Crytek: PC is being held back by consoles.

[Sephychu]

Crytek are such hypocrites. True though their statement is, they're saying it as they develop a console game sequel to their PC exclusive game-of-the-future.

I'm at a loss here. Aren't they conforming to this thing they find so terrible?

 

[JeanLuc761]

Crytek are such hypocrites. True though their statement is, they're saying it as they develop a console game sequel to their PC exclusive game-of-the-future.

I'm at a loss here. Aren't they conforming to this thing they find so terrible?

It's not really hypocrisy. They're stating the fact that consoles limit the development of gaming technology and design complexity, but developers honestly don't have a choice because console development is where the money is.

They're not telling anyone to stop developing for console, they're just saying that consoles are far more restrictive than PC development.

 

[Sephychu]

Crytek are such hypocrites. True though their statement is, they're saying it as they develop a console game sequel to their PC exclusive game-of-the-future.

I'm at a loss here. Aren't they conforming to this thing they find so terrible?

It's not really hypocrisy. They're stating the fact that consoles limit the development of gaming technology and design complexity, but developers honestly don't have a choice because console development is where the money is.

They're not telling anyone to stop developing for console, they're just saying that consoles are far more restrictive than PC development.

Fair game, I just find it a little odd that they're releasing this statement while effectively dumbing down a good(or at least advanced) PC game for the consoles.

Still, once they're done with this perhaps they can get on giving Crytek UK the money for new Timesplitters and Battlefront games.

 

[Wicky_42]

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.

God, I know. But the alternative is saving up $1000 for a console, then spending $100000 on games and double that on DLC to play online! Plus as soon as you get one console, the next generation rolls around, and all the good exclusives come out on the other machines. not to mention all the peripherals you need to buy - it's like double the cost of the console to get 4 controllers, obligatory motion control, not to mention the guitar hero or rock band set which is again the cost of the console.

So yeah, PCs can be pricey but consoles cost like a trillion dollars to get going. If we're just throwing around stereotypes and complete lack of information.

Or if we do a point-by-point analysis of the two systems:

PC: long-lived, parts can be replaced by yourself, work and play uses, largest range of control options, widest range of games, super awesome deals on games, mods, freeware, upgrades. Controls can be daunting for a first-timer.

Console: Hardware made by lowest bidder, expensive tech support, no compatibility/support for third-party hardware DIY repair jobs, only used for entertainment, limited to game pad input or gimmicky controllers, smaller game market focussed around FPS, racing and sports titles, limited options for deals on games as even the used game market is expensive and limited by DLC (not to mention PC prices for new releases tend to be lower), no mods or third-party support, no free DLC, no upgrade potential. Controls can be daunting for a first-timer.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

No it's not. The PC is being held back by lazy developers, not consoles.

 

[TraderJimmy]

I guess Crytek are aptly named. Doh-ho-ho.

Ugh. Sorry.

They do have a good point, I think. Although I also think that consoles holding PCs back a little helps independent developers and people who can't afford the latest computers.

Eh.

I'm inclined to let the passage of time sort this out. But then I don't have as much of a stake in this issue as the developers.

Damn my fence-sitting ways.

 

[8bitmaster]

I actually believe this is accurate. Yes, I am a PC gamer, but its true that PCs due have more power, and have a much longer lifespan. You only really need to upgrade parts every 5 years or so out of necessity, but to be on top, you would need to upgrade every 1-2 years. Yes, its much more expensive, but all the cutting technology that goes into gaming computers is better than the current console generation usually after a couple of months after the console's release. I am not saying consoles are bad, its just PC exclusive games do turn out quite good because then you don't have to deal with shitty console ports.

in short, consoles have specific limits they need to stick to. Computers don't (in a way).

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.

You realize if this does happen, it would suck for console gamers. That would mean that when games start needing more power in the next few years, they may not make as much but PC will be the only thing that will be able to run said games.

 

[superbleeder12]

No it's not. The PC is being held back by lazy developers, not consoles.

Actually, I think its publishers forcing developers to create games with multiplat in mind. Any big budget PC game now is going to be made for multiplat. Games on consoles characteristically sell better than on PC.

Spoiler

mini-plug for my website: I wrote an article on the subject here [http://agamersperspective.com/other/tech/is-the-current-gen-too-old]

 

[thethingthatlurks]

I've just put together a high-end machine on newegg for $1050 (that is without paying too much attention to better deals), and I could easily get the same power for ~$200 less. So...my PS3 cost $300, and I love the little thing. But it simply doesn't have any future potential. It's at its peak right now, and if only idiotic accessories like Move come out, what's the point of buying one? This PC on the other hand will last quite a long time, and I can use it for office work and computational work (that is the scientific million calculations kind), which no console will ever be able to do.
Of course consoles hold the PC back, at least when it comes to games. They're cookie-cutter things, all identical, which makes programming and production easier. Yet they lack the power to compete with even budget price PCs, and have zero future potential. So yes, PC ftw.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

Windows XP 3GB Ram and a 5 year old video card...

