PC gaming will be taking a huge graphical leap.

As you know PC gaming already has great hardware as it is but coming this july the graphical heart of the PC the GPU aka the video card is coming strong.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/NVIDIA_GT200_:_GeForce_9900_GTX_&_9900_GT_In_Q3/5684.html

This being said this is not a joke this all real the new chips of Nvida being said that the 9900GTX will replace the 9800GX2 in saying this we have a clue the new GT200 build from Nvida will be ground breaking. as the 9800GTX will be replaced by a 9900GT

get ready hermits the time of completely maxing Crysis with high FPS is upon us and furthermore.

Also the counter of Nvidia cards ATI is coming on strong with there new 4000 series.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7356.html

A Major Graphical leap is coming.

Nolan16

Hmm. Well that's super for the PC crowd. I am sure there is a development studio out there that will take advantage, but I would hold my breath if I were you. Crysis is currently the graphics king, and the devs took a bath on it because it was too much for most PCs. Now, they are making a console version of the engine.

What does this have to do Nvida and your post? Fact is, devs are in it for the money, and Crysis proved there is far more money to be made in a game that has lower system requirements and can be ported to consoles than a game that requires $1000s of hardware upgrades to play.

[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]

[QUOTE="kayn83"]I thought Crysis was already the big graphical leap. So if what you're saying is true that means there is going to be ANOTHER leap but the question remains this will save PC gaming how?ClarentUK

there are over 200 million PC gamers! so why does it need to be saved? and from what does it need saving?

PC games sell like crap.

You mean they don't sell 1 million on day one? PC games DO sell well, but over time. Console games sell great for the first 3 months and then their sales stagnate. Call me wrong.

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]

[QUOTE="kayn83"]I thought Crysis was already the big graphical leap. So if what you're saying is true that means there is going to be ANOTHER leap but the question remains this will save PC gaming how?MadExponent

there are over 200 million PC gamers! so why does it need to be saved? and from what does it need saving?

PC games sell like crap.

You mean they don't sell 1 million on day one? PC games DO sell well, but over time. Console games sell great for the first 3 months and then their sales stagnate. Call me wrong.

Which exactly are these PC games which keep selling? Maybe console sales stagnate because there's no one else left to buy them?

I don't see why people argue this, PC games consistently sell poorly compared to console games.

Hmm. Well that's super for the PC crowd. I am sure there is a development studio out there that will take advantage, but I would hold my breath if I were you. Crysis is currently the graphics king, and the devs took a bath on it because it was too much for most PCs. Now, they are making a console version of the engine.

What does this have to do Nvida and your post? Fact is, devs are in it for the money, and Crysis proved there is far more money to be made in a game that has lower system requirements and can be ported to consoles than a game that requires $1000s of hardware upgrades to play.

dabear

Hell if you thought it took $1000 worth of hardware upgrades to play, then you are going to be very pleases my system that cost almost as much as a PS3 here runs it on high, 1240X1024, 0Xaa 40fps average. Of course not 'maxing out' the game, but it plays great and looks better than any game on the market.

Though no its not about lower system requirements so it 'can be ported and make more money'. By that logic The Witcher, Stalker, and Sins of a Solar Empire would be on consoles right now (well Stalker would be struggling to run on consoles).

Besides Crytek have had console IPs in development for a while now, same with porting the CryEngine 2 to consoles - to licence it out like the UE3.

Though yes right now hardware is grossly overpowered and Crysis really is the only game that stresses it. PC gaming is indeed about to hit a Renaissance period where games will scale great for a variety of systems, and still look fantastic, resulting in an even larger player base, and huge amounts of profit.
Heck after playing Legions today over Instant Action, and looking at titles like StarCraft 2 I can confirm it.

[QUOTE="MadExponent"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]

[QUOTE="kayn83"]I thought Crysis was already the big graphical leap. So if what you're saying is true that means there is going to be ANOTHER leap but the question remains this will save PC gaming how?ClarentUK

there are over 200 million PC gamers! so why does it need to be saved? and from what does it need saving?

PC games sell like crap.

You mean they don't sell 1 million on day one? PC games DO sell well, but over time. Console games sell great for the first 3 months and then their sales stagnate. Call me wrong.

Which exactly are these PC games which keep selling? Maybe console sales stagnate because there's no one else left to buy them?

I don't see why people argue this, PC games consistently sell poorly compared to console games.

Can you list these PC games?

