Crytek: PC is being held back by consoles.

[JeanLuc761]

Crysis developers Crytek spoke out today saying that while PC?s are a generation ahead of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but that future PC games will be limited by having to cater to less powerful consoles.

Speaking to Edge, Crytek?s CEO Cervat Yerli said ?As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both,? adding that ?PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won?t be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks.?

Discussing the reasons for this, Yerli says ?I generally think it?s still developers? mentality. A lot nowadays don?t consider PC a big issue any more; their [sales] expectations are nowhere near what they are for the console versions. Until the PC market creates comparable revenues, companies are not going to spend enough on the PC SKU of a game.?

Crytek are currently working on Crysis 2, which will be see a multiplatform release on March 22nd 2011. There are plenty of stunning screenshots and videos of the game over on the Crysis 2 site. You can see Cervat Yerli talking us through a level from Crysis 2 in the video below.


http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/11/25/crytek-say-%E2%80%9Cpc-is-easily-a-generation-ahead-being-held-back-by-consoles/

For most people this should just be common sense, but it is refreshing to have developers publicly recognize it. I love my Xbox 360, but the idea that Microsoft wants to extend this console generation for another 4-6 years is a little unsettling and the same goes for Sony.

 

[TelHybrid]

For most people this should just be common sense, but it is refreshing to have developers publicly recognize it. I love my Xbox 360, but the idea that Microsoft wants to extend this console generation for another 4-6 years is a little unsettling and the same goes for Sony.

The new Xbox is due for 2012. An ATi representative that talked to my friend's computer sciences University group confirmed this. No where near 4-6 years.

Personally I'd like to get as much money's worth out of my current gen consoles with some decent releases before they get abandoned for the next range of consoles, seeing as I don't crap money. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[JeanLuc761]

For most people this should just be common sense, but it is refreshing to have developers publicly recognize it. I love my Xbox 360, but the idea that Microsoft wants to extend this console generation for another 4-6 years is a little unsettling and the same goes for Sony.

The new Xbox is due for 2012. An ATi representative that talked to my friend's computer sciences University group confirmed this. No where near 4-6 years.

Personally I'd like to get as much money's worth out of my current gen consoles with some decent releases before they get abandoned for the next range of consoles, seeing as I don't crap money. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

My apologies, I hear a lot of estimates on when the next generation will start and no confirmation.

And don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate you wanting to get your money's worth, but that's not really what the article is trying to prove. Because of the limitations of current gen console hardware, games aren't advancing nearly as much as they should be. Gameplay is limited, visuals are limited, sound design is limited, etc. A good example I saw was that of Battlefield 2 vs. Bad Company 2. Bad Company 2 came out this year, yet Battlefield 2 (2005) was capable of far larger and more complex level design than Bad Company 2 was.

It's also worth remembering that PS2 continued game development well into this console generation; it took until this year for them to finally stop developing for it. Developers won't stop with the Xbox 360 or PS3 just because a new generation shows up.

 

[loremazd]

Somewhat, I'd say the cost of the computer is what holds the computer back. Just because the tech is there doesn't mean the majority of the market upgrades with it.

Crytek could make a totally rediculous spec game (again) and it wont see much success (again) because the reputation that is associated with having to upgrade their system, meaning that that 60 dollar game would probably require 250 bucks of upgrades for most people.

Generally what you're going for is a game that will work on a 3 year old computer.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I get what you're saying, but this is basically how i look at it:

I can save and spend... I dont know... $400 American for a PS3 and get a few games for.. I dont know... lets say about $130 American (I'm a sony gamer, so i dont know prices and stuff on Microsoft stuff). In contrast, I save up $2000 to buy a decent gaming computer. Or at least to have all the parts of it. Then thats another $200 for games cause i know good graphics heavy PC games are expensive. Now sure, it sounds great, but then as soon as I build my PC, its going to be obsolete. So I'll need to spend more money to keep it as current and top of the line. If I dont, then people who do have the money will have a better system then me.

With consoles, its not really like that. you pretty much are on even level with everyone system wise, so it depends on your entertainment system. So I'd rather have that, then in the long run be spending enough to buy a new console just upgrading a PC for it to be obsolete.

Essentially, to me, PC gaming is just a continuous game of catch up and puts a huge dent in your pocket that consoles really dont.

