It appears your theory is is pretty similar to the one that was leaked to Eurogamer.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-30-crysis-2-dx11-fix-in-2-3-months-report


So looks like Crytek was not planning on releasing DX11 from the start, but convinced to by a cash payment from nvidia. What PC gamers will be left 3 months from now. Stupid move Crytek.


That's a false information. Crytek NEVER confirmed anything of this. Another cheap website hoping to cause chaos like the other fake german site saying Crytek gonna release dx11 patch tomorrow. You do realize April Fools is tomorrow and i ain't falling for it.


actually this is correct information. If you read what I wrote originally then you will clearly see that this is true. All you have to do is scroll up and look for some of the comments I made earlier on the subject, then you will see for yourself that this is most likely true

If it takes months to develop DX11 patch, I don't think the management people of Crytek and EA authorize the dev team to develop it.

A patch is basically provided to users complimentary, and it does not generate an explicit cash flow visible to the management. So dedicating a team of high-salaried engineers into such a project for several months is nothing but egregious, from the management's point of view.

To justify the huge amount of man-hour poured into the development, perhaps they must release the patch as a paid "graphics update DLC" or even as a new product such as "Crysis 2.5".

That said, I DO want them to develop and release a graphics update patch soon.

It appears your theory is is pretty similar to the one that was leaked to Eurogamer.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-30-crysis-2-dx11-fix-in-2-3-months-report


So looks like Crytek was not planning on releasing DX11 from the start, but convinced to by a cash payment from nvidia. What PC gamers will be left 3 months from now. Stupid move Crytek.


That's a false information. Crytek NEVER confirmed anything of this. Another cheap website hoping to cause chaos like the other fake german site saying Crytek gonna release dx11 patch tomorrow. You do realize April Fools is tomorrow and i ain't falling for it.
actually this is correct information. If you read what I wrote originally then you will clearly see that this is true. All you have to do is scroll up and look for some of the comments I made earlier on the subject, then you will see for yourself that this is most likely true


Well I think the problem is there are multiple forces that potentially are involved.

1: Crytek's own plans after Crysis 1
2: EA's influence on Crytek
3: Nvidia's influence on Crytek
4: Nvidia's influence on EA

Given what we know about the situation, I don't know that we can ever say for certain what #1 would have been on its own. It certainly seems like Crytek was pursuing a sequel very much PC-centric along thhe lines of the original, and, based on several comments from Yerli, was suddenly forced to shift the game and the engine to a much more console-centric approach. This reeks of a decision forced u pon t hem by EA, but we really can't know for sure. I doubt Nvidia's 2 mil was to buy DX11 exclusivity, but I do think it played a large role in the outcome ofthe game.

If I had to string together a best guess narrative, I think it would go like this:
Crytek starts out developing a second Crysis game (meaning exactly what we would have hoped it meant). Halfway through development, EA made the call that a high end PC focus wasn't good enough, and told Crytek they had to instead make the game as widely accessible as possible to the existing hardware market (as opposed to presumably the original strategy, which was to make a game that increased the hardware market by inspiring new purchases.). Crytek made the best of the order, and shifted their challenge from making a highly future-looking engine to making the best looking engine possible on their new target platforms. Not really what Crysis owners probably wanted, but from the perspective of the new goals, everything was going along hunkey dorey until Nvidia realized "wait a minute, Crysis 1 was a HUGE hardware mover... If Crysis 2 looks as good on 8800GTs as it does on dual 580s, we are getting totally shafted." So Nvidia did what they do best and made a shady, under-the-table deal with EA to ensure Crysis 2 would "Play Best On" their upcoming flagship card. In the meantime, Crytek had been focused for the past year+ on the polar opposite of a DX11 system crusher, so when EA all of a sudden told them "oh, btw, if you don't fulfill the promises we just made, you have to pay Nvidia back their 2 mil," they put the foot down and said there was no way they could do that by launch. Maybe they lied at first, or honestly tried at first, but at some point it was clear to all 3 parties that it was just not possible. This would be when Nvidia started quietly rolling back all their grandiose statements about Crysis 2's DX11 performance on their cards.

