Crytek wants Crysis Franchise to remain PC

Cevat Yerli: There's a lot of critique about this decision, "Why don't we just go for console?" And yes, it could be done; it could be done pretty straightforward. But I still want to have Crysis on the PC; the dominant platform should be PC. And Crysis should be on PC. This is a philosophical decision here. We'll see how it holds up here, and we see if our exclusivity is not rewarded, it will have consequences.

Oh, and regarding sales

IGN: A lot of people I know are waiting to build a new PC and then they'll buy Crysis. Does that mean, compared to Far Cry, do you think the sales have been steadier for Crysis?

Cevat Yerli: Yeah, I think our lifetime is definitely longer and more steadier. Sales wise we're outperforming Far Cry still. The sales are good; they're not really bad.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/884/884757p2.html

That guys keeps changing his mind it seems and piracy really pisses him off.

Oh a side note, it's crazy how they are the top German studio by far. Both him and his brother, who started it, are Turkish in Germany. It's not as kind to outsiders as America, it's cool that they persevered and made it in that country.

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

heretrix

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

I think a "Crysis Instincts" game will be made for the consoles .kage_53

No, but

IGN: And you are working on a separate console game at Crytek?

Cevat Yerli: Yeah.

IGN: But it's not a Crysis game.

Cevat Yerli: Yeah.

i think people have seen this coming, but either way they better do a damn good job on focusing more on gameplay for the next intsallmentbulletsword

Gameplay was good on the first, they need a better story for the next one.

They'd just be limiting the quality of their products... but then again why would they care? more money for them if they put a worse version of Crysis on consoles...Brainkiller05

I can see what you are saying, but some companies care more than just making raw profits. They want quality so they can have an established brandname and high reputation for long-term benefits. If Crytek wanted to make raw profits, then they can release Crysis Kart on Nintendo DS or Crysis Beach Party for Nintendo Wii, but thankfully their business model does not put them in that direction :P

thats about it

[QUOTE="bulletsword"]i think people have seen this coming, but either way they better do a damn good job on focusing more on gameplay for the next intsallmentJade_Monkey

Gameplay was good on the first, they need a better story for the next one.

some of my few complaints about Crysis's gameplay would be that things starting falling apart halfway through the game and the multiplayer was incredibly lame (as well as the ending). I'm skipping Warhead until the price drops into the $20-$30 range, which I should have done for the original Crysis

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

dgsag

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

[QUOTE="dgsag"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

heretrix

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

Give me a link to where he ever said Crysis (THE GAME) can be done on consoles

[QUOTE="dgsag"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

heretrix

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

1) CryEngine 2 will be downscaled for consoles due to technical limitations. It will still look nice, but not as good as the PC version.

2) Crysis has VERY large environments. You can see things extremely far ahead of you. In order for a machine to comprehend an environment of that much data at the same time, you need plenty of RAM. I don't think the 360 or PS3 can handle that much.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="dgsag"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

dgsag

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

Give me a link to where he ever said Crysis (THE GAME) can be done on consoles

Dude I already told you I really don't care. I'm just responding to what you posted. It just sounds wishy washy to me.
heretrix

Well then, don't lie openly. ;)

It seems a common mentality among developers; but sooner or later costs sink in, incentives become tempting, and they go cross platform.

Developers like PC, they are not under the same technological boundaries on what they can do in their games nor do they have a console overlord looming over them with a contract in one hand and a whip in the other telling them how to make their games.

But various factors like piracy, content costs, incentives and so on eventually force them to cross platform or console.

It seems a common mentality among developers; but sooner or later costs sink in, incentives become tempting, and they go cross platform.

Developers like PC, they are not under the same technological boundaries on what they can do in their games nor do they have a console overlord looming over them with a contract in one hand and a whip in the other telling them how to make their games.

But various factors like piracy, content costs, incentives and so on eventually force them to cross platform or console.

AnnoyedDragon

Not the ones with a spine.

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

Dude I already told you I really don't care. I'm just responding to what you posted. It just sounds wishy washy to me.
dgsag

Well then, don't lie openly. ;)

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

What a freaking liar. Now all of a sudden Crysis could be done on consoles no sweat, it's pretty straightforward.Before he said it couldn't be done. In fact, when I said this very same thing months ago, people jumped down my throat.

This is why I really don't trust anything developers say about their games.

dgsag

He said the engine could be done. Crysis' huge environments can not.

