http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVsT4D2_VTI&feature=player_embedded

So a few years ago the consoles were too limiting in their memory architecture to be able to handle a Crysis game.

I guess a few billion dollars in FPS console sales changed their minds , lol.

That one bit of the irony Crytek will ignore

Crytek is a business. News at 11.

Every company is out there for this --> $$$. The more $$$ the better. Now they have the mindless console gamers to farm...

Crytek is a business. News at 11.

Yeah , I respect their wanting to make some profit, but come on.. at least make a version for PC's that's not identical to the gimped down console-friendly version.

They could have added better AI, bigger MP maps with more players, better draw distance, higher res textures, more efficient and multi-threaded DX11 API, a PC focused control scheme that was't made with the limitations of a game-pad in mind, better graphics options, etc...etc...etc...

In its current state the PC version is unfinished. Its more than likely a rush job caused by the release date EA set. They are trying to finish it as fast they can and still give us the feature left to add in a quality manner. I would rather wait for a quality feature than have something that is very buggy and cant use my GPU the way it should be like BC2.

Crytek is a business. News at 11.

Yeah , I respect their wanting to make some profit, but come on.. at least make a version for PC's that's not identical to the gimped down console-friendly version.

They could have added better AI, bigger MP maps with more players, better draw distance, higher res textures, more efficient and multi-threaded DX11 API, a PC focused control scheme that was't made with the limitations of a game-pad in mind, better graphics options, etc...etc...etc...

I agree, making a profit is fine, its what a buisness does. Lying to your original base (PC gamers) to do so is not ok.
Also they would have made more money if they had created the game for the PC first then went down to PS3 then down to Xbox. Instead they went Xbox -> PS3 - >PC.

Yeah , I respect their wanting to make some profit, but come on.. at least make a version for PC's that's not identical to the gimped down console-friendly version.

They could have added better AI, bigger MP maps with more players, better draw distance, higher res textures, more efficient and multi-threaded DX11 API, a PC focused control scheme that was't made with the limitations of a game-pad in mind, better graphics options, etc...etc...etc...
The game industry has changed, PC is no longer the primary platform (it pains me as much as the next guy). Yes they COULD have done all of those things, but they didn't for the simple reason that they wanted to make an engine that ensures cross platform game development while maintaining the general quality across them. That engine is VERY marketable, moreso than a single game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that position. Personally I was shocked at how much that decision turned the PC version into what it is. However, again, they're a business that needed to evolve to stay competitive, because their industry *has changed*. In a way they serve two clients -- gamers, and potential licensees of the engine.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that position. Personally I was shocked at how much that decision turned the PC version into what it is. However, again, they're a business that needed to evolve to stay competitive, because their industry *has changed*. In a way they serve two clients -- gamers, and potential licensees of the engine.

Sad but too true.

Crytek and CE3 are trying to be the next EPIC games and UE3. At least with the ability of Ce3 to co-produce on all 3 platforms at once, it will be easier and quicker for the console devs to crank out the token PC version .

I might as well throw this **** computer out.

Not to get too political...but it's like Socalized healthcare. Everyone gets the same thing, crappy health care. People who had great or ok healthcare get crappy healthcare, people who didn't now have crappy healthcare.
PC, PS3 and Xbox360 all get the game...but PC and PS3 get less while Xbox360 actually gets to play it! Hehe.

lol.

Only it's not so much socialist thinking at work here than it is "save cash on making the game= more in EA shareholder pockets"

lol.

Only it's not so much socialist thinking at work here than it is "save cash on making the game= more in EA shareholder pockets"
You're right, actually. Not just EA, but anyone who uses the engine to make a game. Anyone thinking this kind of thing isn't in demand is delusional -- just look at how many UE3 games are out there.

lol.

Only it's not so much socialist thinking at work here than it is "save cash on making the game= more in EA shareholder pockets"
You're right, actually. Not just EA, but anyone who uses the engine to make a game. Anyone thinking this kind of thing isn't in demand is delusional -- just look at how many UE3 games are out there.
The SDK is going to be huge for Crytek probably, cutting edge technology without having to develop yourself is perfect for small time developers.

Intresting about the skin shaders in Crysis 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy47AbcmXQg&feature=related

In its current state the PC version is unfinished. Its more than likely a rush job caused by the release date EA set. They are trying to finish it as fast they can and still give us the feature left to add in a quality manner. I would rather wait for a quality feature than have something that is very buggy and cant use my GPU the way it should be like BC2.


I couldn't have said it better. I agree completely and gladly would have waited for a later release. I told my girlfriend about this game 2 years ago, and how I couldn't wait for it to be released. That it would BLOW her mind once she saw it. Well, she's seen it and she wasn't impressed one bit. She felt other games she's seen me play looked alot better than Crysis2.

Yeah , I respect their wanting to make some profit, but come on.. at least make a version for PC's that's not identical to the gimped down console-friendly version.