I'm sure many of the specifics above aren't accurate, but I'd be willing to bet that the overall narrative is pretty close. I don't know where this leaves us as consumers; maybe Crytek's still working on fulfilling the promise of that 2 million, maybe EA gave Nvidia a refund and everyone moved on. Maybe Nvidia is still as in-the-dark about the whole thing as we are, and is prepping a suit against EA as we speak. One thing I'm certain of is that regardless of whether Crytek was a victim (as in the above narrative) or not, they sure as **** need to learn some lessons about honest communication with their customers, either directly or via the community managers. Crytek as a PC developer has lost a tremendous amount of goodwill, and much of it could have been mitigated if they had been forthcoming about the community's complaints. The mods here have done a commendable job, but a lot more people would have been a lot more patient if they could have been passing along updates from the devs instead of having to essentially troubleshoot along with the players.

There is no dx11 support than, nor is there dx11 furture patch comming from crytek. To be honest if the game engine itself can be updated to support dx11 or if the engine is already supporting dx11 but due to the sort time crytek was pressure to remove it. I say Crytek still got a second chance to redeem themselves by releasing a patch that actually supports dx11. I don't care if it take tell december for the patch to released if it being released it's bound to get more buyer on the holiday. Then I can brag how good my computer can runs on crysis 2 for my console friends.

qbert39 ,

you are absolutely right on your post, my friend.

well they still could release a stand alone dx11 version with full capabilities, and at a discount to ppl who purchased the dx9 game.
i would buy it for sure .this will keep main stream pcers happy as well as enthusiasts what do you think guys?

My belief is that originally crysis 2 was not going to be a dx11 game at all and it was just going to get released last fall. But then Nvidia steps in with 2 million dollars with a deal regarding this game and I believe this was the real reason for the delay in the first place. EA/Crytek took Nvidia's 2 mil and said we can implement dx11 on the pc side and also optimize the game for FXAA. EA then asked crytek when could you get this done and they said in the spring. EA said can u do it before the end of the 2nd quarter and Crytek said yes. EA said good cause we need this out by then to please our shareholders and the market.

I disagree. If you look at the original CryEngine 3 press release here: http://crytek.com/news/crytek-announces-cryengine?-3 (Last updated: 08/06/2010 - 18:06), you'll notice that it was announced to have DX9/10 support (I would presume they changed the target for 11 a little later because of the compatibility andsimilarity between 10/11 and the DirectX timetable)

As for specific mention of DX11, the one place I could find it was here http://crytek.com/company Last updated: 07/12/2010 - 13:35)

At any rate, what I really hope for with their DirectX 11 implementation is one that actually makes a difference- which is also possibly why it could be in a state of delay. I've noticed many games that have DX9 and DX11 support don't actually look that different when in DX11 mode vs DX9. This is probably due to games using abstracted graphics calls, or in other words, the game has generic code it runs that makes equivalent calls to APIs such as DirectX and OpenGL. This is an important way that games can support both PS3 (OpenGL based) and Windows/Xbox (DirectX). However, this means that the game doesn't use many, if any, unique features to any one API. In other words, things like Tesselation in DX11 don't get used because it's not automatic - it has to be specifically implemented. So, what I'm getting at is that I really hope that Crytek is taking extra time so that the DX11 implementation actually uses DX11-specific features and doesn't just imitate the DX9 implementation.

Actually op the Cryengine 3 does support DX11. Watch the GDC footage. So that part of your argument or discussion is null and void. Still a good read though.

I can't find the footage but I know it's supported. I remember watching it.

I do know the engine supports it because the leak showed the files. So they do have an engine capable of outputting DX11 otherwise they wouldn't have compiled DX11 .dll's for their engine.

Is that the same video with destructible sections of the environment that we dont have?
Could it be that they have two seperate version, or had to cut it out due to engine problems? (BF2 originaly had BC style destruction but they had to cut it out.)