 

[LWS666]

I get what you're saying, but this is basically how i look at it:

I can save and spend... I dont know... $400 American for a PS3 and get a few games for.. I dont know... lets say about $130 American (I'm a sony gamer, so i dont know prices and stuff on Microsoft stuff). In contrast, I save up $2000 to buy a decent gaming computer. Or at least to have all the parts of it. Then thats another $200 for games cause i know good graphics heavy PC games are expensive. Now sure, it sounds great, but then as soon as I build my PC, its going to be obsolete. So I'll need to spend more money to keep it as current and top of the line. If I dont, then people who do have the money will have a better system then me.

With consoles, its not really like that. you pretty much are on even level with everyone system wise, so it depends on your entertainment system. So I'd rather have that, then in the long run be spending enough to buy a new console just upgrading a PC for it to be obsolete.

Essentially, to me, PC gaming is just a continuous game of catch up and puts a huge dent in your pocket that consoles really dont.

actually, PC games tend to be about $10 cheaper than console games.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I get what you're saying, but this is basically how i look at it:

I can save and spend... I dont know... $400 American for a PS3 and get a few games for.. I dont know... lets say about $130 American (I'm a sony gamer, so i dont know prices and stuff on Microsoft stuff). In contrast, I save up $2000 to buy a decent gaming computer. Or at least to have all the parts of it. Then thats another $200 for games cause i know good graphics heavy PC games are expensive. Now sure, it sounds great, but then as soon as I build my PC, its going to be obsolete. So I'll need to spend more money to keep it as current and top of the line. If I dont, then people who do have the money will have a better system then me.

With consoles, its not really like that. you pretty much are on even level with everyone system wise, so it depends on your entertainment system. So I'd rather have that, then in the long run be spending enough to buy a new console just upgrading a PC for it to be obsolete.

Essentially, to me, PC gaming is just a continuous game of catch up and puts a huge dent in your pocket that consoles really dont.

See, this is what surprises me. Absolutely nothing about that is factually true, especially today, yet everyone still believes it.

If you're spending more than $800 on a PC, you're doing it completely wrong. I waited five years to upgrade my PC and it cost $450 to do. Easy. Next, the games on PC are ALWAYS cheaper than on consoles, regardless of graphical prowess. Just look at Steam which has a 33%-75% off sale seemingly every other week. Yeah, PC gaming might seem more expensive at the outset, but it's cheaper when you look at the cost of gaming and free online.

As for "PC is obsolete when you buy it," the PS3, XBox 360 and Wii were, on a hardware level, obsolete three months after they released. That argument doesn't work. No normal PC gamer needs to upgrade their system more than every couple of years at most.

 

[loremazd]

snip

My PC, one that cost around 900 bucks at a time when consoles were still sold at their 600, could run crysis on medium and not chug one bit. With another 100 bucks poured into it, it could've taken very high settings easily, because the only thing it lacks is a proper video card. Right now, you can buy a PC that outperforms consoles so bad they fucking end up in a hospital for 600 bucks.

And remember, PCs do more than consoles.

I'm talking about BUSINESS MODELS. It's not a good idea to make games that cant be run by old -computer- systems. And by old I mean pretty darn old. And that in itself does limit the potential for games that can be made.

 

[GWarface]

Essentially, to me, PC gaming is just a continuous game of catch up and puts a huge dent in your pocket that consoles really dont.

I see what you mean, but i really dont agree...
Its not like you have to upgrade your PC every month or so... A well build PC can easily be used for several years without any upgrades...
I build mine for 10k DKK wich funnily enough is around 1337 Euro, and while this rig isnt the most powerfull you can buy, it will surely live for 2 years without any upgrades at all... And doing this makes me certain that i can play any game in highest quality...
When the time comes for upgrading ill just smack a new graphicscard and more RAM into it and it will be fit for fight for another year or two...
And that doesnt have to put a huge dent in your pocket, small upgrades like that arent that expensive...
And no, im not anything near being rich...

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I'd pay more attention to what they were saying, if they made more than just pretty FPS games.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I'd pay more attention to what they were saying, if they made more than just pretty FPS games.

I thought Far Cry and Crysis had excellent gameplay and visuals. Crysis seems to get a bad rap "oh, it's just pretty," but people seem to miss that the gameplay was great as well.

 

[Delusibeta]

In contrast, I save up $2000 to buy a decent gaming computer. Or at least to have all the parts of it. Then thats another $200 for games cause i know good graphics heavy PC games are expensive. Now sure, it sounds great, but then as soon as I build my PC, its going to be obsolete. So I'll need to spend more money to keep it as current and top of the line. If I dont, then people who do have the money will have a better system then me.

