PC Gaming Hurt by PC Developers, Says Producer

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/11/devs-are-to-bla.html

The waning popularity of PC gaming can be directly attributed to overzealous PC gaming developers, believes Company of Heroes senior producer Tim Holman.

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

"I think PC developers shoot themselves in the foot to a large degree. A lot of companies are guilty of that," Holman added, before citing the low system requirements of Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft as a good example of PC development done right.

Image courtesy THQ

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

blackdreamhunk

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

GodLovesDead

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

While the exaggeration is indeed pretty extreme, and it's not true that PC gaming is declining in popularity, he's pretty much right: most games would sell better if they had lower system requirements.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

ReddestSkies

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

While the exaggeration is indeed pretty extreme, and it's not true that PC gaming is declining in popularity, he's pretty much right: most games would sell better if they had lower system requirements.

And doing so would require them to downscale whatever engine the game uses. I say support the fans, not the people who don't care enough to even have a PC that can play games. It doesn't cost much. Crysis sold pretty damn well if you asked me.

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/11/devs-are-to-bla.html

The waning popularity of PC gaming can be directly attributed to overzealous PC gaming developers, believes Company of Heroes senior producer Tim Holman.

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

"I think PC developers shoot themselves in the foot to a large degree. A lot of companies are guilty of that," Holman added, before citing the low system requirements of Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft as a good example of PC development done right.

Image courtesy THQ

blackdreamhunk

Thats where I stopped reading. What an idiot, especially considering how well Crysis did.

Maybe the problem is devs but not cause of system requirements but because of crappy console ports. Look at: The Witcher, Crysis, WoW, World in Conflict etc. Then look at: Far Cry 2, Resident Evil 4, Dead Space, Rainbow Six: Vegas, etc.

I don't see hardware price and requirements as an issue. $1,500 should be plenty besides maybe Crysis, which still sold pretty well. And believe it or not, there are options to turn down the res and image quality making them playable on much older hardware, gasp!

Would you expect your PS2 to play PS3 games? No. Then don't expect your PC from 2003 to play today's games at reasonable settings. PC gaming being more expensive and needing more frequent upgrades is a given, if you had issues with this, wtf would you get into it in the first place?

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

GodLovesDead

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

While the exaggeration is indeed pretty extreme, and it's not true that PC gaming is declining in popularity, he's pretty much right: most games would sell better if they had lower system requirements.

And doing so would require them to downscale whatever engine the game uses. I say support the fans, not the people who don't care enough to even have a PC that can play games. It doesn't cost much. Crysis sold pretty damn well if you asked me.

Crysis did do well, and probably will still sell decently in the future. Once an average graphics card can play it well, people who skiped it might pick it up, seeing as no game is likely to pass it graphically anytime soon.

Im talking about playing at maxed out, with decent frames at an average resolution... Yes, an 8800gt can play it fine, which is probably why it sold decently, but it can look much better.

got more of the story here

http://www.edge-online.com/news/pc-devs-shoot-themselves-in-foot

No, PC gaming isn't "dying," but it sure would help if more game developers made games that work on lower-spec rigs.

That's according to Tim Holman, senior producer for Relic Entertainment and the Company of Heroes RTS franchise on PC.

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," he said. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

Holman continued, "And of course people are going to pirate your game more, because they don't want to invest in your game first. They want to try it first for free [to see if it's compatible with their hardware].

"I think PC developers shoot themselves in the foot to a large degree. A lot of companies are guilty of that."

When Company of Heroes launched in 2006, it did require a decent PC to play the game as it was meant to be played. But over two years, Relic has been able to exploit the versatile Essence Engine and deliver a game that still looks superb on a modern rig, developing expansions without upping system requirements. The company recently announced the CoH expansion, Tales of Valor, due in spring 2009.

Holman specifically said that World of Warcraft house Blizzard has the right formula for reaching the mass market with not only accessible gameplay, but also forgiving system requirements.

"...Every game you buy from them is one you can play them on a PC from about five years ago. It's no big secret. I know when I buy a Blizzard game, I'm not going to have to upgrade anything.

"But 95 percent of the PC games out there, I have to read the back of the box."

PC games business

Along the same lines, Holman commented on the never-ending "PC gaming is dead/dying" debate.

"I laugh hysterically whenever I hear that PC gaming is dead. Every time I hear a person saying, 'PC games are dying,' or 'PC games are dead,' particularly if they're a competitor, I fully agree with them--and I encourage them to get out of the space as soon as possible, just so I don't have to compete with them," Holman said, laughing.

