Crytek: PCs Are a Generation Ahead of Consoles

[TheRealCJ]

Try £500 to £800 for a good gaming rig. though if you a laptop boy more in the region of a £1000 to £1300.

Nonsense.

I payed £300 in toital for mine. just build it yourself.

I do self build, would that price include monitor, keyboard etc as well? from the post he would be starting from scratch so it's important to consider everything and a decent monitor will be around £100 on it's own.

You're right! 300 pounds is just the starting price, when I factor in accessories and a monitor, it looks more like £500-600.

Console is definitely the way to go only £250! Oh, but now I need a tv, that's another £200 oh, and I guess if I buy a console, I'll also need to buy a cheap computer, can't play games ALL the time, that's at least another 200-300 pounds.

So if I shop conservatively, find bargains, or just get outright inferior tech, I'll probably save around 50 quid over building a moderately-priced PC. But the CONSOLE is so much cheaper.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I just can't imagine that 6 or 7 years from now, people are going to buy a PS3 or 360 at any price when a PC is going to be about 32 times as powerful. And if such a PC can be bought for $600, what would a console have to offer to be attractive?

First off, console gaming is still easier. A lot of people would just not bother having to install games, troubleshoot, bother with the DRM that's taken over the PC market, etc.

Second- it doesn't matter how many times more powerful PCs get if games aren't being made to take advantage of it. As long as games are still being designed around being able to run on a console, the differences between the console version and the PC version will be limited.

We'll get a new gen of consoles when either MS or Sony decide that the advantage of releasing a new system outweighs the cost of doings so. The recession has stalled that, but it will happen.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

then explain why its "wrong". you cant just say "its wrong" then dismiss it

Actually, I can! Watch: Your post is so obviously wrong and filled with nonsense that it is beneath me to waste time disecting it. It deserves to be dismissed out of hand.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes, that's you and if you are willing to find out, listen to what the devs reasons are to actually delay releases of big games months after people on the console enjoyed it.

You still haven't answered my actual question why devs delay it. It's not because to 'count' because why should they? They want instant money for their product, most logicial thing to do would be releasing every game on every platform on the same time.

Btw, don't feel threatend or think I am hostile, it's not my intention.

Simple. Making games for PC is HARD. If a game works on one PS3, it will work on all of them. If a game works on one gaming rig, that DOESN'T mean it will work on another.

Basically, a dev develops the game on a computer, then specializes it for a console. Back when computers were less diverse, they could put out the PC version while they ported it to console. Nowadays, they're done porting it to console but only STARTED figuring out why it works on a GTX 280 but not a GTX 260 (and making it work).

 

[omicron1]

Crysis failed Sales wise.

Say what? It sold over a million copies in four months - that does not equate to a failure by any means but COD "It needs to sell ten million copies on launch day to break even" standards.
And I'd bet anything it's still selling well - as long as it remains the benchmark for PC graphics, people will have a reason to buy it besides "it's the next big thing."

 

[lacktheknack]

then explain why its "wrong". you cant just say "its wrong" then dismiss it

Actually, I can! Watch: Your post is so obviously wrong and filled with nonsense that it is beneath me to waste time disecting it. It deserves to be dismissed out of hand.

Now you look like a pretentious elitist. Isn't that supposed to be a PC gamer trait?

 

[[Gavo]]

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.

The thing is, you don't need that. I invested in a good PC...two years ago. I can still run everything to the max.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Yes, that's you and if you are willing to find out, listen to what the devs reasons are to actually delay releases of big games months after people on the console enjoyed it.

You still haven't answered my actual question why devs delay it. It's not because to 'count' because why should they? They want instant money for their product, most logicial thing to do would be releasing every game on every platform on the same time.

Btw, don't feel threatend or think I am hostile, it's not my intention.

Simple. Making games for PC is HARD. If a game works on one PS3, it will work on all of them. If a game works on one gaming rig, that DOESN'T mean it will work on another.

Basically, a dev develops the game on a computer, then specializes it for a console. Back when computers were less diverse, they could put out the PC version while they ported it to console. Nowadays, they're done porting it to console but only STARTED figuring out why it works on a GTX 280 but not a GTX 260 (and making it work).

Actually it's nothing like that because PC games are built on API's the programming is exactly the same, the only difference in hardware of the same generation is processing speed, PC hardware is not accessed directly Its why DirectX and OpenGl exists because the hardware is so diverse it was a pain back in the old days of having to program for certain hardware, back when we had stuff like Duke3D soundcard support was a nightmare now it is not a problem

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes, that's you and if you are willing to find out, listen to what the devs reasons are to actually delay releases of big games months after people on the console enjoyed it.

You still haven't answered my actual question why devs delay it. It's not because to 'count' because why should they? They want instant money for their product, most logicial thing to do would be releasing every game on every platform on the same time.

Btw, don't feel threatend or think I am hostile, it's not my intention.

Simple. Making games for PC is HARD. If a game works on one PS3, it will work on all of them. If a game works on one gaming rig, that DOESN'T mean it will work on another.

