The decision to make Crysis 3 dx11 is not only negative because it wills top players who have dx10 from playing it. It is awful because it advocates a terrible model for gaming.

Fanboys have stated it: Crysis 3 is a benchmark. Is this really what you want gaming to be: a benchmark for technology?

The only thing advertisings of Crysis 3 show is Crytek technology. Never is the gameplay or the story truly praised.

A gaming model that only plans to make people buy hardware is somewhat terrible, and make me wonder if Crytek is really a "gaming company".

What can you do with 50 dollars. Do you wanna buy a benchmark, or, with the same amount of money, buy indie games, or other games with a true story or gameplay?
Crysis 3 show the dark side of gaming.

When technology prevails on story or gameplay, video games are doomed.

The decision to make Crysis 3 dx11 is not only negative because it wills top players who have dx10 from playing it. It is awful because it advocates a terrible model for gaming.

Fanboys have stated it: Crysis 3 is a benchmark. Is this really what you want gaming to be: a benchmark for technology?

The only thing advertisings of Crysis 3 show is Crytek technology. Never is the gameplay or the story truly praised.

A gaming model that only plans to make people buy hardware is somewhat terrible, and make me wonder if Crytek is really a "gaming company".

What can you do with 50 dollars. Do you wanna buy a benchmark, or, with the same amount of money, buy indie games, or other games with a true story or gameplay?
Crysis 3 show the dark side of gaming.

When technology prevails on story or gameplay, video games are doomed.

http://secure.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=58953
There you go. Should explain the reasoning.