If that's true it still all hinges on the details of that conversation where EA asked CryTek if they could ready the game for DX11 by the spring launch date. Ready it based on what appropriated funds to do that extra work, based on what development team parameters. It could very well be that EA either denied funding for CryTek to get help from another team to share the load of the DX porting, or were vague in asking and found out that when CryTek said yes they were planning to do it with help, help EA may not have OKed. There's just too many variables even IF most of what you're suggesting is true, to place most of the blame on CryTek.

What I blame CryTek for is the core design of the game. It doesn't even feel like a sequel. It doesn't tie in very well to the first, the AI is atrocious, there's a lot of places where you have to force yourself to engage in unnecessary combat to keep it from being boring, and it has virtually NO advanced graphics options. This is nowhere near the caliber of game Far Cry, Crysis, and Warhead are.

IT'S ALL NVIDEA'S FAULT. FUK NVIDEA! FUK EM ALLLLL.

Long live Crytek.

My belief is that originally crysis 2 was not going to be a dx11 game at all and it was just going to get released last fall. But then Nvidia steps in with 2 million dollars with a deal regarding this game and I believe this was the real reason for the delay in the first place. EA/Crytek took Nvidia's 2 mil and said we can implement dx11 on the pc side and also optimize the game for FXAA. EA then asked crytek when could you get this done and they said in the spring. EA said can u do it before the end of the 2nd quarter and Crytek said yes. EA said good cause we need this out by then to please our shareholders and the market.

I disagree. If you look at the original CryEngine 3 press release here: http://crytek.com/news/crytek-announces-cryengine?-3 (Last updated: 08/06/2010 - 18:06), you'll notice that it was announced to have DX9/10 support (I would presume they changed the target for 11 a little later because of the compatibility andsimilarity between 10/11 and the DirectX timetable)

As for specific mention of DX11, the one place I could find it was here http://crytek.com/company Last updated: 07/12/2010 - 13:35)







At any rate, what I really hope for with their DirectX 11 implementation is one that actually makes a difference- which is also possibly why it could be in a state of delay. I've noticed many games that have DX9 and DX11 support don't actually look that different when in DX11 mode vs DX9. This is probably due to games using abstracted graphics calls, or in other words, the game has generic code it runs that makes equivalent calls to APIs such as DirectX and OpenGL. This is an important way that games can support both PS3 (OpenGL based) and Windows/Xbox (DirectX). However, this means that the game doesn't use many, if any, unique features to any one API. In other words, things like Tesselation in DX11 don't get used because it's not automatic - it has to be specifically implemented. So, what I'm getting at is that I really hope that Crytek is taking extra time so that the DX11 implementation actually uses DX11-specific features and doesn't just imitate the DX9 implementation.


Okay so let me get this straight your basing your whole argument off a press release that says cryengine 3 supports dx11.

the funny thing is if cryengine 3 the current version that can be bought from crytek is dx11 capable then why is it not advertised on the cryengine 3 page here http://crytek.com/cryengine/cryengine3/overview

no where on that page does it show that it supports dx11

but the funny thing is

if you look on the page for cryengine 2 they have no problem telling you it supports dx9 and dx10. There listing it as a selling point http://crytek.com/cryengine/cryengine2/overview

I would think you would want to list it dx11 as a selling point especially since your biggest competitor which has a lion share of the market Epic, clearly displays there engine supports dx11

http://www.udk.com/features-rendering.html

From what I have heard the cryengine 3 page use to say that it supports dx11 but it no longer does. Why is that?

and again why would nvidia pay EA/Crytek 2 million dollars for specific features to be implemented in crysis 2.

Honestly does this take a real genius to figure out ?

If your a pc gamer thru and thru you already know the answer. It's simple there is no killer app currently for the pc . When Nvidia made the deal there was no app that was known that was pushing pc's capabilites to the limit that have major market share potential. Sure there is Metro 2033 and Stalker Call of Pripyat but you really can't call those triple AAA titles.(there good games by the way recommend them both)

Nvidia was fully aware of what crytek is fully capable of and wanted to have a game that really pushed hardware. So it would justify the purchase of 5xx cards.