Basically, a dev develops the game on a computer, then specializes it for a console. Back when computers were less diverse, they could put out the PC version while they ported it to console. Nowadays, they're done porting it to console but only STARTED figuring out why it works on a GTX 280 but not a GTX 260 (and making it work).

Actually it's nothing like that because PC games are built on API's the programming is exactly the same, the only difference in hardware of the same generation is processing speed, PC hardware is not accessed directly Its why DirectX and OpenGl exists because the hardware is so diverse it was a pain back in the old days of having to program for certain hardware, back when we had stuff like Duke3D soundcard support was a nightmare now it is not a problem

Quick question: How come Batman: AA rejected my computer until I replaced the motherboard with a slightly better one?

 

[Little Duck]

In a perfect world we would all buy a PC. Problem is, to get the aforementioned graphics from the gates of heaven look, you need to spend a retarded amount. Anything less than this amount often leaves you with something pretty horrific and as not everyone has infinite sums of money, pretty horrific is what stays. I honestly think pc developers don't look at what the core pc is and how good the graphics will look on it. I think they only care for the uber most PC and everything else is a nuisance to them.

 

[Atmos Duality]

My point here being that the constant pressure on games to look as good as possible has had a negative effect, just as it has with movies (Transformers 2). Maybe NOT concentrating on the aesthetics for a while will lead to better crafted experiences? Deeper plots, more engaging characters, greater variety in gameplay... there's still a lot more that you can do with this gen of tech as MS and Sony well know.

That won't make nearly as much money as half-assing the plot, tweaking what currently works, and re-packaging it.
Call of Duty. Halo. any series with a 4+ in its title. Any given Nintendo franchise...or the innumerable clones of any of these.

Those set the records. Those make the big-bucks. And 95% of those are shallow rehashes of the same game we've seen before.

Aesthetics/tech on the other hand ALWAYS shows off a measurable increase, or improvement to the gamer. So when looking around for a new game (and when they all happen to be the same thing as before) what do you think is going to sell better:
1) Last year's game.
2) Last year's game with next year's graphics?

Crytek is being part of the problem. Sure it's great to raise the technical ceiling, but only so long as the gameplay isn't effected.
And the gameplay IS BEING effected. It's becoming noticeably more shallow across the board.

The industry has created this profit-cycle that will forever trap most titles in stagnation, and they WANT IT to stay that way.

 

[lacktheknack]

In a perfect world we would all buy a PC. Problem is, to get the aforementioned graphics from the gates of heaven look, you need to spend a retarded amount. Anything less than this amount often leaves you with something pretty horrific and as not everyone has infinite sums of money, pretty horrific is what stays. I honestly think pc developers don't look at what the core pc is and how good the graphics will look on it. I think they only care for the uber most PC and everything else is a nuisance to them.

You make me sad. Since when is $800 equal to infinite?

 

[Flac00]

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

Still, I remain a console player at heart (even though my PS3 is far away at home and I have no TV at uni... *sniff*) - I honestly don't have £5000 or however much to invest in a big gaming powerhouse of a PC, and my little 13" MacBook Pro can't really compete against my PS3 graphically speaking

Also, graphics aren't everything Crytek! In many cases high-end graphics themselves can hold back games too - just look at Minecraft!

I'm going to be honest here, if Crytek are hampered in creativity terms because of the hardware/graphical limitations of the console systems... then I fear for the innovation department in Crytek =\

I do see your point, BUT. I don't think the developer was talking about graphics purly. Take a look at what Crysis brought to the table. It had amazing graphics and amazing physics. There is no console game with the kind of physics Crysis had, period. Gameplay wise is another big thing. PC series like Counter-strike had a currency system where you could by whatever you wanted, back in 1999. PC only games like Battlefield 2 and 2142 had a persistent soldier who you leveled up however you wanted. PC's have been and will always be ahead of the consoles because innovation only seems to appear on PC's. The few games I can think of that brought something significant to the table from consoles was Halo 1's innovations (even though it was originally a Mac game), and Gears of War (the cover system). If you can name others, please do, im not omnipotent. But at this point I can't think of a single other thing.

 

[Waaghpowa]

]

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.

The thing is, you don't need that. I invested in a good PC...two years ago. I can still run everything to the max.

This.
Also if you work out the actual costs of owning a home pc and a console, you'd be very surprised.
Rough math here: Console, 400 dollars after taxes, before additional accessories so about 500 - 600 depending on what you get.
Everyone on this forum has a computer obviously, Many of who probably purchases store pre builts so lets say 500 - 600 dollars.

You've effectively spent anywhere from 1000 to 1200 dollars on a console and a pc that can't play much of anything. with that much money you could've built a gaming pc that would blow an xbox out of the water and still serve as your home pc. Excluding the obvious exclusives most games are on pc as well.
It's much harder to argue cost of pc gaming when you work it out, and since Steam is always going nuts with sales, the cost of games in general is much lower than it would be for consoles.