Crytek (Cevat Yerli) - "Engines are bound to console cycles."

Well he admitted it, the consoles are holding them back. The whole quote. "Games 'til 2012 will not look very different than [they do today], since engines are bound to console cycles." For the whole article - http://gamescom.gamespot.com/story/6215393/current-gen-to-last-until-2012-crytekNerkcon

The only exceptions are those few licensed engines that are geared to PC, but they;re mostly strategy games engines (like gamebryo) and thus they rarely push the graphics

1.) I dont think that you want to push it too far foward.

2.) I dont understand how having a set standard for console graphics could push development costs to a breaking point. I mean there is a limit to what they can do. Unless you are talking about how it makes developers find how to push more and more out of the system by taking the back alleys through the hardware, which i understand would take money. Explain.

3.) Like I said with #1, you dont want to push it too far forward.

Trmpt

Let's put it this way, Crysis supposedly cost $22 million to make. Now do you think Crytek chose for it to cost $22 million or they were forced for it to cost that much? The answer is they chose, PC hardware is variable so there are different install base audiences for different hardware, CryTek could have saved money if they had targeted a more mid range hardware install base; but in this case they didn't want to.

Now take a console game that cost tens of millions to make, did they choose or was it forced? The answer is the latter. Because on consoles fixed hardware is expected to be fully utilized, there is no variation so there is no reason not to take full advantage of what is there. Fully utilizing current generation console hardware is very expensive; yet developers have to do it because that is the expected standard. If they were to under-utilize it they would get called lazy and cheap, the only way they could sell their game would be as cheap DLC.

Because anyone developing on consoles are expected to adhere to a specific standard to be taken seriously their development costs were forced upward, even if one platform isn't likely to provide the sales to break even and make a profit; they have to meet those expectations. This is what I mean by static console hardware pushing costs past breaking point, they are a victim of their own fixed nature and that has cost them the vast majority of their exclusive games.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

How are they holding back the industry exactly?

AnnoyedDragon

Well in what way are they pushing it forward?

Their fixed hardware is forcing a standard of graphics that has pushed game development costs beyond breaking point, tearing apart the traditional console operation models and forcing them to look for new ways to compete. This greater cost forced developers cross platform, which makes them have to accommodate the lowest common denominator hardware of each platform. This is pulling progress backwards, such as the case of Crysis losing its open environment game play to accommodate consoles memory limitations.

PC offers greater hardware but it doesn't have fixed hardware, it has no fixed standards, so in effect consoles are responsible for the current stake of the games industry.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

1.) I dont think that you want to push it too far foward.

2.) I dont understand how having a set standard for console graphics could push development costs to a breaking point. I mean there is a limit to what they can do. Unless you are talking about how it makes developers find how to push more and more out of the system by taking the back alleys through the hardware, which i understand would take money. Explain.

3.) Like I said with #1, you dont want to push it too far forward.

AnnoyedDragon

Let's put it this way, Crysis supposedly cost $22 million to make. Now do you think Crytek chose for it to cost $22 million or they were forced for it to cost that much? The answer is they chose, PC hardware is variable so there are different install base audiences for different hardware, CryTek could have saved money if they had targeted a more mid range hardware install base; but in this case they didn't want to.

Now take a console game that cost tens of millions to make, did they choose or was it forced? The answer is the latter. Because on consoles fixed hardware is expected to be fully utilized, there is no variation so there is no reason not to take full advantage of what is there. Fully utilizing current generation console hardware is very expensive; yet developers have to do it because that is the expected standard. If they were to under-utilize it they would get called lazy and cheap, the only way they could sell their game would be as cheap DLC.

Because anyone developing on consoles are expected to adhere to a specific standard to be taken seriously their development costs were forced upward, even if one platform isn't likely to provide the sales to break even and make a profit; they have to meet those expectations. This is what I mean by static console hardware pushing costs past breaking point, they are a victim of their own fixed nature and that has cost them the vast majority of their exclusive games.

I'm so tired of Crytek whining about console hardware. I wish they would just stick with pc and stfu.

f PC gaming was as thriving as is always claimed, a PC developer could ignore consoles completely, like was done in the past. SpruceCaboose

That said dozens, if not hundreds PC devs seem to be doing just fine while ignoring consoles completely

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]f PC gaming was as thriving as is always claimed, a PC developer could ignore consoles completely, like was done in the past. AdrianWerner

That said dozens, if not hundreds PC devs seem to be doing just fine while ignoring consoles completely

I agree with Cevat Yerli completely. I've always felt that middleware in general has been held back by console gaming. This coming from a console gamer.

cronus233

PC has played second fiddle to consoles for a long time now. This is nothing new.

It's important to note that PC gaming hold's it's self back too. Because not every system can run every game smoothly, engines have to be designed to support various generations of hardware.

The only way you are going to get the best PC graphics possible is if the developer picks one specific GPU /CPU combo to work with and in order to be able to run the game, you need to be running that GPU / CPU combo.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]f PC gaming was as thriving as is always claimed, a PC developer could ignore consoles completely, like was done in the past. SpruceCaboose

That said dozens, if not hundreds PC devs seem to be doing just fine while ignoring consoles completely

Personaly I don't care anymore, the moment a game is announced as true multiplat (ie..they are designing all versions at the same time) I loose every bit of interest and hype I had for a game. Even if it's a sequel to one of my all time favorite games (like Mafia 2) the moment I smell a chance for it being xboxed...all the hype goes poof!