I personally have a gtx470 and I have yet to play a game with the exception of the two games above that have an any meaningful way have pushed that card even close to its limits.

I know one thing thou all of us here in this forum and nvidia have one thing in common.

We area all dissapointed in crytek.

And one last note I can't wait for BF3 that will be the first true dx11 game that is AAA

No, I'm not saying that CryEngine 3 is necessarily currently DX11 capable. That, I don't know. However, I am saying that, at least in March 2009, the plan was to support at least DX10. Supporting DX11 follows as a natural extension. Also, their company page states "Crytek launched the third version of CryENGINE? in October 2009, which is the first game development platform for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, MMO, DX9/DX10/ DX11 that also is truly next-gen ready."

My point is, I do not believe, and there is no evidence to support, that this game was originally intended to be DX9 only. My point is that DX10 and/or 11 were in the plan all along, but did not make it in time for release. My hope is that they are actually making a worthwhile use of DX11 unlike many games that support it, but don't use it to much of its potential.

EDIT: And furthermore, in fact, if you think about the nVidia deal (if it did indeed actually occur), it would make sense that they would delay the DX11 part. Why? Because, they could have potentially been implementing DX11 like many other games - in a way in which it acts very similarily to DX9. But, nVidia wanted them to use more of the new features, so they had to delay the implementation to have time to properly apply things such as tesselation.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,693558/DirectX-11-Frostbite-2-engine-Battlefield-uses-Compute-Shader-for-Deferred-Shading/News/

Dice says it took them 3 hours to port Frostbite from dx10 to dx11.

EDIT: And furthermore, in fact, if you think about the nVidia deal (if it did indeed actually occur), it would make sense that they would delay the DX11 part. Why? Because, they could have potentially been implementing DX11 like many other games - in a way in which it acts very similarily to DX9. But, nVidia wanted them to use more of the new features, so they had to delay the implementation to have time to properly apply things such as tesselation.


Uhm, I said this exact same thing in my original post. there was even an article that was posted that indicated that crysis 2 was being redsigned for the gtx 580 read here http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/faith/crysis-2-being-re-designed-for-gtx580-expect-delays/

Actually op the Cryengine 3 does support DX11. Watch the GDC footage. So that part of your argument or discussion is null and void. Still a good read though.

I can't find the footage but I know it's supported. I remember watching it.

I do know the engine supports it because the leak showed the files. So they do have an engine capable of outputting DX11 otherwise they wouldn't have compiled DX11 .dll's for their engine.


I would like to see what video you are talking about that indicates that cryengine 3 supports dx11. I have yet to find one video that backs up your claim. There is nothing on the cryengine website that says it supports dx11 nor is there any documentation otherwise that says it does.

So please enlighten us with what you know with references

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27435614


did you read the article on there .


Hmm let me copy and paste what it says

first this takes place august 31 2010

well as i said before in my earlier post the game was delayed in early august as seen here
http://www.1up.com/news/crysis-2-delayed-2011-financial

now in your artitcle it talks about what would be included with crysis 2 and it does say dx11, but and a very big but
as indicated in that article the demonstration of what was shown regarding cryengine 3 and crysis 2 was made entirely in dx9. I suggest you open your link and read it again!!!!

And then the article states (So, Sean showed us the implementation of many light sources in deferred lighting, plus real-time shadows, particles, the AI, the reengineered physics and some other cool features such as the scripting system. As already mentioned, the demonstration ran on DirectX 9. [i]But Cryengine 3 also packs DirectX 10 and DX11, and in a few months it will be delivered to the first licencees[/i]. The most important feature are the compute shaders that will accelerate the computing of deferred lighting and post-effects. The engineers are still experimenting on tessellation but we expect it to be seen in Crysis 2.)


did you read that!!!!!

the demonstration was in direct x9 and that direct x10 and 11 capabilties will be available to license users in just a few months.

Hmm I wonder if those license holders actually got there claws on the dx11 version of cryengine 3. You would think there website would advertise there engine as being dx11 capable, but for some odd reason it does not.
and come to think of it whats a few months ? Well that took place only 7 to 8 months ago so that could still be seen as a few months ago. Hmmm?????