They could have added better AI, bigger MP maps with more players, better draw distance, higher res textures, more efficient and multi-threaded DX11 API, a PC focused control scheme that was't made with the limitations of a game-pad in mind, better graphics options, etc...etc...etc...
The game industry has changed, PC is no longer the primary platform (it pains me as much as the next guy). Yes they COULD have done all of those things, but they didn't for the simple reason that they wanted to make an engine that ensures cross platform game development while maintaining the general quality across them. That engine is VERY marketable, moreso than a single game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that position. Personally I was shocked at how much that decision turned the PC version into what it is. However, again, they're a business that needed to evolve to stay competitive, because their industry *has changed*. In a way they serve two clients -- gamers, and potential licensees of the engine.

This is a well thought out response, but I would point out one flaw...

Q: If I was a licensee of CryEngine3 looking to go multi-platform with my game design in an experience which scales on each platform what would I deduce at this point?

A: Crytek couldn't get CryEngine3 to scale on the PC platform, the game had to be reduced to its lowest common denominator the xbox360. You must therefore still be limited by the same design coonstraints as any other developer before CryEngine3 all we can do is help you port your game across platform. If Crytek can't get CryEngine3 to work how the hell are we going to make it work?

double post

The game industry has changed, PC is no longer the primary platform (it pains me as much as the next guy). Yes they COULD have done all of those things, but they didn't for the simple reason that they wanted to make an engine that ensures cross platform game development while maintaining the general quality across them. That engine is VERY marketable, moreso than a single game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending that position. Personally I was shocked at how much that decision turned the PC version into what it is. However, again, they're a business that needed to evolve to stay competitive, because their industry *has changed*. In a way they serve two clients -- gamers, and potential licensees of the engine.

Correct, the industry has changed, but the profit motive is still alive and well. How about this: Release the console version first, then a month or so later crank out a PC differentiated code path and rake in all that cash too. This way everyone gets what they want, which leaves only the professional whiners left out in the cold.

Indeed you ARE defending it by accepting it. Instead of being swept along by what are obviously bad business practices you cowboy-up and act like a consumer. By this I mean expect innovative thinking and great products from those who live on the money you spend.

No more hype (BOOM!) followed by disappointment (bust) for me. I'll wait a couple of weeks after release, when the reviews aren't bought and paid for. Of course this means I'll be much less likely to buy a game, but that's the industries' fault and no loss to me, yes?

>Implying the PC gamers wouldn't bich about waiting a month, call the devs sellouts, and be generally petulant

>Implying the PC gamers wouldn't bich about waiting a month, call the devs sellouts, and be generally petulant


That kind of person likes to complain about anything though. At least the rest of us would have had a working PC game that took advantage of our systems having many times the power of the xbox.

It would be much more better for PC gamers (the 80% of Crysis 2 owners) to create PC-exlusive high-poly models, or simply enable tassellation, make bigger textures, and other stuff like that. Then shrink them to play normally on consoles. Actually, Crysis 2 still has the best graphics on eiher consoles and PC. Graphics quality is not just about polycount. Shading, HDR, and other stuff like that matters.

I skipped page 2, but you guys are blaming the wrong people. EA are the ones to blame. Dont get me wrong, they have a great business model and really do support their companies. BUT, they dont half demand a lot and push games out on tight deadlines. Just look at BF:BC2, Dice got the same treatment if you ask me.

Hit reg here is just as bad too

It's not blurs, shaders and HDR either.
Cause somehow recently all EA products seem to look like a show-room of BLOO/D/R and DOF effects.
WE - WANT - THIS - NOT.

We want quality games.
Not quality blurs.

Dont get me wrong, they have a great business model
EA? GREAT business model?
Like where exactly? Comparing to what?

Are you kidding me?
1) This company was one of most urge to introduce online blockades to games, limit number of installations (sic!) and demand Internet connection for installing (activating) the game
2) Their anti-piracy systems FAIL a big time causing thousands of people not being able to play games at all or play them only in limited extent. And what's most funny - EA games get cracked in the day of release making PIRATES actually only people who can FULLY enjoy game without Internet connection or multiplayer issues.
3) They are the first company to openly discriminate one group of players - and what's funny it's a group company begun with - the PC players. We don't receive DLCs to their games console players do, we receive half-completed products for full price, console players barely have any problems with bugs (crysis 2 here being an exception where everyone are flooded by bugs).
4) EA is known of having one of worst support systems in the gaming world.
5) EA silently moves towards extermination of modding scene intentionally limiting the modding ability to their games.
6) EA is glorious enforcer of policy "release now, profit, consider making patches" instead of working on quality products.
7) Each game you buy is a hostage of EA - if they remove or put their activation/verification server down than you can forget about playing your game, ever.

So... erm... no, EA doesn't have anything good in their business model.

Business model has nothing to do with their relationship with the consumer, their practices give them best profitability which is exactly what ANY business would do.