Consoles Are a "Massive Barrier" for Crysis 3 Development

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools.

Well this "carpenter" isn't making the game with a console now is he? He's making it on a PC for a console. It be more like a carpenter making a really bad ass piece of furniture, but then it not fitting in your room.

OT: Crytek is stupid. Like many have already said, then made the decision to go multiplatform for teh moenyzzz. If they really cared about making the best possible experience ever, they would have stayed solely on PC. However, a company has to make business decisions, and so going multiplatform probably brought them more cash. But when you make the decision to go multiplatfrom, you can't complain about the associated limitations. Regardless, I don't like Crysis that much although I kinda want to get the first one to test my rig.

They could've waited for the next console gen before giving it a console release. They would've made their PC money in the meantime, and then had the tasty influx of money from being a release game for the new generation.

That seems sensible to me, but ehh, EA are very focussed on grabbing as much money as possible in the short term, rather than considering the long term.

Do we still like Crytek anymore? I just need to know so I can say this is a great point in why we need a new generation of consoles or if I should be blaming them for not being good at making games.

With all parody of the immature nature of hating individual studios and developers for little to no adequate reason aside, its true that we need new consoles because current ones are holding us back. The tech is 7 years old now and that is a long time now. Look at a 7 year old desktop and compare it to a new one. They are terrible by comparison. Hell, look at a PS2 compared to a PS3! This whole idea of having consoles for 10 years is ridiculous, we need them and we need them soon. It isn't even just about graphics, these processing power is so weak now that it is essential that we upgrade soon if we hope to see our games get better mechanically.



In a Q&A on Monday, Mike Read, producer of Crysis 3 talked at length about some of the development challenges facing the Crytek team

Cry me a river.

Abandoning PC as the lead (or only) platform and switching to consoles... you only have yourselves to blame. Yes, you're right the hardware is holding you back but this is a given and you wanted to go for the money. Put up with it and be quiet, really. :P

This. If they want to target the larger market of the console generation that has dragged on for seven years, they should expect to burn money and lowering visual quality on a game that prides itself on such.

make business decisions, and so going multiplatform probably brought them more cash. .

Except it didn't, and the first Crysis is STILL being used as a benchmark tool.

Then don't develop for the consoles. Problem solved.

Regardless, I don't like Crysis that much although I kinda want to get the first one to test my rig.

Personally I'd wait until the third one comes out, see if it actually does better than the first at stressing your rig, and if not move to something like TW2 or BF3.
Any real mid range computer these days can max out Crysis 1 with around 60FPS at 1080p, so its not that great at seeing if your rig is amazing just because it can run it. If you're going to try and get some high benchmarks with Crysis, as opposed to just running it, then disregard everything I said because that still works as a relative comparison of your rig's power in certain areas compared to other peoples.

A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools.

A very good carpenter leaves behind obsolete designs.
Seriously, if you have to massacre the engine, just release it for PC.

Agreed. Let's also not forget that the PS3 has a lot of untapped processing power. If anything, this is a problem of designing an engine that requires something about a PC. Maybe the engine required .exe's or DOS or something? Some other software requisite consoles aren't built with because they're exclusively for games? PS3 can handle it, so what's the problem? Besides, here comes the age-old problem that started with Crysis. They're building a game intentionally too complex for what it's going to run it on. Crysis had to be played on minimal settings for all but the best computers, if any of us remembers. And all that just to make an average shooter win awards for looking better than any of the others. Does anyone remember playing Crysis, or do they remember not being able to run it?

Or perhaps they're unhappy about having to spend millions to get the engine to run on PS3 and Xbox because, regardless of how much untapped potential it might have [Really, not a lot], PCs have about 10X more that they are able to and want to utilize, instead of doing this much optimization for what is likely to turn out as not a lot of return. You really have no evidence that the 7 to 8 year old hardware of the PS3 can handle it, at least without these millions of dollars down the drain making it so the thing can, so don't state it like you know. People want to know why graphics cost so much? This is why; getting them to run on a console, even on low settings.
Also, I remember playing Crysis on maximum settings a couple of years after it came out on my 9800GTX. The year it did come out, I played it on my friends LAPTOP on medium settings just fine. Really, Crysis wasn't that hard to run. If you had a PC from 1995, yeah, it was difficult. You want to max it out? Good luck to you with most modern rigs. You want to run it, even on just medium settings? You can.

Not sure where you get your facts from dude. Console sales always outweigh PC sales, no matter what - that is why a lot of publishers leave the PC til last. You think that the PC sells more games than a console? - that's just crazy, console sales are always more than double the PC sales, sometimes as much as 10 times more across all formats. Developers won't prioritise 10%-20% of their sales in favor of 40-50% on the 360.
As for piracy, well piracy does a lot more harm to the PC market than the console market. With the PS3 and 360, people tend to avoid piracy because they know it could end up with them being banned, and people like multiplayer games, and there are so many barriers put in front of people who pirate console games. On the PC on the other hand, people tend to buy the multiplayer games, but then single player games are pirated left right and centre. The only console that is really heavily abused with piracy is the Wii - I know lots of people with cracked Wii's, I don't know anyone with a cracked PS3 or 360.

You've probably quoted the wrong guy there, seeing as he said nothing about sales in the slightest, but I'd be interested as to where you get your facts from. For one, its not 'Always'. Developers like Valve have stated that PC has sold more than consoles for games like Portal 2, so whilst the majority of AAA games might sell better on consoles overall, PC still sells better with some of them.