IF anything PC games keep selling and gaining even more extra profit over time. Example: StarCraft and Fallout are still being sold retail... Stalker, The Witcher, SoASE, C&C3 all made plenty of profit - only in short periods after their release. Hell even Crysis sold well in comparison to its system requirements.

However all these games will continue to sell for years aswell...

Very different markets - the PC to the console. ITs a well known fact console games have a much shorter shelf life, and their sales 'boom' period is only for a limited amount of time.

PC games sell consistently poorly?

Can you list these PC games?

IF anything PC games keep selling and gaining even more extra profit over time. Example: StarCraft and Fallout are still being sold retail... Stalker, The Witcher, SoASE, C&C3 all made plenty of profit. Hell even Crysis sold well in comparison to its system requirements.

skrat_01

For christ's sake I'm talking about "plenty of profit". I'm saying PC games sell poorly relative to console games.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

Ffs it won't link.

PC game sales 14% of 2007 sales.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

PC games sell consistently poorly?

Can you list these PC games?

IF anything PC games keep selling and gaining even more extra profit over time. Example: StarCraft and Fallout are still being sold retail... Stalker, The Witcher, SoASE, C&C3 all made plenty of profit. Hell even Crysis sold well in comparison to its system requirements.

ClarentUK

For christ's sake I'm talking about "plenty of profit". I'm saying PC games sell poorly relative to console games.

PC game sales 14% of 2007 sales.

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

PC game revenue also seemed to generate a much larger percentage than 14 in 2007.

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

Danm_999

CoD 4 sold 383,00 in 2007 on PC. It sold 3.04 million on 360 alone in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

PC games sell consistently poorly?

Can you list these PC games?

IF anything PC games keep selling and gaining even more extra profit over time. Example: StarCraft and Fallout are still being sold retail... Stalker, The Witcher, SoASE, C&C3 all made plenty of profit. Hell even Crysis sold well in comparison to its system requirements.

ClarentUK

For christ's sake I'm talking about "plenty of profit". I'm saying PC games sell poorly relative to console games.

PC game sales 14% of 2007 sales.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

http://www.developmag.com/news/29331/The-PC-market-is-not-dying-says-newly-formed-PC-Gaming-Alliance

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

PC games sell consistently poorly?

Can you list these PC games?

IF anything PC games keep selling and gaining even more extra profit over time. Example: StarCraft and Fallout are still being sold retail... Stalker, The Witcher, SoASE, C&C3 all made plenty of profit. Hell even Crysis sold well in comparison to its system requirements.

Danm_999

For christ's sake I'm talking about "plenty of profit". I'm saying PC games sell poorly relative to console games.

PC game sales 14% of 2007 sales.

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

PC game revenue also seemed to generate a much larger percentage than 14 in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

(GS won't let me link it)

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

skrat_01

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

ClarentUK

CoD 4 sold 383,00 in 2007 on PC. It sold 3.04 million on 360 alone in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

That is 3.04 million 360 copies globally.

That is 383,00 retail copies in the USA only

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

ClarentUK

CoD 4 sold 383,00 in 2007 on PC. It sold 3.04 million on 360 alone in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

Not only do those figures fail to include DD (a freaking huge chunk of PC game sales nowdays), they assume Call of Duty 4 represents a perfectly uniform pattern of consumption between consoles and the PC. The comparison is completely assinine.

Plus you compared global 360 sales to US PC sales.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

ClarentUK

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

Raising this does not help your argument. PC games are significantly cheaper than console games.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

ClarentUK

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

And revenue is a very clear indicator of a systems performance.

Of course lets 'ignore' the profit because it ultimatley means nothing right? :|

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

skrat_01

CoD 4 sold 383,00 in 2007 on PC. It sold 3.04 million on 360 alone in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

That is 3.04 million 360 copies globally.

That is 383,00 retail copies in the USA only

Oh. Well if you can find the worldwide PC sales then go for it. Cos I can't

Oh. Well if you can find the worldwide PC sales then go for it. Cos I can't

ClarentUK

Fair enough.

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

Danm_999

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

Raising this does not help your argument. PC games are significantly cheaper than console games.

You got it the wrong way round, I'm talking about sales, and the cheaper they are the better they should sell and the less profit.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]

PC games hardly sell poorly. The Witcher, Crysis and Sins of a Solar Empire all sold in the millions fairly quickly.

