Crytek Boss: "Impossible" For New Consoles to Beat PCs

[Joccaren]

Gimme a break. Computers are built for a wide variety of functions and do them all well, as per the sum of their parts and programs. (This includes games.) However, consoles are built FOR GAMING. Add all the features you like, such as movies and internet or anything else, but the fact is that they are made to play games, specifically. If your game cannot run on a platform whose life goal is this one thing, them perhaps your game has problems.

In short, get over yourself, dude.

No.... Pretty sure the issue is with the consoles.

Its like shipping ports in some ways. A lot of countries have large shipping ports with deep canals, allowing massive trade ships to come in. There are also shipping ports with not-so-deep canals that can handle smaller trade ships, but not the really large ones.
Is it the trade ship's fault that the port wasn't deep enough?
No. Its job is to carry a lot of trade goods. The port's job was to allow it to dock and unload those goods. Only one of them is failing at this job, and its the port.
Likewise a game's job is to entertain, and the console's job is to run the games. The console is the one failing at its job at this point, not the game.

Additionally, it is VERY possible to have a PC built for gaming, and just like a console have Internet and Documents be only a side thing. Its how my PC was until a few months ago when I finally installed utility software. It existed to play games, and that is why I built it. Yeah it could perform other tasks like chat with Skype and using the Internet, but really it existed for games.

OT: This is old news. Consoles have been far behind in the power/price comparison for ages, and they're NEVER going to close the gap - only keep falling further behind. The only real advantage they've had over PCs for a while now has been the subjective fact that they fit into someone's life better - having it fit in better with their decor, or its small size working better for them - and even then sometimes...
They do also have a baseline advantage of being relatively cheap to just let you play games, but there's a reason I'm still using the PS2 I got for $50 instead of buying a PS3 or anything.

 

[Twilight_guy]

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Here, Yerli, this is exactly what I meant.

You don't need a 2000$ computer. You're going to need something like $400 to play them (which means jack shit), and $800 to play them at decent/good graphic levels. And yes, that $800 PC is likely going to be more powerful than a next gen console. This talk about $2000-$3000 price tags is really next to irrelevant and only serves to mislead whoever is reading the articles, which it has. Define "outdated PC", please, because the simple fact that you may not be able to run everything on max somewhere down the line is not a valid thing to say when your alternative is "because of that, I'll go even lower".

And I'm not sure you're serious with the second paragraph. Just how much more do you think can be "optimized"? Optimization isn't some magical ritual that gives you more processing power and memory to work with. All it is is cutting corners and inefficiencies, and we're at a point, for years now, where any extra work spent further optimizing is basically wasted as you're sluggishly approaching a point that wasn't particularly spectacular 7 years ago. The progress does not warrant the effort anymore, and you simply cannot get around hard limitations like the 512mb RAM.

Outdated means anything that's not "cutting edge" in this story since its quiet apparent that this guy wants to develop for stuff that has just been released onto the market. That's the problem with trying to develop only for the best is that the market shifts so fast that the best quickly becomes not so.

Algorithmic optimization. Its cool to develop new algorithms and its cool to design new algorithms that do the same thing but using less resources. Many developers only address the issue of creating new algorithms and being "cutting edge". As an overly simple example, developing a string matching algorithm and developing a string matching algorithm that runs in half the time are both equally good goals but one keeps getting ignored in favor of the more flashy goal of 'cutting edge'.

 

[Strazdas]

I dont need 2000 dollar PC to run your crysis 3 though. a 800 dollar one can run anything thats out there.

While he does go a bit on the curwe of self-glirification, that is not ucommon for me as well, one has to admit he is right about one thing - from a power perspective consoles will never be able to beat PCs, unless they make consoles so upgradeable its a PC with a TV for monitor anyway. And crysis franchise did push PC upwards. remember when Crysis 1 came out? how it was "hey icna run it im a god now" and how all benchmarks suddenly started using it as a base test? Crysis did push the hadwares to limits and made people buy newer ones. whether it is a good game is a different question, i frankly enjoyed it, but i would not want to re-play it, but the fact that it did advance hardwares people use is unquestionable.

as for people saying graphics are nto everything - i agree. but consoles limit more than jut graphics. remmeber DUST514. yeah, the console MMOFPS. being eve player i been following that developement, and they had to cut 2/3 of game modes simply becuase PS3 wotn run it. want to walk on lava bursting planet? PS3 cant handle it. want to fly on low gravity gas giants? PS3 cant handle. so were stuck with the regular brown barren planets. simply because PS3 cant handle other things. not to mention the size of the map and the real randomization of bases been cut due to PS3 limits. you know why we keep getting all these chest-high wall FPS? becuase consoles cant run anything else.

