CryTek President: PC Gaming "Held Back" By Consoles

[zerocool84]

Some of you would actually be surprised to see how much first party developers can pull out of these consoles, some of these games have uber graphics that can easily be compared to crysis running on ultra-high @ 720p

lol sure

 

[Bryf50]

I'd love to see the gaming rig that runs GT5 at full settings (really).

So a 7900gt and a quad-core for good measure. Real tough. And with 4gb+ of ram we wouldn't have to leave out features due to the lack of it.

 

[Darklife]

Honestly what is it lately with all these developers trying to make us feel better about ourselves? It's not like I need some pat on the back from Crytek or Microsoft.
If they really cared they wouldn't release consolized ports or sequels that look worse than the original (vide Crysis 2).

 

[zagood]

He's also got a motive behind making that statement...the whole deal with CryEngine 3 is that it's supposed to be able to render the same sequences on different platforms on the fly. When other game houses take a look at how great all 3 versions look, they'll all want to jump at purchasing the engine for their games.

/pessimism

But yeah, rock on Yerli!

 

[Skurge]

I'd love to see the gaming rig that runs GT5 at full settings (really).

I think I have one in the garage gathering dust.

This guy is so full of it. If he has a problem with Consoles holding back PC games, then he should do something about it. Instead he is doing just what he is complaining about.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It's funny that he says PC development won't swing back the other way until PC sales generate similar revenues as the consoles. How the hell are they supposed to? True PC gamers are a market about 1/10th the size of consoles, and they generate non-trivial revenue. MW2 PC sales were still something on the order of 20-25% total sales, which given the smaller market share, is pretty amazing. And that's before they can start bitching about piracy.

 

[exar333]

I'd love to see the gaming rig that runs GT5 at full settings (really).

Dual-core processor, 2005-era GPU (7800gt, etc), 1-2GB RAM would suffice. You are talking about a gaming rig most people here on the forums had back 5 years ago.

 

[Taejin]

bated. Bated breath. God damnit people.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I think I have one in the garage gathering dust.

This guy is so full of it. If he has a problem with Consoles holding back PC games, then he should do something about it. Instead he is doing just what he is complaining about.

Um, he is doing something about it. CryEngine3 is the only engine that can render games on 3 different systems at the same time.

 

[tedrodai]

Um, he is doing something about it. CryEngine3 is the only engine that can render games on 3 different systems at the same time.

I haven't read up on CryEngine3, but I don't see how this actually does something to benefit PC game development. They're still designing the games for the lowest common denominator. You think they're going to create this super-engine that will render games on 3 systems at the same time and then focus the most effort on the smallest market out of those 3 systems for new releases? Diminishing returns doesn't even begin to describe that situation.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I haven't read up on CryEngine3, but I don't see how this actually does something to benefit PC game development. They're still designing the games for the lowest common denominator. You think they're going to create this super-engine that will render games on 3 systems at the same time and then focus the most effort on the smallest market out of those 3 systems for new releases? Diminishing returns doesn't even begin to describe that situation.

Nahhh.. read up on CryEngine 3.

It's pretty slick. You simply develop on the cryengine using the Sandbox Editor. You build your game there. Then, AFTER you are done, you can render them down to a specific console. It makes it so you can develop without bias for a particular system.

Crytek conciously built Crysis 2 so it could enter the console market, so to say the game wasn't designed with consoles in mind would be foolish, but Crysis 2 won't be a console port.

All 3 systems (xbox, ps3, PC) will technically be playing a "sandbox" port.

 

[skyofavalon]

That's because developers are developing games for consoles, and then using easy ways to take advantage of the extra PC power. For example, draw distance. You can have crappy xbox 360 graphics with really long draw distances and it will bog down even a high end pc, but the game would still look totally different if it designed for the pc first.

Metro, Crysis, the Stalkers,Arma 2 were all developed for PC 1st and foremost with only Metro being released on Xbox.. You arenot goingt to max all those games out @ 1080p 60fps with a gtx480. So how exactly are consoles holding PC graphics back ?

No one is saying the 360/PS3 is as powerful as a gaming PC.Most of you PC only guys greatly over exaggerate what PC's are capable of though. You make it like its the difference between a NES and a Gamecube.

Just look at your benchmarks,you cant even run the most advanced PC only games that are out now 1080p 60fps, and you want graphics to advance ? No one is going to make a game for the 15 people that have 3 gtx580 in tri SLI . It will be Crysis all over again like in 2007 ,but much worse.