"I'm in downtown Vancouver right now and there are several skyscrapers, and in front of me I'm seeing probably 200,000 PCs, and not a single Xbox or PS3.

"Now granted those aren't high-end gaming PCs, they don't have 10 gigs of RAM and they're not all quad cores, but they can play games."

Wow, the guy just beat the Gametrailer's reviewers in idiocy. When criticizing the requirements of latest PC games, GT reviewers have never gone above the $5000 PCs, but this guy just found a new hardware priced at $6000! that's amazing.. & i guess that huge cost must be when excluding the monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. add some more money to buy them as well.s_emi_xxxxx

What company doesn't reuse their engine for expansions or sequels, and add a few effects so it looks a little better? Do they really run better, or has just the average users hardware been upgraded by that time to show a moderate increase in performance for the minimal additions developers implemented? Highly doubt the CoH expansions would actually run better, with better image quality, on my 5 year old pc than the original did.

WoW looks like ass. There's a reason it runs well on old hardware. I can't remember the last time I was worried I might not meet the specs and had to look at the box for a game. If you're that out of touch with pc hardware or you're constantly on the edge of the minimum reqs, modern pc gaming might not be for you.

Mr. Holman is absolutely right. So what if he went too high on the cost he quoted.

Developers have wasted too much time and effort building games that use all the latest features just so the hardware junkies can feel like they didn't throw their money away on something that they will never get full use out of. Its no secret that the cost of the PC has been the #1 reason people leave the PC for the console. The only thing the " you must upgrade to play" hype succeeds in doing is telling the average gamer "You can't afford to play here, get lost." So they do because even $1000 dollars is too high when the only other thing most do with a PC is a little internet surfing and e-mail. Just to bring light to a hopefully obvious statement but most PC price quotes don't inlcude a monitor and there are a good number that don't include Windows. Even those sub-$1000 PC's will end up costing you $1000+.

Most of these high end games have, in my experience, also been the buggiest and most unstable. Maybe, just maybe, if developers stop wasting time and money on overblown graphics they can hire a few more programmers to focus on stablizing the engine. Maybe if more of the AAA title are sold in a stable and complete shape it might get more people to buy the game instead of pirating them.

Ugh, why do developers perpetuate the negative stereotype that you need a $4-6k+ PC to run games. They are hurting themselves!

But he is right. Not as many hedgehogs can run games like Crysis as they can Source games, so Source games inherently have a larger potential market. Still, though, he is getting his point across in a very bad way.

i bought a ps3 because that's the only way i could play madden...and blue ray had won the war...

but i'll never give up the solemnity of mousing my way through cool games on the pc...

consoles are like magazines...all flash. pc's are more like dictionaries...you gota think to use one.

my 2 cents

What's ruining PC gaming is PC devs/publishers blaming piracy for their poor sales and abandoning the PC market, or slapping tyranical DRM onto their PC game. Make a good game, and people will buy it. Sure, you're going to lose money to piracy, but I would imagine the profit you make regardless is pretty darned good, piracy aside. And besides, console piracy is a growing practice as well. What then? Stop making games altogether?

The best anti-piracy method is making a game worth buying in the first place. And start putting out demos for your PC games before they release. Pre-order beta access doesn't count, as you have to buy the game anyway just to get into beta. Some people like to try before they buy. Can't rent a PC game like you can for a console.

Ugh, why do developers perpetuate the negative stereotype that you need a $4-6k+ PC to run games. They are hurting themselves!

But he is right. Not as many hedgehogs can run games like Crysis as they can Source games, so Source games inherently have a larger potential market. Still, though, he is getting his point across in a very bad way.

hedgehogenstein

Yeah, for a computer game developer, you'd think they'd actually have a realistic view of what computer price range is needed to play a game on max settings. And $6000 PC? I'm not quite even sure what fluff you'd have to add to an Alienware to reach that price range. Buy your parts from newegg.com, and either you or a friend put it together. Problem solved.

Hi how's it going.

PC gaming is understandably less appealing than console gaming to casual gamers, but it's not entirely the fault of PC game developers. If there was less demand for eye candy in the gaming industry, game design could be focussed more on gameplay and less on making the most of what hardware resources are available at a particular instance of time.

The (old) saying is true that console games are designed for the target console, and that PC games are designed for the target user. (well... something along those lines). The problem with PC gaming for casual gamers is the need to comprehend all the system requirements jargon and to be able to scope how well a game will run on their existing system (if it will run at all).

What I believe needs to happen is that PC gaming hardware standards need to be introduced, or at least be explained more clearly to the end-user. Like how the popular consoles of today (e.g. PS3, XBOX360) have a single hardware setup, there needs to be a single PC hardware setup.