With the right settings tuned I can run Crysis Warhead and Crysis with most of the graphics settings on high.

Crytek games can be played well if you look up a decent, basic tuning guide and you can save yourself mega bucks with a small download and a few mins net time.

Also I agree here with Yerli, I just stopped bothering with consoles once I got a pc, but it is soooo irritating to see HUGE shelves full of console games and almost no pc games except when Blizzard gets dev-happy.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Honestly, I'm a bit glad, and that's coming from a PC gamer.

PC hardware is progressing with such an alarming rate that I welcome the fact that you don't need all cutting-edge, pricey hardware (like graphical cards that are more expensive than my TV or PS3) to play the latest games. It's good to know that my new 800 euros machine is going to last pretty long.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

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.

Okay, every PC user says this. I am a PC gamer. But I have to respond...

WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO OR -WANT- TO BUILD OUR OWN RIGS. We want to GO TO A STORE, BUY one, and have some geek assemble it and install our software so we can call them and yell at them when it doesn't work, not trouble shoot ourselves. The Unbox and Play idiot proof schema is WHY consoles are more successful, not price- anyone can grasp them, quickly and easily.

Until public schools start to teach computer assembly in middle/highschool (a very handy skill that ought to be anyway) PC's will never ever ever have the market saturation of consoles, and therefor never ever match profits.

I totally agree Consoles are putting a limiter on the progress of PC games due to the profit split requiring dual development for PC AND console, but PC will always have that knowledge and/or price entry barrier.

This being said, I buy most if not all of my games for the PC, now that I have a great rig. It cost alot and took me a year to pay off, but I'm happy.

 

[TPiddy]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. PC Gamers have only themselves to blame for this. Increase in piracy, coupled with the WoW model, has led to a decline in profitability for development on PC. Now, only a select few developers can make any money with a PC exclusive.

Consoles are clearly a more profitable market and as such we've seen several development studios shift their focus, making PC a secondary consideration. As a result, they only 'port' their titles to PC instead of making a game designed around the latest PC specs.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Okay, every PC user says this. I am a PC gamer. But I have to respond...

WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO OR -WANT- TO BUILD OUR OWN RIGS. We want to GO TO A STORE, BUY one, and have some geek assemble it and install our software so we can call them and yell at them when it doesn't work, not trouble shoot ourselves. The Unbox and Play idiot proof schema is WHY consoles are more successful, not price- anyone can grasp them, quickly and easily.

Until public schools start to teach computer assembly in middle/highschool (a very handy skill that ought to be anyway) PC's will never ever ever have the market saturation of consoles, and therefor never ever match profits.

I totally agree Consoles are putting a limiter on the progress of PC games due to the profit split requiring dual development for PC AND console, but PC will always have that knowledge and/or price entry barrier.

This being said, I buy most if not all of my games for the PC, now that I have a great rig. It cost alot and took me a year to pay off, but I'm happy.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't have much sympathy for people who are willing to spend an extra $800-1000 on a PC instead of just taking little time to learn how the pieces go together. As a PC gamer yourself, you should know that building a PC is not a complex process.

I do respect that this complexity is what keeps people going for console but I don't have the same respect for people who spend way more than they should then complain it's too expensive.

 

[Doc Cannon]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. PC Gamers have only themselves to blame for this. Increase in piracy, coupled with the WoW model(...)

Being a PC gamer myself I find your generalization very insulting.

 

[SyphonX]

Why do people think "$2,000 is the standard price range for average new PC's" ?? That's ridiculous. I consider anything near 2 grand to be "top-end", and anything over 2 grand is simply overindulgence. I spent just under 2k for my system; a quad-core with dual GTX480's. It's a super-beast.

The only way I could spend over would be to transition my rig into a liquid-cooling system, or just soak it in mineral oil. I don't need this.

I guess I should point out that I bought all the parts separately, and "built" it myself. Doesn't require much intelligence or work, frankly. Considering all my parts are under generous warranties thanks to the quality companies I buy them from, I don't have to worry about much. Stop buying pre-built systems if it's not in your ballpark. You can get an extremely amazing system on the cheap.

Microsoft wants to push the 360 until around 2015. A decade old system, pathetic.

Also, why do people think new tech only = pointless shiny graphics.. ? New tech means a large pool to dip into when it comes to mechanics and gameplay. Physics systems, complex AI algorithms, increased efficiency for "standard" functionality. The list goes on, and then, on the end of that beautiful list, we have 'graphics'. If we're just going to hang on to crappy tech for 10 years, then we are going to be stuck with an incredibly stagnant pool of games. I seriously cannot even fathom how shitty it is going to be to be sitting in 2015, looking at new releases for "games" on Xbox 360 tech. I'd rather puke.