It's kind of wrong to compare them; the console market is concentrated into a finite amount of high profile titles while PC software is extremely heterogenerous.

ClarentUK

CoD 4 sold 383,00 in 2007 on PC. It sold 3.04 million on 360 alone in 2007.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50939

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

That is 3.04 million 360 copies globally.

That is 383,00 retail copies in the USA only

Oh. Well if you can find the worldwide PC sales then go for it. Cos I can't

So the only logical course is to compare US PC retail sales (a region where they perform poorly in a method of distribution where they perform poorly) against the world?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

ClarentUK

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

And revenue is a very clear indicator of a systems performance.

Of course lets 'ignore' the profit because it ultimatley means nothing right?

THIS ARGUMENT STARTED BECAUSE I SAID PC GAMES SELL LIKE CRAP

While the facts show PC games must be selling well to generate such profit.

Which means they arent selling like "crap".

So ultimatley, you are terribly wrong, and your argument is just a silly statement, designed to provoke somone to prove yourself wrong, which has been done.

tsk tsk

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]

For 'christs sake' get your facts right.

PC gaming "accounted for 30 per cent of gaming revenues " in the USA
-that is including the console and handheld sofware and hardware markets.

"For the global games market the figures were $8.3bn in 2007, up 14 per cent, with 2008 revenues set to be $9.6bn, up for 16 per cent."

So yes PC games do sell well enough to support those figures

:|

skrat_01

We're talking about sales not profit. 14%

And revenue is a very clear indicator of a systems performance.

Of course lets 'ignore' the profit because it ultimatley means nothing right?

THIS ARGUMENT STARTED BECAUSE I SAID PC GAMES SELL LIKE CRAP

While the facts show PC games must be selling well to generate such profit.

Which means they arent selling like "crap".

So ultimatley, you are terribly wrong, and your argument is just a silly statement, designed to provoke somone to prove yourself wrong, which has been done.

tsk tsk

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

ClarentUK

Then what are you talking about? number of copies sold? devs don't count how many copies they sold, they count the profits, that's the only thing that matters.

I just realised, both figured of 3 million and 383,000 are from the US. Ouch you lose.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]]And according to your logic they sell like 'crap' which means in that context they are not profitable.

While the facts show PC games must be selling well to generate such profit.

Which means they arent selling like "crap".

So ultimatley, you are terribly wrong, and your argument is just a silly statement, designed to provoke somone to prove yourself wrong, which has been done.

tsk tsk

ClarentUK

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

Sales

"are the activities involved in selling products or services in return for money or other compensation"

Yes PC games are selling well enough to generate so much money.

:|

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

qewrewq

Then what are you talking about? number of copies sold? devs don't count how many copies they sold, they count the profits, that's the only thing that matters.

We're not devs.

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"][QUOTE="skrat_01"]]And according to your logic they sell like 'crap' which means in that context they are not profitable.

While the facts show PC games must be selling well to generate such profit.

Which means they arent selling like "crap".

So ultimatley, you are terribly wrong, and your argument is just a silly statement, designed to provoke somone to prove yourself wrong, which has been done.

tsk tsk

skrat_01

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

Sales

"are the activities involved in selling products or services in return for money or other compensation"

Yes PC games are selling well enough to generate so much money.

:|

Yes, sales are indicative of profit. And PC games sell like crap. Thank you very much.

I just realised, both figured of 3 million and 383,000 are from the US. Ouch you lose.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184847.html

ClarentUK

Why dont you find it this time, and get your argument correct for once

Yes, sales are indicative of profit. And PC games sell like crap. Thank you very much.

ClarentUK

So PC games sell like crap, even though they generate 30 per cent of gaming revenues.

As you said sales are indicative of profit

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

Yes, sales are indicative of profit. And PC games sell like crap. Thank you very much.

skrat_01

So PC games sell like crap, even though they generate 30 per cent of gaming revenues.

