The PC community is thoroughly pissed at Crytek for abandoning the original Crysis and the PC community. Adding DX11 over 3 months after release was like putting a Band Aid on a gunshot wound. However, this is old news.

Now for some new (-ish) news.
From what I've heard, the Crysis 2 that was released wasn't the original, and therefore wasn't the real Crysis 2. It was originally planned for the story to start where Crysis left off, with the gamer potentially playing as Prophet.

I think there are several reasons that Crytek did what they did.
1. When they wanted to expand to consoles they didn't want to drop console players into the middle of the story.
2. Xbox360s/PS3s couldn't handle the jungle terrain and the next-gen consoles wouldn't be out in time.

They should have done the following
1. Formed a boycott with other game makers to pressure Microsoft/Sony into producing next-gen consoles. Basically, they would have threatened not to release premium games for consoles unless next-gen consoles were promised to be released by 2010.
2. Released Crysis for consoles.
3. Built Crysis 2 to PC standards, but in a way that it can be dumbed down for consoles.
* 3 is for if 1 was unsuccessful

As far as the real Crysis 2, does anyone have any more information about it? If not we'll probably have to wait for the community to produce it.

LOL at what they should have done.

1. Why in the world would the game developers do that to the companies that pay them?! If they did that they would all be out of business tomorrow.

2. there is already speculation the C1 will be released for consoles.

3. Define "PC standards" for me plz.

#1 Console makers don't pay the developers, consumers do. If developers didn't release premium games for consoles (like Crysis) the console makers would be financially hurt and therefore they would have incentive to develop an up-to-date console. It could have led to an expansion of PCs if the console makers didn't back down. A PC can do everything a console can and more.

#2 I doubt Crytek will. Then again they made Crysis 2. With pseudo-Crysis 2 out console gamers would buy the first one and say "WTF", just like PC gamers did with Crysis 2. It would almost certainly damage sales of a Crysis 3. Also, I doubt Xbox360s/PS3s could render the jungle without looking like crap.

#3 PC standards means: not five-and-a-half-year-old hardware and upper mainstream components. By upper mainstream I mean specs similar to 4 gigs of ram, an i5-750, and a GTX550 Ti. Basically, a computer costing about $800 is the PC gaming standard.

I really don't get why PCs are the minority gaming system. A computer is a necessity in today's world and the cost of a basic desktop and a console is more than a PC that can play games fairly well. My $1000 rig can Play Crysis well and do everthing else I need it to. Plus, replacing the graphics card down the road is often cheaper than a new console. ($300 console or a $150 550 Ti).

#1 Console makers don't pay the developers, consumers do. If developers didn't release premium games for consoles (like Crysis) the console makers would be financially hurt and therefore they would have incentive to develop an up-to-date console. It could have led to an expansion of PCs if the console makers didn't back down. A PC can do everything a console can and more.

#2 I doubt Crytek will. Then again they made Crysis 2. With pseudo-Crysis 2 out console gamers would buy the first one and say "WTF", just like PC gamers did with Crysis 2. It would almost certainly damage sales of a Crysis 3. Also, I doubt Xbox360s/PS3s could render the jungle without looking like crap.

#3 PC standards means: not five-and-a-half-year-old hardware and upper mainstream components. By upper mainstream I mean specs similar to 4 gigs of ram, an i5-750, and a GTX550 Ti. Basically, a computer costing about $800 is the PC gaming standard.

I really don't get why PCs are the minority gaming system. A computer is a necessity in today's world and the cost of a basic desktop and a console is more than a PC that can play games fairly well. My $1000 rig can Play Crysis well and do everthing else I need it to. Plus, replacing the graphics card down the road is often cheaper than a new console. ($300 console or a $150 550 Ti).

LOL at 1. ARE YOU STUPID!

LOL at 1. ARE YOU STUPID!
I'm sorry; this is a mature discussion for mature people. If you don't agree with someone else or they are incorrect you explain your opinion or correct them in a mature manner. Making rude comments using improper grammar that don't prove anything is about as immature as it gets. I've spoken with more mature and articulate Kindergartners. If you can't behave like a grown-up then GTFO.