It could be a generational thing, where each generation of the PC will have prescribed hardware performance requirement. A generation could last a year or two (more may be wishful thinking) and games could be optimised for that particular 'model'. And when deemed appropriate by a governing body (an association maintaining these standards) the next generation system specifications could be released (which would be more powerful/up-to-date). There should be a computer performance benchmark that amateur and professional PC builders need to meet in order for their design to be classed within a particular generation. And a standard average FPS that must be met by game developers to get their game running smoothly (quality equivalent to stable console games) on a system of that generation. It's similar to what we have now in games, but instead of performance options of "Low", "Medium", "High", "SuperAwesomestSetting", they could be replaced with "Gen1", "Gen2", "Gen3" which would be less obscure and something universal amongst the PC game developers.

I don't know if something similar is in the works, but it would make things a lot more easier for the less technologically inclined.

Hi how's it going.

PC gaming is understandably less appealing than console gaming to casual gamers, but it's not entirely the fault of PC game developers. If there was less demand for eye candy in the gaming industry, game design could be focussed more on gameplay and less on making the most of what hardware resources are available at a particular instance of time.

The (old) saying is true that console games are designed for the target console, and that PC games are designed for the target user. (well... something along those lines). The problem with PC gaming for casual gamers is the need to comprehend all the system requirements jargon and to be able to scope how well a game will run on their existing system (if it will run at all).

What I believe needs to happen is that PC gaming hardware standards need to be introduced, or at least be explained more clearly to the end-user. Like how the popular consoles of today (e.g. PS3, XBOX360) have a single hardware setup, there needs to be a single PC hardware setup.

It could be a generational thing, where each generation of the PC will have prescribed hardware performance requirement. A generation could last a year or two (more may be wishful thinking) and games could be optimised for that particular 'model'. And when deemed appropriate by a governing body (an association maintaining these standards) the next generation system specifications could be released (which would be more powerful/up-to-date). There should be a computer performance benchmark that amateur and professional PC builders need to meet in order for their design to be classed within a particular generation. And a standard average FPS that must be met by game developers to get their game running smoothly (quality equivalent to stable console games) on a system of that generation. It's similar to what we have now in games, but instead of performance options of "Low", "Medium", "High", "SuperAwesomestSetting", they could be replaced with "Gen1", "Gen2", "Gen3" which would be less obscure and something universal amongst the PC game developers.

I don't know if something similar is in the works, but it would make things a lot more easier for the less technologically inclined.

Torsive

Well what you're describing sounds a lot like the Windows Performance score in Vista. Now if only game devs actually used that.

[QUOTE="Torsive"]

Hi how's it going.

PC gaming is understandably less appealing than console gaming to casual gamers, but it's not entirely the fault of PC game developers. If there was less demand for eye candy in the gaming industry, game design could be focussed more on gameplay and less on making the most of what hardware resources are available at a particular instance of time.

The (old) saying is true that console games are designed for the target console, and that PC games are designed for the target user. (well... something along those lines). The problem with PC gaming for casual gamers is the need to comprehend all the system requirements jargon and to be able to scope how well a game will run on their existing system (if it will run at all).

What I believe needs to happen is that PC gaming hardware standards need to be introduced, or at least be explained more clearly to the end-user. Like how the popular consoles of today (e.g. PS3, XBOX360) have a single hardware setup, there needs to be a single PC hardware setup.

It could be a generational thing, where each generation of the PC will have prescribed hardware performance requirement. A generation could last a year or two (more may be wishful thinking) and games could be optimised for that particular 'model'. And when deemed appropriate by a governing body (an association maintaining these standards) the next generation system specifications could be released (which would be more powerful/up-to-date). There should be a computer performance benchmark that amateur and professional PC builders need to meet in order for their design to be classed within a particular generation. And a standard average FPS that must be met by game developers to get their game running smoothly (quality equivalent to stable console games) on a system of that generation. It's similar to what we have now in games, but instead of performance options of "Low", "Medium", "High", "SuperAwesomestSetting", they could be replaced with "Gen1", "Gen2", "Gen3" which would be less obscure and something universal amongst the PC game developers.

I don't know if something similar is in the works, but it would make things a lot more easier for the less technologically inclined.

zomglolcats

Well what you're describing sounds a lot like the Windows Performance score in Vista. Now if only game devs actually used that.