As you said sales are indicative of profit

Yeah that's because I imagine a lot of the revenue comes from WoW. Most PC games don't make nearly as much money as console games, but World of Warcraft compensates for this. (And deservedly so, it's a great game)

Take the time to not be an absolutel idiot and READ

THE NPD GROUP's 2007 US GAME INDUSTRY SALES

Game Software (in units sold)
1) Halo 3 (360, Microsoft) - 4.82 million
2) Wii Play with Wii Remote (Wii, Nintendo) - 4.12 million
3) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (360, Activision) - 3.04 million
4) Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock (PS2, Activision) - 2.72 million
5) Super Mario Galaxy (Wii, Nintendo) - 2.52 million
6) Pokémon Diamond (DS, Nintendo) - 2.48 million
7) Madden NFL 08 (PS2, Electronic Arts) - 1.9 million
8) Guitar Hero II (PS2, Activision) - 1.89 million
9) Assassin's Creed (360, Ubisoft) - 1.87 million
10) Mario Party 8 (Wii, Nintendo) - 1.82 million

ClarentUK

An idiot isnt an idiot if they can admit they are inocorrect.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

Yes, sales are indicative of profit. And PC games sell like crap. Thank you very much.

ClarentUK

So PC games sell like crap, even though they generate 30 per cent of gaming revenues.

As you said sales are indicative of profit

Yeah that's because I imagine a lot of the revenue comes from WoW. Most PC games don't make nearly as much money as console games, but World of Warcraft compensates for this. (And deservedly so, it's a great game)

[QUOTE="TransmetalWok7"]Hermits love to upgrade more than playing games CONFIRMEDvash47

Hi Wok7, why are you using an alt?

Or you got banned?

HAHAHAHAHA, poor fanboy.

didn't even notice the name...good catch!

[QUOTE="dabear"]

Hmm. Well that's super for the PC crowd. I am sure there is a development studio out there that will take advantage, but I would hold my breath if I were you. Crysis is currently the graphics king, and the devs took a bath on it because it was too much for most PCs. Now, they are making a console version of the engine.

What does this have to do Nvida and your post? Fact is, devs are in it for the money, and Crysis proved there is far more money to be made in a game that has lower system requirements and can be ported to consoles than a game that requires $1000s of hardware upgrades to play.

skrat_01

Hell if you thought it took $1000 worth of hardware upgrades to play, then you are going to be very pleases my system that cost almost as much as a PS3 here runs it on high, 1240X1024, 0Xaa 40fps average. Of course not 'maxing out' the game, but it plays great and looks better than any game on the market.

Though no its not about lower system requirements so it 'can be ported and make more money'. By that logic The Witcher, Stalker, and Sins of a Solar Empire would be on consoles right now (well Stalker would be struggling to run on consoles).

Besides Crytek have had console IPs in development for a while now, same with porting the CryEngine 2 to consoles - to licence it out like the UE3.

Though yes right now hardware is grossly overpowered and Crysis really is the only game that stresses it. PC gaming is indeed about to hit a Renaissance period where games will scale great for a variety of systems, and still look fantastic, resulting in an even larger player base, and huge amounts of profit.
Heck after playing Legions today over Instant Action, and looking at titles like StarCraft 2 I can confirm it.

Every game, regardless of the dev studio, is on a budget. And, their stability is based on return on investment. I doubt Crytek has made their money back on Crysis. If they have, I am sure it is not a huge money maker.

Making a game available to multiple platforms is a good business practice because you greatly increase your potential customer base. Should you go the route of Crytek, you are greatly limiting that base.

I am not saying that no studio will make a game that is PC exclusive and take advantage of the latest hardware. What I am saying is that there aren't that many who will, especially considering the potential of increased revenue.

By your own example, Stalker has sold a little over 1.65 million copies (link: http://stalker.filefront.com/news/STALKER_Shadow_Of_Chernobyl_sold_165_Million_Copies_World_Wide;37422 ). While a game like Call of Duty 4 has sold well over 4 million and is a new game ( an I think of lesser quality).

[QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

qewrewq

Then what are you talking about? number of copies sold? devs don't count how many copies they sold, they count the profits, that's the only thing that matters.

Well, I think a studio would be happier with their profit if they sold 4 million vs. 1 million...

[QUOTE="qewrewq"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROFIT FOR THE 5TH TIME.

I SAID SALES NOT PROFIT

You are the most frustrating person I have ever argued with, congratulations.

What's even more frustrating is I can't find the total sales for CoD 4 on pc in 2007, so I guess that means you win, congratulations.

ClarentUK

Then what are you talking about? number of copies sold? devs don't count how many copies they sold, they count the profits, that's the only thing that matters.

We're not devs.

Then why the hell are we discussing sales?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="dabear"]

Hmm. Well that's super for the PC crowd. I am sure there is a development studio out there that will take advantage, but I would hold my breath if I were you. Crysis is currently the graphics king, and the devs took a bath on it because it was too much for most PCs. Now, they are making a console version of the engine.