LOL at 1. ARE YOU STUPID!
I'm sorry; this is a mature discussion for mature people. If you don't agree with someone else or they are incorrect you explain your opinion or correct them in a mature manner. Making rude comments using improper grammar that don't prove anything is about as immature as it gets. I've spoken with more mature and articulate Kindergartners. If you can't behave like a grown-up then GTFO.

Its not that i dont agree, its that you are TOTALLY WRONG! AND it was not an opinion. and the worse part is you are defending it. If you want to talk maturity dont assume something unless you have the FACTS!

oh and great comeback "I've spoken with more mature and articulate Kindergartners." Wow you must be a sterling scholar.

But just to show how wrong you are. Companies like MS and Sony pay MILLIONS of $$$ to game devs. You dont believe me? Nvidia gave Crytek over 2 million dollars. Granted they are not a "console" manufacturer. The same thing applies to Sony and MS.

Ok, here's how it works. The developer makes the game. The developer sells copies of it to retailers. The retailers sell copies to consumers for a profit. The developer uses the profit they made to make another game and the cycle continues. Where's the console maker in this loop?

The only semi-logical cycle including the console maker is this. The developer makes the game. They sell it to the console maker. The console maker sells it to retailers. The consumers buy it. The console maker gives some of its profit to the developer and the cycle continues.
However, if the developer stops making games then the console maker goes out of business. Their console sales would plummet because consumers have no reason to buy a console with no games. The developer takes a major hit, but they can still make games for PCs to keep themselves afloat. The console makers would recognize this and back down if they had half a brain.

Your argument is rendered moot.

Wow, sad about the ''real crysis 2'' part.

Yeah they could've done 1, but it would never have worked. They could never have gotten enough companies involved, everyone's just in it for as much flow of currency as possible, I'm afraid.

Also, you said m00t.

Ok, here's how it works. The developer makes the game. The developer sells copies of it to retailers. The retailers sell copies to consumers for a profit. The developer uses the profit they made to make another game and the cycle continues. Where's the console maker in this loop?


WRONG! The Manufacturer that the game plays on is the start of the "payments." Developers dont start making something UNLESS they have money. They get that money from people like Sony, MS, EA, Nvidia, and Intel and a few others in Crytek's case. Sony payed Crytek to develop for there console, MS payed to develop for there console, Nvidia payed for advertising rights as well optimization on Nvidia products, Intel did the same, etc.

AND console manufactured pay EVEN MORE for exclusivity. So games like God of War and Halo 3, the company in this case Sony and MS pay a bit extra to the developer in order to keep there games exclusive.

This is basic business 101. LEARN IT!

Its not that i dont agree, its that you are TOTALLY WRONG! AND it was not an opinion. and the worse part is you are defending it. If you want to talk maturity dont assume something unless you have the FACTS!

oh and great comeback "I've spoken with more mature and articulate Kindergartners." Wow you must be a sterling scholar.

But just to show how wrong you are. Companies like MS and Sony pay MILLIONS of $$$ to game devs. You dont believe me? Nvidia gave Crytek over 2 million dollars. Granted they are not a "console" manufacturer. The same thing applies to Sony and MS.

If you don't disagree, yet you "know" it to be wrong, what does that say about your mental stability? I never claimed it to be a fact; I said defend your opinion with evidence or correct me with evidence. It was a general comment that related to your post.

I am in fact a "sterling scholar". I've had a 4.0 for 3 years straight, taking mostly advanced classes.

How is the fact Nvidia paid Crytek relevant. Since you state that it isn't relevant, why did you post it? Millions is nothing. Starcraft 2 sold 1 million copies on the first day. If Blizzard made $10 per game then they profited 1 BILLION dollars the first day. They sold an additional 3.5 million+ since then. I'm well aware that SC2 is PC exclusive, but the principle remains the same. Like I said the CONSUMER is what funds the developers.

yes, I did say moot. It means not relevant.

If you want to say "rendered moot", son, just say it. All of this is really quite cumbersome.

Starcraft 2 sold 1 million copies on the first day. If Blizzard made $10 per game then they profited 1 BILLION dollars the first day.
What does 10x1 equal? 10. So 10x1 million must be 10 million. Far from a billion. Production and promotion would have exceeded that.

#1 You have yet to use one piece of actual definite evidence while I have used logic and actual facts you can confirm with an easy search.

