Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles

[bjj hero]

Thats great if I want to spend a fortune. I'm happy that my 360 has been around for a while. It saves me money and there is still a supply of new games coming thick and fast. If it was profitable to make games that only cater for uber PCs then lots of people would be doing it. The development costs are high and the market is small. It will not be catching on any time soon.

I'm personally glad that the quest for the best graphics ever is on hold. Time to look at game play and design instead.

There are certain games I play on the PC (Civ 5...) but for the latest shooters I'll be buying the 360 version as my laptop can't cope.

 

[qeinar]

Blizzard seem like they are doing fine in spite of this.

well that is because wow is not on a cosnole, so wow is not constrained in any way by a console version of wow. : p

 

[Fumbleumble]

On the Contrary ...making it an 'Us Vs Them argument' IS the ONLY productive way to go.

Until we have more high profile developers telling publisher what the really SHOULD know in the first place, nothing will change.

Only by calling a rock, a rock is anything going to change and we need this obvious fact extoled as much, and as loudly as possible.

 

[Killerbunny001]

The technical limitations of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 are holding the PC back, says Crytek CEO Cervat Yerli.

This is so incredibly true nowadays. I'm so sick and tired to see PC games obviously suffering because the same games are also on consoles.

It's not just about visuals. It's also about the controls, as well as it dictates a whole lot of content and features in the game, difficulty and so on.

PC has always been better than consoles. The only better thing with consoles is that they've got some exclusives.

I share the exact same feeling. Although it`s a bit of a flame war starter most dedicated PC gamers see things this way.

 

[Buizel91]

Guys, I think this is the last console generation. Everything is going, dang, brain freeze on the word... convergence?

For under $500, I'm building:
Athlon II X4, 1 GB DDR5 video card, 4 Gig DDR RAM, 1 TB hard drive, Bluray player/DVD burner with 7.1 fiber optic out surround sound. A PS3, which I love, can't touch this for gaming. More important to me: I can play movies, music, store photos, stream HBO and Netflix, etc. or just surf the web. (OK, I can also get computer viruses and have bloatware snuck onto my PC).

I think even this gen console is something of a last gasp. To my mind, they perfected the gaming experience in Gen 6 (I still have and play last gen consoles as well as this gen) which is why Nintendo went so far with the motion stuff. The other two consoles just deliver Hi Def graphics, but, are largely the same gaming experience.

Even the hand held market is going convergence. Instead of carrying around a MP3 player, cameral, phone and portable gaming console, you'll carry one device that does all that.

My prediction: PS3 and 360 will be around for another 5 years. Then, PC manufacturers will own the market on new hardware. Developers will follow.

What I'm really looking forward to is when a developer like Crytek goes for gold and trys to make a true Gen 8 game that could not be dumbed down for console. Make it good, make it look amazing, publicize what you are trying to do and the money will come.

Considering Nintendo said they would make a new console when the Wii sells so many units, i highly doubt this is the LAST console generation.

OT: I think Crytek need to learn not everything is about graphics... then again looking at Crysis i don't think that 75% of the gamers acctualy care -.-

Although Crysis 2 is coming 2 is coming to console so why the hell are they complaining :S

 

[gibboss28]

*edit*

nevermind

 

[Carnagath]

That's ok Crytek, nobody expects from you another useless tech demo for hardware that might be released 5 years from now, just a less shitty game than Crysis 1. I'm sure you can handle that...right?

 

[markisb]

i hate the fact my 9600gt cant play modern games on high settings and my cpu is bottle necking on cpu heavy games but its better then shelling out 500 bucks every time my console breaks or waiting 3 moths wile it is being "fixed".

 

[Ken Sapp]

I miss the days when gaming was not all about the visuals.

Funny, whenever I see ads for older games, visuals is usually a big selling point of the games ...

How true. As someone who has been console and PC gaming since the 80's I always laugh when people try to say that graphics weren't always one of the selling points. Graphics have always been one of the main components of a game's sales strategy but until the release of discrete graphics cards there was little to really differentiate them since the developers also had less to work with.

 

[Pingieking]

The thing is, not that many people have super-powered latest tech PCs. You could make a game for such crazy-ass PCs but it wouldn't sell too well.