And then we have this article here , http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/faith/crysis-2-being-re-designed-for-gtx580-expect-delays/

which again shows that the game was being redesigned for nvidia to take advantage of dx11 features on nvidia 5xx series cards

and then we have this article that just came out yesterday http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-30-crysis-2-dx11-fix-in-2-3-months-report

which clearly states that crytek started to develop for dx11 in november. Which actually confirms the other report of what was said in regards to crysis 2 being redesigned


go figure

@pezzott1 - so basically crytek can't spend 3 hours of their time to not only salvage their reputation for pc but draw in more pc sells as well... And let's say that it takes 6 hours to change code from 9 to ten. Then 3 hours "if their cry engine is so optimized" to get to dx11. :/ wow now I'm really pissed.

@pezzott1 - so basically crytek can't spend 3 hours of their time to not only salvage their reputation for pc but draw in more pc sells as well... And let's say that it takes 6 hours to change code from 9 to ten. Then 3 hours "if their cry engine is so optimized" to get to dx11. :/ wow now I'm really pissed.

Getting the engine to run in DirectX 11 n 9 hours isn't the same thing as getting tesselation, compute shader, radiosity, etc. in 9 hours. Actual DirectX 11 features take much longer to implement. If it was really that easy to have proper DX 11 implementation every other game would have it.

Actually op the Cryengine 3 does support DX11. Watch the GDC footage. So that part of your argument or discussion is null and void. Still a good read though.

I can't find the footage but I know it's supported. I remember watching it.

I do know the engine supports it because the leak showed the files. So they do have an engine capable of outputting DX11 otherwise they wouldn't have compiled DX11 .dll's for their engine.

...
OK then where is my Dx 11 game.. Cryengine 3 IS NOT supporting it now, Ergo , its not a DX 11 game. sure . patch it and call it cry engine 3.whatever.. but its still a lie in the form of hype that was sold to me for a console port I would have waited untill much later in the year to purchase for what its worth.. wich is WAY less than 60 beans imo.

6+3 = 8. A regular shift for most hard working people. perhaps some extra time to form it into an iso to patch for an install. But seriously? I can even make an iso and im not even that good with flographs in ce2. And yeah I saw those dll. Files. Along with hmm if I remember correctly a f***ing editor

@ipwn- my bad. It's still think it's pathetic that it isn't there considering the dx11 dll. files. Which was from a build in JANUARY. the multiplayer is obliterated. Not just from a technical standpoint but also it's reputation as a hack fest. I still see hackers with the update because of the unencrypted files that should be server side only. buggy single player. they had to patch up press start to play. That means it was originally gonna be shipped that way. it's a sad day when cry mod is importing crysis 1 textures to crysis 2 because the textures are degraded. I feel as though I'm playing with everything on medium with high shaders and a custom TOD

No volumetric clouds or pom. But hey I mean that's a given with a port. Cant even break trees. And when I throw objects at people I feel like Alcatraz is in a softball league or something

No volumetric clouds or pom. But hey I mean that's a given with a port. Cant even break trees. And when I throw objects at people I feel like Alcatraz is in a softball league or something

You can break trees... Even in the multiplayer you can lol.

They don't really need volumetric clouds. When you look up the skyscraqers hide it. But I'm pissed about lack of POM though.

cry mod will put custom pom textures in. It's as simple as copy and paste basically now that they have cracked the pak. file

actually the best solution would not be to hold shares in any game company. That would just make you an investor and you would be more concerned about wheter you will make a return on your investment or not.

The best solution for you would be to simply attempt to make the game that you want to play. There are plenty of free dev tools to do it . Find some modders ahd make your own game.

thats the best solution

That's my plan! Looking for some good modders to help me out. Also, your reasoning is what I pretty much though upon since they haven't released a full Sandbox editor and the UDK yet. They are still developing their tool set and would rather release them all at one time rather then having to go back and patch everything back upto standards.

And the trees yeah I guess but there was much more foliage destruction in the first game. Should have at least replaced all that physic goodness with city destruction