 

[skace]

Jesus why are you guys arguing this, let me break down what he is saying:

1. The Xbox360/PS3 market is much bigger than the PC market.
2. For developers to ensure a profit they need to develop games for these consoles.
3. This profit requirement forces the technological side to be artificially pinned to whatever technology is in these aging consoles.
4. Because technology is pinned to aging consoles, all of that progress made in the PC department is basically idle hardware for the majority of the games being developed.

Now why is he saying this? Because this is a team that made a fantastic game for the PC that nobody bought. So now they are forced to make their sequel on consoles and they are probably frustrated with the hoops they have to jump through, the technology the basically have to GUT. Granted, the new engine is supposed to be flexible for this but I'm betting they have had a few discussions that went "wouldn't this be so easy if people just had decent fucking hardware?"

And yes, console developers tend to eek a lot of performance out of their respective systems. However, they often do it the same way companies are able to make cheap Rolex's. They make the exterior all shiny, but remove 90% of the functionality. That is why, even though you will see a lot of pretty games on the 360/PS3, you will never see a game that offers as much as Crysis did in so many different departments.

 

[Regs]

I disagree. I think it's cheaper and less time consuming for game developers to make games for the PS3 and Xbox 360. PC still has a huge market, which developers who executed have proved, but the time and money savings selling on a console is not easy to pass up, especially if you are a start up publisher.

I can't imagine how much Crysis costs, and how many copies they had to sell to make a profit. But if they can make a good enough game, it can be done. Just not enough out there willing to do so.

 

[toyota]

It's funny that he says PC development won't swing back the other way until PC sales generate similar revenues as the consoles. How the hell are they supposed to? True PC gamers are a market about 1/10th the size of consoles, and they generate non-trivial revenue. MW2 PC sales were still something on the order of 20-25% total sales, which given the smaller market share, is pretty amazing. And that's before they can start bitching about piracy.

where are you getting that from because I thought less than 5% of MW 2 sales were on the pc?

 

[snewdle]

Here's a question in response to the OP's post: When will the next generation of consoles actually come out? A unique phenomenon of this generation is the duration that the 360, PS3, and Wii have stayed on the market. After all, if the gist of the statement/argument is that we (PC gamers) are being squished by the console finger and the result is a lack/stagnation in contemporary game development for our platform, then when will the pressure from said finger be relieved through the release of the next console generation? Yes I admit that was a weird way to express such a thought (the finger analogy is strange) but I'm tired so leave me alone!

 

[Maximilian]

Nothing new, everyone knows this, but it is nice to see someone in the business in a high up position saying it out loud.
(Also links are nice @ OP)

Definately.

 

[Smartazz]

Metro, Crysis, the Stalkers,Arma 2 were all developed for PC 1st and foremost with only Metro being released on Xbox.. You arenot goingt to max all those games out @ 1080p 60fps with a gtx480. So how exactly are consoles holding PC graphics back ?

No one is saying the 360/PS3 is as powerful as a gaming PC.Most of you PC only guys greatly over exaggerate what PC's are capable of though. You make it like its the difference between a NES and a Gamecube.

Just look at your benchmarks,you cant even run the most advanced PC only games that are out now 1080p 60fps, and you want graphics to advance ? No one is going to make a game for the 15 people that have 3 gtx580 in tri SLI . It will be Crysis all over again like in 2007 ,but much worse.

Metro 2033 looks absolutely incredible maxed out in 1080p, it even looks great on all high. Take it from someone who has PS3 and 360, there is no contest between PC graphics and Console graphics anymore. Games like Crysis and Unchartered only look similar if watching a youtube video or comparing screenshots online, but when you compare them side by side on monitors, there is no contest. Aside from the differences in rendering resolution, AA and texture resolution, there is a stark difference in lighting and shadows. STALKER Call of Pripyat has breathtaking lighting effects, even when it's not maxed out. Metro 2033 has incredible shadow maps as well as some impressive lighting effects of its own. Battlefield Bad Company 2 looks close to photorealistic with some amazing textures, though the game looks a little plain. Crysis has absolutely amazing vegetation and is already a few years old. Consoles hold back PC graphics because so many games are cross platform now. There are still some games where PC graphics hold itself back, but these games look astonishing in person. Btw, I found Metro 2033 to be playable maxed out in 1080p on a GTX480, though there were some slowdowns.