#2 You don't explain AT ALL how console makers are the start of payments. Are you saying that bribes by other companies for exclusivity, etc. are the first payments? Game development starts before other companies know anything, meaning people have already been hired and PAID to work on the project. The money comes from somewhere.

#3 Other companies pay for advertising rights, exclusiveness, and compatibility insurance. DUH! I know this happens and it happens in virtually every type of legitimate business.

#4 Halo is made by Bungie/ Published by Microsoft and GOW is made and published by Sony. Microsoft hired Bungie to make Halo for them. Since the console makers are directly involved in making these games the point is moot.

As for SC2 sales, it's late and my ability to think goes out the window when I'm tired. Blizzard would still have made 45 million by December on only one game. Once again you have stated something without backing it up (Production and promotion would have exceeded that).

Thinking before you speak: Basics of Social Interaction 101. Take it!

Starcraft 2 sold 3.16mill copies (http://www.vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php?name=Starcraft+&publisher=&console=&genre=&minSales=0&results=50&sort=Total)

roughly around $65 a pop

so roughly $205,400,000

Starcraft ii according to the NY times has spent OVER $100,000,000 on just advertising.
(http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29485/Report_StarCraft_II_Budget_Has_Exceeded_100_Million.php)

So because it was over $100,000,000 we will estimate $110,000,000.

205,400,000 - 110,000,000 = 95,400,000

So we are at $95,400,000

Blizzard has roughly 4,600 employees, but for the sake of it we will take off half for those who may not have worked on SC2.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment)

so now we are at 2,300 employees.

The average employee for a major game developer starts at about $50,000 and that is for grunt work.

out of that 2,300 i would guess about 2,000 of those do grunt work.

2,000 x 50,000 = 100,000,000

95,400,000 - 100,000,000 = -4,600,000

Now we have 300 relativity higher payed employees. They would get roughly $75,000

75,000 x 300 = 22,500,000

-4,600,000 - 22,500,000 = -27,100,000

So not one bit of profit from the developer alone.

Now they have numerous companies like Microsoft pitching in a few million, lets say $6,000,000 and Mac pitched in $6,000,000 because they are major contributors to this game. we are now at $12,000,000

-27,100,000 + 12,000,000 = -15,100,000

Still no profit.

I believe the publisher is 3DO and because of that they most likely pitched in the most money. lets say $12,000,000 this is covering the cost to put on disk, office space, etc.

-15,100,000 + 12,000,000 = -3,100,000

So still in debt.

And finally hardware manufactures may have played a roll. Since i am not 100% sure which one did i will say Intel and Nvidia because they are the obvious ones that come to mind. Lets say, together intel and Nvidia spent $2,500,000 each totaling $5,000,000.

-3,100,000 + 5,000,000 = 1,900,000

So they made $1.9million in profit.

Conclusion: because i used SC2 as an example because you brought it up; they proved that they could not make much of a profit off the game. This is do that they did the stupid thing of spending an outrageous amount of money on advertising. So dont give me this crap that they make money without the help of these other companies. Now if they were multiplat Sony would have chipped in for the PS3 and MS would have pitched a little more for the 360.

As you can CLEARLY see. without the companies they were OVER $25,000,000 in debt.

Your posts are very decent,i enjoy reading

Starcraft 2 sold .....

Great example!
Little kids don't know **** about business..

im not gonna take sides whos right or wrong, i dont care however i do need to state this after researching how greedy pubishers are

developers = makes games (sometimes publish games) they make royalties or what ever the contract stipulates (normally its a pre negaotiated standard fee for a set amount of money given to them by publishers)

publishers = MAKES ALL THE PROFIT ( none extra goes to devs except on a new project)

microsoft/ nintendo/ sony = console makers, they make money by licensing the dev kits ( i believe its dev kits or just for the devs to use the consoles)

this is why console games are more expensive but make less money per product than pc,

pc= open source however smaller audience.

all in all i think if crysis 2 sold for example 2 mill on xbox 360 and 2 mill on pc, due to licences more profit is made from pc sales.

but who am i to know, its all about sixy PR rubbish and to state the reverse

it would be nice to have a "real crysis 2" but even though its us the consumer who buy the product and therefore we as a collective can make or break a company, publishers dont care as long as the shareholders get their big apple pie