Algorithmic optimization. Its cool to develop new algorithms and its cool to design new algorithms that do the same thing but using less resources. Many developers only address the issue of creating new algorithms and being "cutting edge". As an overly simple example, developing a string matching algorithm and developing a string matching algorithm that runs in half the time are both equally good goals but one keeps getting ignored in favor of the more flashy goal of 'cutting edge'.

very true and i am saddened that optimization is very lacking in modern gaming. i mean look at GTA4, it had the worst optimized engine of the year, and it still sold well simply because it was GTA.
That being said i think crysis was awesomely optimized. the first one at least. that was the only FPS that year that my laptop could handle on high settings.

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

In this aprticular case yes, but in the logn run no.
Lets say you have a choice to buy a 7 year old console for 400 or buy a new and capable PC for 700. you plan to spend 1000 on gaming in time X. you can buy 400 console and 10 games for 60 each (lets ignore second hanf market that makes calculation more complex for now). or you can buy 700 PC and buy 10 games for 30 each at various steam sales and whatnot that seems to happen every freaking week now somewhere. You are ended up with a more powerful machine, same amount of games and cheaper games in the future. PC wins the cost battle in the long run.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

For those who think they need a $2000 PC to play games, or even $1000...WRONG!

PCPartPicker part list [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/EIKs] / Price breakdown by merchant [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/EIKs/by_merchant/] / Benchmarks [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/EIKs/benchmarks/]

CPU: Intel Core i3-2120 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80623i32120] ($117.27 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI H61M-P31 (G3) Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-motherboard-h61mp31g3] ($51.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Kingston 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/kingston-memory-kvr1333d3n9k28g] ($45.86 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/western-digital-internal-hard-drive-wd5000aakx] ($59.49 @ Outlet PC)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition 1GB Video Card [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r7770pmd1gd5] ($96.99 @ Microcenter)
Case: Cooler Master HAF 912 ATX Mid Tower Case [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/cooler-master-case-rc912kkn1] ($56.21 @ TigerDirect)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 400W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply [http://pcpartpicker.com/part/antec-power-supply-hcg400] ($45.98 @ Outlet PC)
Total: $473.78


This baby will still run games better than current gen and arguably even next-gen consoles, while having the expansion room for a far more powerful graphics card in the future (you can't upgrade consoles ). A semi-decent gaming PC for less than $500.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Well, this is just an indication that it's that time again. I'm a PC gamer and as the next generation of consoles rolls out, I expect to be seeing lots of news and articles talking about how "PC GAMING IS DYING!!!!1 THE PC IS DEAD!!!~" and then by 2020, the "next gen" will once again be the very "outdated gen." At which point we'll be hearing about how the PC is light years ahead of consoles. Hmm. Here's an idea, just play on whatever system you like. My last console was a Sega Master System II because after that, a PC made more sense according to my needs.

 

[The White Hunter]

Snip

That's funny because I played both of them on PC and the first one is really rather boring most of the time. Most of it is just walking through jungles to the next enemy camp to fight the shitty AI for a few minutes without actually using the suit because it's awkward at best without the shortcuts and even those don't exactly make combat that much easier.

It's definitely a gorgeous game with some great graphics but right through I felt hampered by some bizarre control choices (why couldn't I bind the suit functions? I mean I have a keyboard, not even inputs for Crytek or something? I'm aware of the shortcut option but it still doesn't make up for the lack of binding the things) and AI that's just not adequate for the task at hand, it can do the basic stealth stuff but it's so black and white on detecting you that it's difficult to have fun with it.

Maybe that's because it's far cry with a super suit and comes with all the inherent crap I hate about far cry.

2 is vaguely entertaining, or it would be if it didn't have the same terrible AI and a story that I just couldn't begin to feel compelled over. I'll concede that 2 is very corridor driven at times and when it opens up is when it's at it's best, particularly near the end.

