The harder the copy protection is, the less likely I am to buy the game. Piracy mostly hurts bad games, as people can see if the games are worth it or not I don't trust reviews, and not all games releases a demo... but then I don't trust demos either (they always promise much more than what the game has to offer, or make some crappy feature sound awesome) If I can't test the full version, then I wont buy it The best protection against piracy is to make a good gameADG_

So in your opinion it's valid to download anything that turned out to be bad in the end? You are aware of that every new developer on the market has to start somewhere in order to establish a budget to actually be able to make any good games at all? They will not be able do that with a low budget, and piracy makes it even harder. Yet, I see so many people complain about there are too few good games out there. Sure, some developers that can afford to make great games are just being cheap, like EA or Ubi, but there are those newly established ones that don't have the same attitude like they do. They just want to make entertaining games, and make a living. Piracy prevents them from doing just that. And if you do have economic issues and blame it on that, why do you steal games, but not food I wonder? Why do you play games at all if you have it that tough financially? You should be working, or at least getting an education.

Anyway, back to topic. In order to completely destroy piracy, there should be included tools with operating systems that renders popular torrent-programs un-usable. Like, if you crack the function, it'll only get renewed with a hidden update that you cannot block. Sure, some won't like hidden updates to be installed and call it a privacy intrusion, but you are aware that Microsoft does keep track of what we're doing with programs like Outlook and MSN that we use daily? Yet, noone seems to get bothered about that.

I guess a better story might have compelled me more but it was absent.

Is it possible to name just one FPS that does have a good story? Your opinion would make much more sense if you gave a few examples. Even Half-Life has a lot of flaws, and I'd say that the story is pretty good in that game, but I don't find the gameplay that entertaining somehow. I mean, games aren't like books or movies. The developers are programmers, animators, etc.

They aren't scriptwriters you know, and not many do actually hire one. Making up a good story takes time, a lot of time. Since there are so many details you need to explain for the audience for them to better understand the story. I should know this, as I'm an author myself.

WARNING! WALL OF TEXT BELOW! WARNING!

!PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Well, it seems like most people here have a very bad knowledge of the computer in general. Every game that gets released is made depending on hardware. The technology to make games looking ten times better than Crysis is there, but there is just the tiny fact that they must create it depending on the user's hardware. Say, Xbox and other consoles are the same configuration, same processor power, so all developers must make games that can run on that hardware, they can't really make Crysis looking games, because the Xbox360's memory and processing prevents them from doing so.

People can't frikkin expect games to run on their 2-3 year old hardware, as the developers continually introduces better looking, more advanced graphics and physics that puts heavy stress on the most recent hardware. They could optimize their engines so it could run on older hardware at medium-high settings, but that would cost them a lot of money and time, and as the hardware gets better and better, it's not just worth spending that money and time to make that John Doe that has that 4 year old hardware to be able to run their game.

That is the reason as to why people prefer consoles, as you don't have to upgrade all the time in order to run the most recent and most graphically advanced games. But as the hardware on consoles basically stays the same the developer can introduce new graphics, but in a very limited way. For example, they usually cover it up by making games like Bioshock, very dark environments that makes the Xbox user save some FPS and RAM for things like better effects, more detailed NPC's and better textures. I haven't played Gears of War, but I believe that game too was very dark, not very long view-distance, and with heavy motion blur to maintain a playable FPS.

PC's can get games like Crysis, because we continually get better hardware, and with it better looking games. Crysis is very open-ended and with a very long view-distance with High-res textures that takes up both GPU memory and RAM, and additionally there is action going on, on-screen, like fighting, explosions, but still I managed to maintain above 25+ fps at all times with most settings on very high, but shadows, textures and shaders on high. A Xbox360 would probably have blown up just attempting to run it on everything medium.

PC's = More expensive, but mostly better looking games and multiplayer. While Consoles = Cheaper, but prevents you from getting much of a graphical change with each game that gets released. If you think it's not worth upgrading your hardware to be able to run the latest games, then you're not really a PC-gamer enthusiast and should in my opinion stick to consoles, or play older games that you can actually run. If you can't really afford upgrading, well, I feel sorry for you. In 2 years the latest hardware of today won't be able to run most graphically demanding games on medium.

...What? DC? What patch? What game?

Crysis beta rules!

D9-THC

I second that!

Well, thing is that game developers actually rely on the average gamer's system. If the average would be, say Core2Duo, Geforce 7600 and 1gig ram - we would see drastic changes to nearly every new game's system requirements.

What Crytek and some other companies are trying to do is tempt the gamers to upgrade their systems to be able to run their hot titles to the fullest, and of course the fact that they'll be able to implement even more demanding technology as the average gamer's PC is at such a high level that a majority of them would be able to use this technology for a better visual performance for example.

Crytek are not building their game based on the average gamer's computer - rather their own estimates for yielding the player an amazing experience mainly visually, but also gameplay-wise.

They are taking a huge risk doing this. If it goes as planned, they've gotten a lot of people interested by just showing off the visuals to make them to upgrade their PCs in order to play the game to it's fullest.

Not many developers are willing to take risks as Crytek does; that is one reason to why I kind of prefer them somehow over other popular developers.

They're trying something different. If there would be zero customization options for the player the game would be like any other fps - very monotonous gameplay. I think aim, shoot, reload - repeat; is so yesterday from a gamer's perspective. Crysis is taking a different turn on the FPS-genre, which probably and hopefully; others will follow if the game results in a complete success.

With success I don't mean sales or financial income - In fact I mean that; if at least 70% of the people that purchases the game thinks the game was worth the money, then it is a complete success.

That way Crytek will have quite a huge and loyal fanbase that is looking forward to their future titles. Only that is a success in itself.

I think you'll handle it just fine. It's a very simple and easy-to-use system. It might take a hour or two before you work on full automation. Piece a cake.