True, but it would have to go beyond just the software side of things. The equivalent benchmarking software would also have to be available to UNIX OSs, or even WinXP (a good option would be using 3D Mark). But their also needs to be compliance/cooperation between system builders, and game developers. Also I believe if it was more definitive (Gen1, Gen2, etc.) rather than increments of 0.1 there would be less ambiguity of what would run, and how much a person would have to pay for a system that can run x game at an acceptable level.

PC Gaming isn't waning or in decline at all, and I'd like to see a game where you need $6000 to play it, because last time I checked pretty much every PC game we've got now can be run at respectable settings for PCs that cost as low as $600.aliblabla2007

That's true, but you'll still need a degree of computer hardware knowledge (or at the very least - research, or a friend that will help you with it) if you want to make the best/cheapest/optimal gaming rig. And even then, you don't know how long that PC will last, while a gaming console has a much better lifespan (as well as being a low maintenance device). I think the issue is that more people are starting their gaming hobbies on a console rather than a PC, simply because of ease-of-use.

For those that don't mind regularly updating their computers (for uses beyond gaming) the costs are negligible. Although the $6000 price tag is greatly exaggerated, in the end it's still more costly than playing a video game on a different platform.

PC Gaming isn't waning or in decline at all, and I'd like to see a game where you need $6000 to play it, because last time I checked pretty much every PC game we've got now can be run at respectable settings for PCs that cost as low as $600.aliblabla2007

PC gaming is being hurt by DRM that requires online activation. Blizzard and Valve are the only PC developers left who respect PC gamers. Blizzard just uses old fashioned cd-keys and now you can play starcraft, warcraft iii, diablo 2, etc without the disc and no online activation is required.

Steam, despite its few flaws is one of the better DRM implementations and will continue to be supported for years to come. Even if Valve goes out of business for some odd reason (I doubt it will since Steam is a very profitable business model) and can no longer support steam has a backup plan to disable Steam's authentication. Just be sure to make physical backup copies of your steam games so you don't need to re-download them in case the download servers are taken offline in the future. Again this is very unlikely. Steam is a great system with or without DRM because it is a great way to get automatic updates so that everyone is playing the same version online.

But what about games like Mass Effect and Spore from EA? What happens 10 years from now if the games are no longer supported... I won't be able to play just because I can't connect to the activation servers? Any company considering DRM for a PC game should really consider Steam as an option. This has caused me to keep my inferior 360 version of Mass Effect with a lower framerate and no keyboard support just to avoid this type of DRM. And it has caused me to stay away from Spore entirely. And no I am not a PC game pirate. I want to support developers. But I will not support publishers who force draconian DRM upon its users.

DRM isn't needed, causes some people to not buy games that use it and makes no difference from stopping pirates since new games with DRM are being cracked and downloaded days after (sometimes before) the official release date.

lets look at epic game attacking pc gaming over the years

http://pc.ign.com/articles/858/858259p1.html
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080227.jpg
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54254
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/29884/UT3-and-Stranglehold-hit-1m-sales
http://www.aeropause.com/2007/12/unreal-tournament-iii-for-the-pc-sinks-while-crysis-aims-high/
http://www.pcgamingalliance.org/en/about/members.asp
http://kotaku.com/5056532/why-no-gears-of-war-2-for-pc-well-piracy-for-one

now think about id software,ubisoft,lucas arts,fable game dev, crytek!!!

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

GodLovesDead

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

While the exaggeration is indeed pretty extreme, and it's not true that PC gaming is declining in popularity, he's pretty much right: most games would sell better if they had lower system requirements.

And doing so would require them to downscale whatever engine the game uses. I say support the fans, not the people who don't care enough to even have a PC that can play games. It doesn't cost much. Crysis sold pretty damn well if you asked me.

Its obvious he was exaggerating about the 6000$ pc. But he makes a valid point.Dr_Brocoli

he exaggerated with the exaggeration...a 1k PC can run just about everything.

Well, I don't know if PC gaming is dying but the casual game market is infact growing so PC games, usually deeper and less "casual friendly" may be doing fine when observed ina vaccum but may actually be seen as dying next to the growing casual game market.

I agree with the guy who said there should be a standard of generations like there is in console gaming. If you upgrade your cpu every two years, and it cost about $500 to do so, it is more expensive than buying a console that lasts 4-6 years. I think PC gaming will eventually turn into a niche product of gaming unless the cost of pc harware comes down.

Think about it. When the PS3 first came out, I heard they were actually selling them for less than cost, so they were loosing money with every console sold. Imagine the cost of a ps3 if they sold them at the kind of mark ups PC hardware goes for.