2's multiplayer was also complete shit.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Blah blah blah glorious pc gaming master race blah blah consoles suck blah graphics are everything blah blah blah.

That's all I'm hearing from this.

Really? That's curious. Please, tell me more.

Well, Crysis is (or at least was) one of those series that PC elitists hold up as the reason that puny consoles can never hope to compete with glorious PCs and anyone that doesn't buy a £900 computer with eye-searing graphics and FTL internet is a puny sniveling poser that doesn't be deserved to call themself a gamer, etc etc. The series itself is average. Passable. I tried Crysis 2 round a mate's house once, it was kinda cool, but nothing special. But what the Crytek guy is saying here, that graphics are the be-all-end-all and that consoles are paperwights, really anoys me. Either he's been pressured into saying that stuff, in which case I feel really sorry for him, or he actually means it, in which case he should be making Micheal Bay films, not games.

Note: I'm not slamming PC gamers as a whole. I spend equal time on my PC as I do on my 360. I'm slamming PC supremacists.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Hey hey, whoa. Don't misunderstand. I didn't deny gaming computers. I'm typing on an Alienware as we speak. The notion is that computers CAN be pointed in that direction, not that this is their life goal forever and ever and ever. You following me? One's a modifiable rifle for different ranges and effects, and the other is a sniper rifle for penetration only. They come from different worlds and only after you alter them both ALOT do they resemble each other.

 

[afroebob]

Hes right but power should not be the main selling point that people try to push for PC gaming. For me its that PC gaming is WAY cheaper. The initial starting point might cost a little bit more but considering games are already $10 less off the bat and mix in Steam Sales (also other places like GOG that have great prices) and PC gaming is a good bit cheaper than consoles, especially Xbox. If you got the Xbox at launch and had Xbox Live from day one you have payed over $520. That is fucking ridiculous for a service that should be completely free. So ya, you want to play on consoles over PC? Go ahead, I think its stupid but if I don't really care it doesn't bother me.

 

[Frostbite3789]

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

 

[MorganL4]

I'm pretty sure PCs have always been more powerful than consoles, was he seriously worried the next gen would be any different? I think he needs to understand machine power has never been the selling point of consoles over PCs.

If next gen consoles are to "beat" PCs, it would be because consoles are more consumer friendly, standardized TV boxes that we can drop a flat fee on and never have to worry about upgrading. Of course that's pretty irrelevant these days also and seems to be a business model that current console devs are allergic to.

In all fairness when the PS3 first came out, the whole idea was that it was blinged out with top of the line hardware that COULD just about match a PC, but that was 2006..... It is a different world we live in now... Hey in 2006 there was no iphone, Youtube was new, and people still used myspace.

 

[Twilight_guy]

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

Take my made up numbers to illustrate an idea as literal some more.

Some people like a cheaper system so they can spend more on games.

 

[Frostbite3789]

What if I don't want to pay for a 2000$ computer to play your games? What if I want to buy a 500$ console and 1500$ worth of games... that's at least 25 games assuming I don't buy older or sued games as opposed to one game and a PC that will be outdated in 6 months.

Of course this is the guy who has a goal of developing thing for the highest rated and most overcost hardware as opposed to say, the equally noble goal of optimizing something to run on lower end systems.

Had my PC that I built for $800 including a sweet Samsung monitor and the OS for almost two years now. I can still run pretty much every game on about the highest settings.

Spread misinformation some more though.

Take my made up numbers to illustrate an idea as literal some more.

Some people like a cheaper system so they can spend more on games.

Your made up numbers were WAY off base though, and you used them because in some way in your mind you thought they were semi-accurate. That's like me saying new console games cost $300, it's just flat out wrong. No two ways about it.

Also your games are more expensive and go on sale less, not to mention you have a 360, I hope you didn't ever get Gold for that, paying for a service you get for free on every other platform, with more ads that you see on every other platform.

And here's the thing, I have a PS3 and grew up on console games, so it's not like console gaming is some foreign entity to me. But you shouldn't say things if you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Here, Yerli, this is exactly what I meant.

You don't need a 2000$ computer. You're going to need something like $400 to play them (which means jack shit), and $800 to play them at decent/good graphic levels. And yes, that $800 PC is likely going to be more powerful than a next gen console. This talk about $2000-$3000 price tags is really next to irrelevant and only serves to mislead whoever is reading the articles, which it has. Define "outdated PC", please, because the simple fact that you may not be able to run everything on max somewhere down the line is not a valid thing to say when your alternative is "because of that, I'll go even lower".