 

[flashbacck]

It seems to me that what he is saying is contradictory at best and hypocritical at worst.

He says that consoles are holding PC gaming back. OK, I could probably agree with that. But then why did Crytex abandon PC exclusive gaming and go the multiplatform route?? They are just going where they think the money is like everybody else. And wasnt this the same guy that was whining about how piracy was also making PC gaming unprofitable, and would never make another PC exclusive game? I cant remember the context, but I am pretty sure that he said something to this effect some months ago.

...

I believe he did say PC piracy killed Crysis sales and that they would be focusing on consoles from then on.

But I don't think he's being hypocritical. Both statements aren't mutually exclusive. Just because he's making games primarily for consoles doesn't mean he can't complain about the downsides...

 

[JSt0rm]

This is why I wont be buying a new video card. Whats the point?

 

[BD231]

Crytek is currently beavering away[/l] LOL

If it was not for consoles we wouldn't have nearly the amount of games we do these days. What we loose in graphics we gain 10 fold in game diversity.

Why not focus on the problem, console hardware, which is easily rectifiable.

Update hardware as you would on a PC? Of course, console manufactures will hate this because they wouldn't be able to charge you $500 for outdated hardware anymore upon release.

 

[EvilComputer92]

Nahhh.. read up on CryEngine 3.

It's pretty slick. You simply develop on the cryengine using the Sandbox Editor. You build your game there. Then, AFTER you are done, you can render them down to a specific console. It makes it so you can develop without bias for a particular system.

Crytek conciously built Crysis 2 so it could enter the console market, so to say the game wasn't designed with consoles in mind would be foolish, but Crysis 2 won't be a console port.

All 3 systems (xbox, ps3, PC) will technically be playing a "sandbox" port.

I keep hearing this same tired argument from you and it's total crap. Yes, Cryengine 3 is very widely scalable but Cryengine 3 != Crysis 2.

Crysis 2's levels and it's entire structure of level design is oriented towards targeting the console hardware because consoles could not handle the vast jungles of the original game and phenomenal vegetation.

Any developer could take the Cryengine 3 license and develop a phenomenal looking PC exclusive. This could not just be tossed onto the consoles without significant performance impact.

Because the few millions of copies of Crysis that were sold were not enough for Crytek, they opted to go multiplatform, crippling their game. This is the obvious reason the game is set in New York, even though it has nothing to do with the plot of the previous game. You'd have to be a fool to believe Crytek stopped using the jungle environment because they wanted to. It was only because they didn't have much of a choice. Cities are easy to render compared to jungles.

Keep in mind, this doesn't stop modders from making amazing levels on the PC that are not restricted by console hardware. Cryengine 3 is a awesome engine. Crysis 2 could still be garbage.

Now why is he saying this? Because this is a team that made a fantastic game for the PC that nobody bought. So now they are forced to make their sequel on consoles and they are probably frustrated with the hoops they have to jump through, the technology the basically have to GUT. Granted, the new engine is supposed to be flexible for this but I'm betting they have had a few discussions that went "wouldn't this be so easy if people just had decent fucking hardware?"

QFT. I almost feel bad for Crytek developers. Making such a phenomenal PC title that got a 91 metacritic score and then having to cater to consoles because of market demands. Very glad I'm not a game dev in this environment.

 

[TechBoyJK]

well for what it's worth.. have you seen about WarFace? It's a PC exclusive shooter from Crytek.

 

[TechBoyJK]

QFT. I almost feel bad for Crytek developers. Making such a phenomenal PC title that got a 91 metacritic score and then having to cater to consoles because of market demands. Very glad I'm not a game dev in this environment.

I agree.

I'm thinking that Crysis 2 won't be crap, but will be just as awesome. On incrysis.com's forums one of the respected modders had mentioned one of the advantages of level's being designed for consoles.. If the level's are designed to be easier for console's to render, it should be equally easier for PC's to render the levels. Since draw distances, and other factors that demand performance will be reduced, this leaves more headroom for the PC to process other graphical subroutines.. The city levels could make it easier to enjoy the more advanced shading and lighting effects CryEngine has to offer. End result = easier to make Crysis 2 look gorgeous and mind blowing than it was to make Crysis 1 look top notch.

 

[RavenSEAL]

well for what it's worth.. have you seen about WarFace? It's a PC exclusive shooter from Crytek.

Yes, that's gonna go well considering the fact that the majority of "gamers" that turn to F2P games have shitty hardware to begin with.