Why? I thought the environments could be done on consoles. They would just look like crap.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

It seems a common mentality among developers; but sooner or later costs sink in, incentives become tempting, and they go cross platform.

Developers like PC, they are not under the same technological boundaries on what they can do in their games nor do they have a console overlord looming over them with a contract in one hand and a whip in the other telling them how to make their games.

But various factors like piracy, content costs, incentives and so on eventually force them to cross platform or console.

Jade_Monkey

Not the ones with a spine.

True. Until the day Blizzard feels forced into porting WoW or Diablo 3 onto consoles, then PC gaming will always be seen as a highly profitable platform :)

[QUOTE="Jade_Monkey"][QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

It seems a common mentality among developers; but sooner or later costs sink in, incentives become tempting, and they go cross platform.

Developers like PC, they are not under the same technological boundaries on what they can do in their games nor do they have a console overlord looming over them with a contract in one hand and a whip in the other telling them how to make their games.

But various factors like piracy, content costs, incentives and so on eventually force them to cross platform or console.

PandaBear86

Not the ones with a spine.

True. Until the day Blizzard feels forced into porting WoW or Diablo 3 onto consoles, then PC gaming will always be seen as a highly profitable platform :)

Not the ones with a spine.

Jade_Monkey

The more they keep the Crysis universe isolated, the better.

Maybe their next IP will be something really special. Third time's a charm, right?

And as for piracy, why is Sins of a Solar Empire selling so well without any?HuusAsking

Companies figured out pirates go after high profile block buster games, while games that appeal to gamers that are simply happy with some decent graphics and game play tend to pirate less.

Why leave it PC exclusive when more people can play it if it was multi platform?insanejedi

Why leave any game exclusive then?

Because some developers prefer 1 platform over another. Crytek is trying to set a new benchmark in graphics. Do you think they can do it on consoles?

Cevat Yerli: There's a lot of critique about this decision, "Why don't we just go for console?" And yes, it could be done; it could be done pretty straightforward. But I still want to have Crysis on the PC; the dominant platform should be PC. And Crysis should be on PC. This is a philosophical decision here. We'll see how it holds up here, and we see if our exclusivity is not rewarded, it will have consequences.

Oh, and regarding sales

IGN: A lot of people I know are waiting to build a new PC and then they'll buy Crysis. Does that mean, compared to Far Cry, do you think the sales have been steadier for Crysis?

Cevat Yerli: Yeah, I think our lifetime is definitely longer and more steadier. Sales wise we're outperforming Far Cry still. The sales are good; they're not really bad.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/884/884757p2.html

dgsag

That sounds like something an eltist Hermit would say....

He's a cool dude.

i think people have seen this coming, but either way they better do a damn good job on focusing more on gameplay for the next intsallmentbulletsword

Eh? Gameplay wise it was excellent, better than Call OF Duty 4's dated game-play and halo 3's imo. The thing letting it down was the A- The story and throwaway characters B- Multiplayer...game-play wise, it was great.

Why leave it PC exclusive when more people can play it if it was multi platform?insanejedi

To answerer that question I direct you to a particularly long post I made over here, it pretty much explains why a Crysis like game cannot be multiplatform.

Just scroll down till you see yellow.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]And as for piracy, why is Sins of a Solar Empire selling so well without any?AnnoyedDragon

Companies figured out pirates go after high profile block buster games, while games that appeal to gamers that are simply happy with some decent graphics and game play tend to pirate less.

On Games Radar:

Recently, you've said that Crysis was [among] the most pirated games. How do you know that?

Well, we went into the Torrent statistics and there were charts for this. We learned that [piracy] harmed Call of Duty 4 quite a bit, too. We were hit even stronger because our spec requirements were, when we released, pretty high. There was a statistic that there were around 15–20 [pirated copies] per one copy sold; it doesn't mean we would sell 15–20 times more, of course, but at least if piracy was lower, we would double our sales. For the PC this is a big issue, because if [piracy] continues like this, you will not see PC exclusives happening, because it's prohibitively expensive.

Overall, our sales were good - I mean, they weren't excellent, but we did break even... we did profit from the game despite the high development budget. We are okay with the results, but it's not excellent. We had hopes it would do better. [EA says] sales surpassed expectations, and EA was happy, and we are happy. I'm just not happy with the fact that... with a game like this, because it's exclusive, it should drive more [sales]. I don't want to talk about Crysis 2 - it may come, it may not - but [its development] will depend greatly on Warhead's success.