Current standard powered PCs built for gaming is still at least equal, if not more powerful, than the consoles. And it can easily be done for less than $1000.
If you do want to shell out the big bucks; there's a grad student in my lab who runs every game at maxed out graphics settings, 60 FPS minimum, with an insane resolution. I'm forgot exactly what it was, but it was higher than 1920x1200. The individual components combine for a cost of about $2400, according to him.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

Want PC gaming to be big? Gotta meet us halve way. Cheaper and less confusing hardware naming, Better labeling on those pieces, and easier instructions on piecing it all together (learned all this the hard way, $300 dollar self-upgrade turned in $700 dollar new computer). Not to dumb down PCs, people need to get actually get smarter too.

It's not that confusing.
Video cards: The first number is the series, the second is how powerful it is (generally, newer models tend to outperform older models after drivers have been cleansed of major fuck up-epery).

CPUs: Just look at the clock and # of cores really.

 

[markisb]

there's a grad student in my lab who runs every game at maxed out graphics settings, 60 FPS minimum, with an insane resolution. I'm forgot exactly what it was, but it was higher than 1920x1200. The individual components combine for a cost of about $2400, according to him.

was that including the monitor,mouse, keyboard,ect ?

 

[Woodsey]

I guess the rather long console cycle has also let PC's go even further ahead graphically - since console cycles were shorter before, I guess they might have been able to 'catch up' (so to speak) with PC's more frequently in the past... Though, I hastened to point out this is an amateur speaking who has only really been following the gaming industry since this generation of consoles

Technically they're light-years ahead, but in practice the long console cycles means the huge gain is wasted. The PC versions are generally buffed up at least a bit, but they're not pushed as far as they should be.

Also: A gaming PC will cost around £600, and last for a couple of years at least with no upgrades. Factor in how dirt-cheap the games are, Steam sales and that it's also a computer (if you buy a laptop and a console you're at about £500-£600 anyway) to do anything else, they're pretty cheap.

 

[Pingieking]

there's a grad student in my lab who runs every game at maxed out graphics settings, 60 FPS minimum, with an insane resolution. I'm forgot exactly what it was, but it was higher than 1920x1200. The individual components combine for a cost of about $2400, according to him.

was that including the monitor,mouse, keyboard,ect ?

Nope. Just the tower. He also uses only one brand of wireless mouse the keyboard. The keyboard that he uses isn't even in production anymore, but apparently it's the only wireless keyboard that lets him hold down more than 3 buttons at once. His entire rig is totally decked out. If I counted everything including the tower, I would say it's around $5000. But that's kind of unfair, because he's got an epic array of 10 GPUs (pretty sure they're all the best of the Radeon HD 6800 series), and only uses two for gaming and the rest for his project.

 

[UberNoodle]

PC has always suffered from the issue of software rarely using the hardware to its full capacity WHEN that hardware is STILL RELEVENT. Every card I have ever bought, reaches market saturation and therefore has software peaking it, when it at least 2 generations out of date. So yes, PCs can be crammed with amazing hardware but the games seldom use it, and it isn't just because games are coming out on console as well now. It's always been that way.

The issue I have with PC gaming is the tweaking to get the best performance to fidelity ratio. The start of the games tend to be slightly ruined by having to flick back to the menu to adjust the config. I loved that FEAR offered a config test that if your PC played it smoothly, it would perform well throughout the game.

 

[MR T3D]

The thing is, not that many people have super-powered latest tech PCs. You could make a game for such crazy-ass PCs but it wouldn't sell too well.

That's the only type of game Crytek has ever made, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

Crysis failed Sales wise.
Also the Gameplay was widely bashed for not beeing as good as was told, same for writing.
Also only a few had the machines to run the game on "Full potential" wich didn't probably help either.

crysis has sold over 1 million units, I wouldn't call that a failure, especially for a PC-only game many thought couldn't even run on their machine, and a 91 on metacritic is also pretty decent.

I think crytek is a pretty good dev. It makes pretty/fun games and doesn't afraid of bashing consoles' weaknesses.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The thing is, not that many people have super-powered latest tech PCs. You could make a game for such crazy-ass PCs but it wouldn't sell too well.

Current standard powered PCs built for gaming is still at least equal, if not more powerful, than the consoles. And it can easily be done for less than $1000.
If you do want to shell out the big bucks; there's a grad student in my lab who runs every game at maxed out graphics settings, 60 FPS minimum, with an insane resolution. I'm forgot exactly what it was, but it was higher than 1920x1200. The individual components combine for a cost of about $2400, according to him.

Your point being?

Just because it's not vastly more expensive than consoles doesn't necessarily mean more people have them. Consoles are simpler to run, and most people who buy a pc don't get one designed for gaming. For example, a family household isn't going to buy a gaming pc for their teenage son, but they might buy a console. My mum has bugger all interest in playing Crysis.