focused on where the money is, and that is consoles. Hence, there's no reason to push anything higher than UE3 + enhancements because of what Cevat Yerli is stating.

Going beyond UE3 into CryEngine 3 territory means a massive increase in your game development budget. Is that massive increase in development budget warranted when the only platform capable of showcasing it is the PC?

Hence, despite the fact that CE3 was significantly more advanced than UE3, it wasn't in developer's best interests to ditch the engine platform they were most comfortable using in order to use a much more advanced engine.

And on Epic's side. Why invest the money to full implement UE4 when the only platform that could take advantage of it is PC? And especially when most games on UE4 would have looked just like the games on UE3 due to the console limitation. IE - developing games for PS3/X360 means that there would have been only slight differences between UE4 and UE3.

So basically Cevat Yerli is absolutely correct when he points out that no one is likely to make an engine more advanced than they have/will.

It isn't that other's aren't capable of it. It's just that the costs involved are huge, and if there isn't a monetary payback involved, then there is no incentive to do it.

Crytek has been unique in that respect, as they have been interested in pushing the technology regardless of cost because they desire to push the technology.

There was a point back around 1999-2002 that Epic were also all about pushing the technology. But at some point along the way, the accountants took over, and they only build engines up to what consoles can handle and not much further. And most of the work is spent on adding incremental updates as well as improving the development tools.

From a business POV, that is probably the best way to do it. From an, OMG, I can't believe they can do that POV though, Crytek certainly holds the crown. Not because they are better than Epic (personally I'm not sure anyone is more brilliant than Tim Sweeny when it comes to implementing 3D rendering engines, not even Carmack), but just because they are willing to do it and Epic aren't.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

I think the point was more around 2006 when Microsoft paid Epic to publish Gears of War. It took off and sold well over 5 million, then UT2007 was released a year later with far less fanfare, especially compared to previous Unreal Tournament titles. Plus, Cliff Bleszinski made it clear that piracy made it no fun to release PC games (and obviously no Gears of War 2 or 3 on PC).
 
Cjail said:
Maybe it's just me but at moment Crytek resembles more a visual effect company than a developer.
Click to expand...

Huh? C3 is for me one of the best games I played this gen. Visually, it is the best. Gameplay-wise it is very good imo. So, I certainly don't agree wirh you. Have you tried it out?

It just sux that they are in bed with ea...the mumbo jumbo about free-to-play no single playing makes me afraid...
 
Cjail said:
^^^
No I played only Crysis 1 & 2.
They are Ok games for me.
Click to expand...

Ok. I already liked C2 a lot. C1 only the second half (runs away in before the pack gets him). But think C3 is the best of all. But you are somehow right, that thinking about it, they do not produce that many games, although they are a quite large team.

But independent of all of this, I really like their games and certainly look forward to their next one :)
 
^^^
Well Crytek is a relatively young company/dev (founded in 1999, first game in 2004) so it's understandable that they didn't make many games but now they are making Homefront 2, Warface and Ryse, so they are becoming more active.
This said devs like Rocksteady Studious, TGC, Team ICO, Media Molecule FOR ME really "advanced the art of game developing through memorable and distinguished titles".
Crytek advanced the tech not so much the art.

Of course this is my opinion.
 
I am not completely informed about this, but I think Warface is practically done, and it's not a very high profile game anyways. More of a test bed for Cevat's AAA free to play case.
Ryse I also think has been put on hold if my memmory doesn't fail me. So I guess it's just Homefront 2 now. Though the crysis 3 team must be working on something right now, and despite the declaration that it would be their last non free-to-play game, I can't believe that is not bullshit.
 
Crytek takes a lot of shit about "gameplay" simply because their graphics tech is head and shoulders above most other titles. This is undeniably stupid because the gameplay in Crysis games is also better than most other single player shooters.

Haters just gotta hate....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Xbox leadership and the Xbox brand evaluation *spawn
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
9K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
B
  • Locked
Game devs on trial - considerations on current game technical quality and causes *spawn
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Andrew Lauritzen
A
iroboto
  • Locked
Are current games less effectively executed than previous generations? *spawn
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
R
Activision is making more money on PC than consoles for the first time
Replies
6
Views
813
Johnny Awesome
J
P
Square Enix's business approach to games
Replies
8
Views
906
Silent_Buddha
S
Back
Top