What would you say to someone like Brad Wardell, the president of Stardock, who argues that if you make a good game for the PC, it'll sell well even if it is pirated?

I don't agree with him. If your PC game pushes the need for upgrading hardware, then the gamer will [have to] choose, "Should I spend my money on hardware or software?" It's a very easy choice, because software you can copy, hardware you cannot. This is where we got harmed. With Warhead, I think it will work differently. There's a base of people who have the PC equipment [capable of running Crysis], and I hope this time, they'll be honest enough to buy the game.

You say that Warhead's success will determine whether Crytek makes PC exclusives in the future.

Yes, it'll have a huge impact. I'm not saying we'll give up on the PC. The question will be, how online will we be [using online authentication], and how many other platforms will we support in the future. We did announce CryENGINE 2 for the PS3 at GDC, so we have development there, but it is not Crysis-related.

The concern for PC gamers is that cross-platform development means that the PC versions will be dumbed-down in gameplay and graphics.

I think there is a different target audience for the console market. I wouldn't say dumbed-down, but you have to distill the experience to make it easier to access, and you have to limit the number of options you have. If we were to do a multi-platform title, then the way we would approach it is that there would be a design team that works on the console experience and a design team that works on the PC experience.

What about technology? Would you continue to push PC hardware?

I think we wouldn't be Crytek if each platform didn't have its technology pushed.

Sins got a 9. That puts it among the top tier of the RTS genre. And RTS is a pretty popular genre in the PC world.HuusAsking

High profile is not the same as high rating.

I think it is best to look up one of the many interviews with the developers where they explain their methods.

*really long post*

skrat_01

Intresting, he actually knows what PC gamers are thinking.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

*really long post*

Lonelynight

Intresting, he actually knows what PC gamers are thinking.

It just goes to show there is a noteworthy culture and demographic difference between console and PC.

If game companies are in it just for the money how can you explain a company like Crytek? They could be making significantly more money catering to all platforms; but they prefer to work on PC despite its current image, no financial incentives or long term contracts from a Microsoft or Sony to keep them on PC.

They are one of those companies like Blizzard and 3DRealms that seem to have mission statements outside out simply spitting out products.

I don't know why companies make popular games exclusive, it just doesn't make good sense financially.yoshi-lnex

They probably get paid by Nvidia.

I don't know why companies make popular games exclusive, it just doesn't make good sense financially.yoshi-lnex

It doesn't make much 'business' sense, something publishers will most likely be the first to say. But remember a chunk of game companies start out as a bunch of developers who want to do their hobby for a living, there will be those who are 100% profit orientated but as seen there are also those that consider games more than just a product.

Sometimes the only way to create the games they envisioned are on certain platforms that provide the best environment for it. Crytek loves pushing the technology barrier, they were doing it long after even Far Cry was released by continuing to patch it with upgrades, PC is the best place for that.

There is also the incentives console manufacturers provide to keep developers on their platform, PC has none of that so CryTek generally loves the platform.

They probably get paid by Nvidia.slickchris7777

They probably get paid by Nvidia.

slickchris7777

[QUOTE="bulletsword"]i think people have seen this coming, but either way they better do a damn good job on focusing more on gameplay for the next intsallmentKez1984

Eh? Gameplay wise it was excellent, better than Call OF Duty 4's dated game-play and halo 3's imo. The thing letting it down was the A- The story and throwaway characters B- Multiplayer...game-play wise, it was great.

i found it just another FPS game. i kind of like what they did in the single player with huge levels, but the second half of the game was a load of crap compared to the first, the multiplayer was just sad, and i didn't find too much replay in there. i'd give it an 8.5 at most, maybe more if I didn't pay full price. the only reason i'd prefer COD4 or Halo 3 would be the multiplayer, and when it comes to single player, STALKER was much better. it doesn't change the fact that it's a FPS, a genre that I'm beginning to get bored of after playing too many without opening up to more genres.

And as for piracy, why is Sins of a Solar Empire selling so well without any?HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]And as for piracy, why is Sins of a Solar Empire selling so well without any?Makari

Crysis was released a good 5 months earlier, comes from a far more popular genre and had vastly more hype as the graphics king.

The only advantage Sins would have for selling is the lower system requirements. That's about it. Its low-budget status, lack of significant marketing campaign and hype, less well known developer and less popular genre (Both RTS and 4X combined still cannot hope to match the FPS genre in terms of popularity) set it back significantly.

The only thing you can do about the argument is compare piracy-to-sales ratios for both games and see which is higher.