In addition, 90% of statistics are made up on the spot. Console sales are hardly always more than double PC sales, let alone 10 times as much, and unless you work for EA/Activision to have those numbers I'd check where you're getting your facts from because everywhere you look you'll find different numbers. I've seen ones that have Xbox as around 37% of sales, PS3 as about 33% of sales, and PC as 30%, ones with PC at around 80%, Xbox at 15% and PS3 at 5%, PS3 at 40%, Xbox at 37% and PC at 23% as well as every other combination under the sun. Numbers vary dependent on what is being counted [Brick and Mortar Stores, Digital Sales, both, brick and mortar stores in a specific region - ect.], and I have yet to find one that is 100% reliable.
In terms of Piracy, there is something devs hate almost as much, that does as much for them, that the PC has no problem with: Second hand sales. No money to the devs, all to the retailer. For all intents and purposes, from the publisher/dev's side of things, its the same as piracy on the PC. They get nothing, someone else gets their game. The thing is, its legal, and the buyer is still paying money for it. Even then, its only slightly countered by online passes, which a lot of people ignore for single player games because, well, they're single player games, what do you need online for?

A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools.

But the best carpenter in the world wouldn't be able to achive with a spoon, what he could achive with his full tool kit.

If they had to butcher the engine to get it to work on the consoles, then yea. There's a valid reason for them to be griping.

OT: Does this mean consoles aren't going to get the new and improved toad tech? Because that would be a deal breaker if I was buying it for a console.

Bloody hell, the amount of people on here goin 'herp derp sell outs, ees yow own faultz'.

They aren't selling out by going multi platform. They're trying to keep up. That's where the big money is, and if you want to them to justify that toad tech, they need it to make the big money.

Wait, I'm not quite sure I got this.
Does this mean that a) Crysis 3 will be completely butchered in its console port - annoying console fans - or b) that Crysis 3 overall will be completely butchered in all versions - including PC - to accomodate the console market - annoying everybody, but PC fans in particular?
I must be missing the upside here.

Here's a word of advice for you Crytek; instead of bitching, go back to making PC only games.

But you won't do that will you? You like the green that console market brings in a bit too much eh?

Instead of crying and bitching about the limitations, they could also just focus on development to begin with. If you know you have to develop for aging hardware, i.e. consoles, then your engine has to be capable of running on them without needing to be cannibalized. Crytek choose to make a new Engine and improve it, now they moan about having to strip it down to make it viable on consoles? Gimme a break.

You know what Crytek? Just keep the Engine as it is, make the game as you want, release it on that hardware that can run it, if thats only the PC? Well just release it only on the PC. And when the Consoles have caught up, you can release it for them too. I dont really see the Problem here. I dont think anyone said that they can only release Crysis 3 once and never again, just develop, put it out on the Platforms that run it and just release it later for those that just cant yet.

It is that simple.

Marik Bentusi:

and yet you develop for it. [...] and no, consoles port arent your biggest moneymakers. that is, if you ever created a decent game.

In every major AAA release I've been following recently, console sales were ahead by quite a bit, in addition to having a lower piracy rate (which doesn't equal lost sales, but contains a certain amount of them). Current AAA games are insanely expensive, and thus really high risks for a publisher to take. Thus, you gotta fine the largest audience possible to make back the money + some profit.

A really big chunk of that production cost goes into graphics, so of course Crytek will have the biggest problems with it. Meanwhile Activision laughs and keeps codblops profitable by not focusing as much on graphics as others, which also makes it accessible to a larger crowd with low spec PCs.

Sadly those figures are not worth much since they never include Steam - unless it is directly from the developer / publisher (and I know only a few cases like Binding of Isaac that sold over 400k on Steam and Terraria [over 1 million]). When all those fancy charts start including digital distribution I could start to notice them.

On Topic: In this thread: People thinking that stating facts is elitism *sigh*.

Crytech... This is what you get. You wanted to settle with inferiour hardware for your products that require the best current tech to run.

Bloody hell, the amount of people on here goin 'herp derp sell outs, ees yow own faultz'.

They aren't selling out by going multi platform. They're trying to keep up. That's where the big money is, and if you want to them to justify that toad tech, they need it to make the big money.

As has been stated a number of times in this thread, they sold more copies of the original Crysis on the PC only than Crysis 2 across all platforms. Going console didn't earn them more money, what they cut out to make a console game lost them a large chunk of their PC audience.

And really, it is selling out. They're discarding their original fans and platform for the chance at some extra money. In what way is that not selling out on their PC fanbase?

They could just... NOT port it to consoles and just put it on the next gen ones when they come out.

Before I get hammerered with "THEY NEED SALES, THEY'RE A BUSINESS, THEY NEED MONEY!!" comments, Crysis 1 wasn't exactly the most operable of games...

If it was only Crytek being held back, who would care. But ancient console hardware is holding the entire industry back, because no AAA game can afford to not be released on consoles.

Had development progressed as it did up until Crysis in 2007, we'd probably have graphics (textures, rendering, lighting) maxed out by now and the devs could finally start taking Animation and A.I. to the next level. 'cause really, graphics were already 8/10 in Crysis. But Animations are more like 3/10 and A.I. is a weak 1/10.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here