(Seriously, now I have to get some tissues to clean up this mess)

Let's go over this one more time:
NO, you don't have to spend $2000 to get a gaming PC. It's closer to $800.
NO, games are universally cheaper on PC due to no license fees. (And if you argue otherwise, learn to shop around. I've bought 11 games for about £11 in the ongoing Steam sale alone)
NO, your PC doesn't immediately become obsolete as soon as a better graphics card comes along. That's a bit like arguing that now the 360 Slim is released, every 360 Elite is worthless and can't play games any more.
Only shallow people wants "Teh Best Rig EVAR!" and upgrades their PC every week. Everyone else waits a few years and spend $200 on an upgrade.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

I'll have no problem saying that I absolutely love that consoles are holding PCs back.

To add to this, I don't own a current gen console, I am very much a PC gamer.

The reason I like this is because it keeps hardware viable for longer. Before when the PC market was growing with its technology you'd be lucky if you could get away with just upgrading your g-card every year. Now you can run the same hardware for quite some time.

I get what you're saying, but this is basically how i look at it:

I can save and spend... I dont know... $400 American for a PS3 and get a few games for.. I dont know... lets say about $130 American (I'm a sony gamer, so i dont know prices and stuff on Microsoft stuff). In contrast, I save up $2000 to buy a decent gaming computer. Or at least to have all the parts of it. Then thats another $200 for games cause i know good graphics heavy PC games are expensive. Now sure, it sounds great, but then as soon as I build my PC, its going to be obsolete. So I'll need to spend more money to keep it as current and top of the line. If I dont, then people who do have the money will have a better system then me.

With consoles, its not really like that. you pretty much are on even level with everyone system wise, so it depends on your entertainment system. So I'd rather have that, then in the long run be spending enough to buy a new console just upgrading a PC for it to be obsolete.

Essentially, to me, PC gaming is just a continuous game of catch up and puts a huge dent in your pocket that consoles really dont.

$2000 gets one hell of a gaming PC, not a decent one. You can get a good gaming PC for under 1k.

Comparing the cost of games is pointless, because consoles can't even compare. Not only are PC game's base price cheaper, but when you consider Steam and Impulse it's no contest.

As for your PC being obsolete as soon as you buy it, see before your quote. Also, what does it matter if people can run games better than you? It doesn't exactly give them an advantage over gameplay.

Most game engines seem to be built around the level of graphics detail as the UE3 or the Source engine. Ideally if you computer could handle these when they were first released, there should be little change now.

 

[LostAlone]

The problem is that everyone wants to get the biggest profits for their games, and that means that they want it on multiple platforms. Thats fine, and I can accept that.

What makes me scream with rage however is that they insist on developing for the consoles then slinging the same into the PC version. No changes, no nothing. I've played ported games that weren't even vaguely playable without a controller.

I get that their are different capabilities in the different platforms, but I can't help but think that if they started by making the PC version and used the available resources (particularly as far as being able to cope without a loading screen between each action sequence... theirs no damn call for it in this day and age) to make a good game on there, then transferred that across you'd get many happier PC gamers playing their games. The console gamers wouldn't notice, because they'd still get the exact same experience as they always would, but the PC gamers get a PC calibre game.

To be honest, I think that consoles should do away with the pretence that they are some how empirically different to a PC anyway. There's no real reason for them to act like that anyway. Maybe the next generation (of the Xbox at least) will take that approach, and give them the full feature-set of a PC thus allowing developers to actually make one version of a game thats simply scalable to your system. Sure Sony might be bummed, but Microsoft would become even more of a powerhouse than before.

At the very least only having to make and test one version of Gears/Halo/whatever the next big microsoft exclusive franchise is, would make it easier to develop and better for everyone involved. And those of us who have spent a lot on powerful gaming machines which will already be half a generation ahead of the next consoles (due to cost if nothing else... i don't see them launching a console at $1000+) will be able to join in too! One single windows powered gaming community, be it on an xbox or a PC.

I can but dream...

 

[JeanLuc761]

What makes me scream with rage however is that they insist on developing for the consoles then slinging the same into the PC version. No changes, no nothing. I've played ported games that weren't even vaguely playable without a controller.

*looks at Resident Evil 4*
Dear lord...

Fortunately, most developers deliver a competent PC port at the very least, but it is aggravating. Developing for the lowest common denominator means that everyone but the lowest suffers, and not just in the visuals.

 

[kebab4you]

As for your PC being obsolete as soon as you buy it, see before your quote. Also, what does it matter if people can run games better than you? It doesn't exactly give them an advantage over gameplay.

Of course it do! Seeing the bullet a lot sharper is a HUGH advantage