And I'm not sure you're serious with the second paragraph. Just how much more do you think can be "optimized"? Optimization isn't some magical ritual that gives you more processing power and memory to work with. All it is is cutting corners and inefficiencies, and we're at a point, for years now, where any extra work spent further optimizing is basically wasted as you're sluggishly approaching a point that wasn't particularly spectacular 7 years ago. The progress does not warrant the effort anymore, and you simply cannot get around hard limitations like the 512mb RAM.

Outdated means anything that's not "cutting edge" in this story since its quiet apparent that this guy wants to develop for stuff that has just been released onto the market. That's the problem with trying to develop only for the best is that the market shifts so fast that the best quickly becomes not so.

The point being? Progress happens and things get old so fuck progress? I fail to see how this is a problem, at all.

How do you get from this to "that's why I choose consoles"?

By the way, this guy doesn't "develop only for the best", considering the games Crytek release right now are designed on and for consoles this is a statement that's just beyond ludicrous.

Algorithmic optimization. Its cool to develop new algorithms and its cool to design new algorithms that do the same thing but using less resources. Many developers only address the issue of creating new algorithms and being "cutting edge". As an overly simple example, developing a string matching algorithm and developing a string matching algorithm that runs in half the time are both equally good goals but one keeps getting ignored in favor of the more flashy goal of 'cutting edge'.

So, basically, you think the consoles right now still can do about twice as much as they can today. I don't know where you get off assuming there's still that much progress to be made with rendering algorithms or any of that, and I don't know where you get off that it's more cost or time efficient to try to achieve what might be a pipe dream, but fine. Let's just assume that is the actual case.

Right now, I can buy a 400$ PC that's twice as powerful, or more, than a current gen console. Considering $400 is somewhere right on the edge of the bar where the cost-efficiency of PCs starts reaching acceptable levels, and considering the rather more focused nature of consoles and all the "discounts" consoles get in manufacturing and everything else, any half decent console that could call itself "next-gen" is going to have at least three times the capabilities of current ones, way more in terms of memory.

Your potential pipe dream in terms of capabilities has long been achieved by better hardware, there's no need to dream for some potential maybe when the future is right here.

As an addendum on the assumptions I mentioned, does the progress made by the 7+ years of this gen (especially the earlier progress compared to the last couple of years) really, really give you the impression that there's still much to go? Are you aware that the consoles right now can barely run a lot of their games on 30 FPS and 720p (if that), with small-scale levels, no anti-aliasing and ultracrappy shaders, never mind anything more sophisticated? How far do you really think they can progress, and is it based on more than just blind assumption?

Nope, not going to argue with you. Have better things to do with my time. Here's my points.

1. Developing only for, or primarily for, high end systems limits your customer base.

2. Some people prefer to buy a cheap system with good games even if its outdated. A notable example is the continuing popularity of the PS2 well into the PS3's lifetime.

3. As an aside, I hate the industry practice of only praising things that develop new technology and methods as opposed to improving on old methods.

Those are my points and I'm not going to be drawn into pointless arguments outside of that. Thanks for playing! Buh bye!

 

[Twilight_guy]

Your made up numbers were WAY off base though, and you used them because in some way in your mind you thought they were semi-accurate. That's like me saying new console games cost $300, it's just flat out wrong. No two ways about it.

Did you just tell me what I think? That's just... a really dumb statement to make.

Also your games are more expensive and go on sale less, not to mention you have a 360, I hope you didn't ever get Gold for that, paying for a service you get for free on every other platform, with more ads that you see on every other platform.

Who said I have an Xbox 360 and what does this have to do with anything?

And here's the thing, I have a PS3 and grew up on console games, so it's not like console gaming is some foreign entity to me. But you shouldn't say things if you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Well admittedly I don't have much knowledge on costs for things. However I do know that people will buy cheaper systems even if they are outdated and presumably spend more on games then cutting edge technology. The PS2 is an excellent example of that.

 

[RaikuFA]

I really do not care. Every few months this guy comes out and goes "Oh look at my games they're so shiny on PC compared to those filthy consoles."

Yeah you may get mods with PCs but it just gives you viruses, worms and leaves you open to being hacked.