Further more to blame are makers like alienware who mark up at $800-1000 pc to $3000-4000 and make it seam you need to spend 3-4 grand to get the best performance when in relaity, a smart buyer can get the same pc for much, much less if they learn to build themselves.

[QUOTE="blackdreamhunk"]

"I think one of the things that hurt PC gaming is PC developers," Holman told Edge in a recent interview. "If you make a game with such high-end requirements that only people with a $6,000 PC can play it at a decent framerate, of course your sales are going to drop."

GodLovesDead

/rage.

Seriously. What the hell? You can max most PC games out there with a system that costs 1/10th that. Do you know what hurts PC gaming? Stupid assed slander like that.

What a ridicules statement, in regard to both the quoted price and referring to Crysis requirements like it is common.

Even if it was true, what gets to be the target hardware when developing a PC game? Intel extreme integrated graphics? They mentioned WOW but that is 'way' behind the times, it is almost as if they are suggesting there is no performance benefit on PC and they should target 5 year old hardware...

Anyone who seriously intends to use their PC to play modern games should have at least a mainstream GPU like the GF 9600GT, which last I checked has more performance than a console can output for less than £70.

The performance and install base is there, developers just need to pull their weight and actually optimise their games to run well on PC. There is no excuse if you somehow managed to make a game optimised for 2-3 year old console hardware require an 8800 on PC, then give it crappy graphical scaling options just to make extra sure no one on a budget can run it.

maybe not water them down as much but optimize them better, and by the way the cryengine2 is a severly unoptimized game engine.Lach0121

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]maybe not water them down as much but optimize them better, and by the way the cryengine2 is a severly unoptimized game engine.Makari

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]maybe not water them down as much but optimize them better, and by the way the cryengine2 is a severly unoptimized game engine.Lach0121

[QUOTE="Lach0121"][QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]maybe not water them down as much but optimize them better, and by the way the cryengine2 is a severly unoptimized game engine.Makari

no single gpu card is running crysis at 4x aa, with AF on, and maxed setting at 1680x1050, much less 19x12. at a steady 60fps.

crysis is a gpu selling tool.

and thats a year after it launched.....

im not knocking it, im just tired of hearing how great it is, yes it has potential, no it isn optimized, i felt the same about unreal engine3, until they started working onthe performance of it... now its better.... give crytek enough time, if they are passionate about this engine as they portray themselves to be, you will see it become more and more optimized... and i cant wait...

but now, its not, though there are alot of engines with this problem, comes with the territory i guess.

just wish these devs dont have the publishers down their throats about release dates, then we will see more optimized games, and game engines.

see its not sooo much the engines as it is what the devs do with the engines... as well..

no single gpu card is running crysis at 4x aa, with AF on, and maxed setting at 1680x1050, much less 19x12. at a steady 60fps.Lach0121

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]no single gpu card is running crysis at 4x aa, with AF on, and maxed setting at 1680x1050, much less 19x12. at a steady 60fps.Makari

you know you do make some valid points.

though i just want to max out all games im spoiled :) though, thats one reason why i only buy games that are atleast a year old, so i can pretty much max them with what i got... now in a few months when i upgrade system... and get it like talking about, ill worry about crysis, and farcry2, and so on and so fourth... i guess i could look at it like this, these games are still not out to me, cause i want to play the games to their full potential

but thats the beauty of pc gaming over console gaming, i have an abundance of older games (year or more older) for me to play at full potential. thousands, and once i upgrade rig, i can prolly do the same with alot of these newer games..

i mean this way i dont miss out on games of the past lol.

no but crysis and farcry, and farcry 2 all look wonderful, gaming masterpeice when it came to visuals, that i am not denying. though i think you understand what im saying.

i want to play them high quality hi res. aa af at60fps. i can do that with most games on my rig, though i regret getting an AMD, though im not going intel until i know more about he new chips, or see the price effects of older rigs newer rigs so on and so fourth here in a few months after they come out... maybe amd will come out with an am2+ processor that will be as good or better than the core2 duo line... hopefully if they do its a cheaper quick fix, then i can worry about upgrading video, rather than memory, mobo, processor, and videocards.

im not knockign the games or engines.. its just i wish that these devs trully have the game out when it is finished. not when the publishers say "ok this is close/done enough, lets ship it."

there are some trully beautiful games out, and those are some of them. and crysis seems to be leading the way at the moment.

see i could get the original farcry and play it at max. and thats not a bad idea, i never finished the game, on xbox disc was eaten by dog :( lol, but i could get it cheap on pc and max it... why not?

but you make valid points, and i dont mean to seem like im knockign the games or their engines..