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]could isn't the same as want. Crytek could ignore consoles, with all their complains they still made huge profit of Crysis, so it's not that they had to go multiplat, they just could make even more money this way.

That said dozens, if not hundreds PC devs seem to be doing just fine while ignoring consoles completely

AdrianWerner

Personaly I don't care anymore, the moment a game is announced as true multiplat (ie..they are designing all versions at the same time) I loose every bit of interest and hype I had for a game. Even if it's a sequel to one of my all time favorite games (like Mafia 2) the moment I smell a chance for it being xboxed...all the hype goes poof!

If PC gaming was as thriving as is always claimed, a PC developer could ignore consoles completely, like was done in the past. SpruceCaboose

They do, why do you think we have vastly more excluisves than console platforms? Despite the lack of a Sony/Microsoft to pay for excluisives on our behalf. The only PC developers going cross platform are the ones who want to push technology, in other words the ones with costs so high they have to go cross platform.

So either PC gamers failed to support the PC only devs who were pushing the industry, or us consolites are willing to make it worth the PC devs while to port to consoles through sales.

SpruceCaboose

Read the above.

Good news for everyone but the hermits who just want new tech demos, and if you want that ground breaking, PC melting newness, looks like the devs who make those experiences need more support or they would not be coming to consoles for it.SpruceCaboose

Your obvious console bias has led you to the assumption that consoles are in a better situation than PC gaming. Regardless of the platform; high costs leads to cross platform development. The days of technology pushing exclusives are dead, the only reason consoles get any right now is because Sony/Microsoft writes checks. As costs continue to rise, forced upward by consoles static hardware, developers will continue to flee to the platforms where they have more control over their budgets.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

They do, why do you think we have vastly more excluisves than console platforms? Despite the lack of a Sony/Microsoft to pay for excluisives on our behalf. The only PC developers going cross platform are the ones who want to push technology, in other words the ones with costs so high they have to go cross platform.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

So either PC gamers failed to support the PC only devs who were pushing the industry, or us consolites are willing to make it worth the PC devs while to port to consoles through sales.

AnnoyedDragon

Read the above.

Good news for everyone but the hermits who just want new tech demos, and if you want that ground breaking, PC melting newness, looks like the devs who make those experiences need more support or they would not be coming to consoles for it.SpruceCaboose

Your obvious console bias has led you to the assumption that consoles are in a better situation than PC gaming. Regardless of the platform; high costs leads to cross platform development. The days of technology pushing exclusives are dead, the only reason consoles get any right now is because Sony/Microsoft writes checks. As costs continue to rise, forced upward by consoles static hardware, developers will continue to flee to the platforms where they have more control over their budgets.

And that is somewhat sad to me that people like you can poo-poo a game that they admit to having an affinity for only because there is the chance that it is not bleeding edge new technology. Not for nothing, but it is akin to the people who cannot play a game from over a generation ago because they look ugly. A great game is a great game, some jaggies or not.

But hey, that is your choice, and it is one reason I won't become a PC gamer, since I fear the same effect on me.SpruceCaboose

Now it's not that I play only PC exclusives, I can enjoy a multiplat, this year's Mirror's Edge for PC is one of my favorite games of 2009. But I just cant get excited for such upcoming games. I got burned enough. I saw sequels to my beloved games announced, I followed them breathless, hyped them to hell, followed every bit of media from them that got released..only to see the final game be horribly consolized dissapoitment that had little in common with it's PC predecessors.

So no, I just can't get hyped. if the game ends up being good I will buy it and enjoy it, but I feel no hype before it's released. Even if I'm hyping a game like crazy and then suddenly they announce also console version...poof...no hype anymore

I have said nothing about the state of the PC industry. I could not care less if it was a trillion dollar a year industry. What I am saying, and I think you missed it, is all these posts about how consoles are hurting PC gaming/holding the industry back/etc are all attacking consoles. We console gamers are not at fault, as clearly the developers targetting our market is saying something about the markets in general, which is not our fault nor is it in our control. You should be writing to the developers and publishers to air your issues, since a PC only game can make money. They come to us for money, and if you don't like it, take it up with the developers who are no longer satisfying you.SpruceCaboose

I recognised the impact of cost a long time ago, so you are preaching to the wrong person.

It is also not our fault if the cost to develop on your platform is increasing driving previously console exclusive developers to PC.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="Kimbo_Slyce"]Oh hai this thread is full of good examples of the typical PC gamer on these forums; acting and talking as if they're the gaming god's gift to Earth. :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Dumbing down the "gameplay" is obviously going to happen. Damn imagine playing at Painkiller and Quake 3 like speeds with a joypad. That would be insane and almost impossible without like spending a few days mastering it. amirite or amirite? Its the inevitable future. Crytek is just one of the many once considered PC exclusive game developers that are soon to fall to the so called "evils" of console gaming, or so the macho elitist PC gamers say :roll:

Leejjohno

The consoles are going to ruin this game's graphics no matter how you try to spin in into your favor. Deal with it, consoles have outdated tech.

Why would that affect development of the PC version (all the while Crytek being one of the most competent developers out there)?

I think you have misunderstood the concept of a scalable engine if you think it will be "dumbed down"; if used efficiently there is no reason for the PC version to look downgraded.