What does this have to do Nvida and your post? Fact is, devs are in it for the money, and Crysis proved there is far more money to be made in a game that has lower system requirements and can be ported to consoles than a game that requires $1000s of hardware upgrades to play.

dabear

Hell if you thought it took $1000 worth of hardware upgrades to play, then you are going to be very pleases my system that cost almost as much as a PS3 here runs it on high, 1240X1024, 0Xaa 40fps average. Of course not 'maxing out' the game, but it plays great and looks better than any game on the market.

Though no its not about lower system requirements so it 'can be ported and make more money'. By that logic The Witcher, Stalker, and Sins of a Solar Empire would be on consoles right now (well Stalker would be struggling to run on consoles).

Besides Crytek have had console IPs in development for a while now, same with porting the CryEngine 2 to consoles - to licence it out like the UE3.

Though yes right now hardware is grossly overpowered and Crysis really is the only game that stresses it. PC gaming is indeed about to hit a Renaissance period where games will scale great for a variety of systems, and still look fantastic, resulting in an even larger player base, and huge amounts of profit.
Heck after playing Legions today over Instant Action, and looking at titles like StarCraft 2 I can confirm it.

Every game, regardless of the dev studio, is on a budget. And, their stability is based on return on investment. I doubt Crytek has made their money back on Crysis. If they have, I am sure it is not a huge money maker.

Making a game available to multiple platforms is a good business practice because you greatly increase your potential customer base. Should you go the route of Crytek, you are greatly limiting that base.

I am not saying that no studio will make a game that is PC exclusive and take advantage of the latest hardware. What I am saying is that there aren't that many who will, especially considering the potential of increased revenue.

By your own example, Stalker has sold a little over 1.65 million copies (link: http://stalker.filefront.com/news/STALKER_Shadow_Of_Chernobyl_sold_165_Million_Copies_World_Wide;37422 ). While a game like Call of Duty 4 has sold well over 4 million and is a new game ( an I think of lesser quality).

1.65m without DD is pretty good.

I completely disagree.

Every game, regardless of the dev studio, is on a budget. And, their stability is based on return on investment. I doubt Crytek has made their money back on Crysis. If they have, I am sure it is not a huge money maker.

Making a game available to multiple platforms is a good business practice because you greatly increase your potential customer base. Should you go the route of Crytek, you are greatly limiting that base.

I am not saying that no studio will make a game that is PC exclusive and take advantage of the latest hardware. What I am saying is that there aren't that many who will, especially considering the potential of increased revenue.

By your own example, Stalker has sold a little over 1.65 million copies (link: http://stalker.filefront.com/news/STALKER_Shadow_Of_Chernobyl_sold_165_Million_Copies_World_Wide;37422 ). While a game like Call of Duty 4 has sold well over 4 million and is a new game ( an I think of lesser quality).

dabear

huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.skrat_01

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.PS3_3DO

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

[QUOTE="PS3_3DO"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.smack_masta

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

If two 9800GX2 can't.

[QUOTE="smack_masta"][QUOTE="PS3_3DO"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.PS3_3DO

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

If two 9800GX2 can't.

I myself don't even care that much about maxing out Crysis. I've played enough of that damn game.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.PS3_3DO

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ClarentUK"]

Yes, sales are indicative of profit. And PC games sell like crap. Thank you very much.

ClarentUK

So PC games sell like crap, even though they generate 30 per cent of gaming revenues.

As you said sales are indicative of profit

Yeah that's because I imagine a lot of the revenue comes from WoW. Most PC games don't make nearly as much money as console games, but World of Warcraft compensates for this. (And deservedly so, it's a great game)

Actually it says nowhere that subscription fees are included in the 30% numbers. I'd be willing to be money that it is NOT included.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]huraah now we can all run Crysis on 1080p, very high 8XAA and 16XAF.PS3_3DO

Yeah believe the hype! There is no way you are going to.

It really might be the thing scores 7k in the new 3dmark. That is like 3-4 times faster than a 8800GTX and 2 times faster than a 9800GX2. This thing is gonna be CRAZY fast.

BTW here is a nudie of the Geforce GTX 280. It has a very similar look to the old school 8800GTX. This should be awesome. With speculation of speeds in excess of 2x the speed of a 9800GX2 this is looking incredible. We are SO close to release it isn't even funny. I am gonna be getting at least one of these on the day of release.