Hardware geeks fail to bump Crysis sales

[Daniel ~]

Written by Daniel
Monday, 17 December 2007
UT is a non-starter, too

By Wily Ferret: Monday, 17 December 2007, 4:41 PM
The Inquirer

PROVING ONCE AGAIN that enthusiasts are a segment of a segment of a segment, the two high-profile graphics-centric games releases - Crysis and Unreal Tournament - have tanked in the sales charts.... Front Page

[danrok]

You would expect UT3 to do well on the PS3, and then the Xbox 360. Given that everyone's console's will run it.

[Daniel ~]

What surprizes me is that I thought UT had a huge following among Gamers... guess I was very wrong!

[danrok]

I think part of the problem, for the game devs, is that we're spoilt for choice right now. More new platforms, and games than ever before.

[Daniel ~]

True enough...things just aren't as I imagined them...":O}

[booman]

Thats strange. I loved the Crysis demo and finally purchased the game this week. I wondered why it was $40 instead of $50...

So most people don't like Crysis because they can't crank the graphics to the highest settings? that doesn't make sense. I played it on lower settings and still loved it. Most gamers seem to think they have to have ultimate graphics quality but don't want to spend the $$ to get ultimate. I have a $1300 machine and it runs Crysis, Bioshock & Stalker fine. I allways look forward to playing them again in a few years when I've upgraded my hardware and then I get the ultimate settings.

As for UT... I think Quake Wars took over that one. The graphics were better in Quake Wars and they are basicly the same game. They are a futuristic Battlefield with aliens vs humans including vehicles.

If people are going to complain about their hardware and their games then go get a console. I'll take that computer off your hands and you can stop complaining.

[Daniel ~]

Received UT3 PS3 yesterday,... still in boot camp.

I've seen nothing like it! Truly amazing and beautiful! Was very worried about playabilty with the PS3 controller... not any more...":O}

[danrok]

Can't wait to play it, when it comes out here on PS3.

Meanwhile, I'm playing Timeshift...

[Daniel ~]

How do you like Time shift?

I'm really liking COD4, and Drake, although Drake said all it had to say in L.C. Tomb Raider, it IS beautiful and I'm finding myself enjoying it more than I thought I would. I fear that UT3 has pushed them aside for the moment.... Patti is ACTUALLY enjoying Motor storm and I'm enjoying her FINALLY finding something about gaming she likes; or is at lest willing play for my sake... ":O}

[Daniel ~]

BTW Dan! Do they give a reasonable reason for not releasing world wide on the same date? I mean "online" is suppose to be such a big deal, why not start us all on the same page?

further BTW...Is Quake wars out? I thought it was months away?

[danrok]

Timeshift is good, a bit of mix of Half-Life and Matrix.

[Daniel ~]

Glad you like it. Gives me something on the back burner...

Are PS3's regional? Could a little trans-Atlantic shipping help you out with UT?

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

Are PS3's regional?

I don't know for sure.

Found this:
PLAYSTATION 3 FAQ frequently asked questions:- Will there be region coding on PS3â„¢ games?

[aghastpumpkin]

Originally Posted by booman

Thats strange. I loved the Crysis demo and finally purchased the game this week. I wondered why it was $40 instead of $50...

So most people don't like Crysis because they can't crank the graphics to the highest settings? that doesn't make sense. I played it on lower settings and still loved it. Most gamers seem to think they have to have ultimate graphics quality but don't want to spend the $$ to get ultimate. I have a $1300 machine and it runs Crysis, Bioshock & Stalker fine. I allways look forward to playing them again in a few years when I've upgraded my hardware and then I get the ultimate settings.

As for UT... I think Quake Wars took over that one. The graphics were better in Quake Wars and they are basicly the same game. They are a futuristic Battlefield with aliens vs humans including vehicles.

If people are going to complain about their hardware and their games then go get a console. I'll take that computer off your hands and you can stop complaining.

Your missing the point.

Eseentially, the problem here is that if you buy a game like Crysis, that is supposed to be cutting edge, then cutting edge is what you can fairly expect.
However, anything below one of the highest end video cards, and Crysis is anything but the graphically stunning game that you hoped for. In essence, it scales horribly bad. On my X1950Pro, which bare in mind until AMD released their DX10 cards was the second best AMD card you could buy, Crysis looks graphically identical to Battlefield 2.
This just isn't really right.

Sure, if you have a 9700 or a 5700 or suchlike, you can't expect the full shebang. But if you have a reasonably high end recent card then these games should still look terrific and sadly they don't.

Then you get the problem of jealousy. I'm not even gonna go there. Part of another reason why I prefer my PS3 is because I know everybody else has the same hardware and is getting the same experience. Fairer, if you like, rather than who has got the most stuffed pockets.

[Áedán]

Thus lies some of the reasons why consoles are better for development than PCs. How many different graphics cards do developers have to ensure their code works on?

[aghastpumpkin]

True.
But if you develop for the PC you should take the responsibiltiy that not only does it work on all cards, but work well, and work as promised.

I'm not sure Crysis did that.

[booman]

Originally Posted by aghastpumpkin

Your missing the point.

Eseentially, the problem here is that if you buy a game like Crysis, that is supposed to be cutting edge, then cutting edge is what you can fairly expect.
However, anything below one of the highest end video cards, and Crysis is anything but the graphically stunning game that you hoped for. In essence, it scales horribly bad. On my X1950Pro, which bare in mind until AMD released their DX10 cards was the second best AMD card you could buy, Crysis looks graphically identical to Battlefield 2.
This just isn't really right.

Sure, if you have a 9700 or a 5700 or suchlike, you can't expect the full shebang. But if you have a reasonably high end recent card then these games should still look terrific and sadly they don't.

Then you get the problem of jealousy. I'm not even gonna go there. Part of another reason why I prefer my PS3 is because I know everybody else has the same hardware and is getting the same experience. Fairer, if you like, rather than who has got the most stuffed pockets.

You are right. There is a lot of hype for games and video cards and one has to live up to the other so that $50 for Crysis is worth it. Because of the hype there is a lot of high expectations. Crysis is definitely a culprit for high expectations because you see those screenshots on the internet at the highest resolutions and detail. We all want that but can't afford the newest card. So we end up purchasing Crysis and it doesn't look any better than Battlefield 2.
I have several reasons why I still buy the game and get to enjoy it. First of all I have never played a game with the highest settings until at least a year later.I know it sounds crazy but every time I have ever purchased a game I never had the highest quality hardware. I was never able to afford it. But I enjoyed the games anyways because Call Of Duty still looked decent at 800x600 with higher texture qualilties and lighting. I still played the entire game and enjoyed it. Second, because of my budgets I have developed low expectations for games because I know that I don't have the cutting edge hardware to run it. When I bought Call of Duty 2 I could barely play certain levels because the frame rate was extremely low. I would have to wait and then for some reason it would play fine, but at low settings. I actually followed a few tutorials on how to ajust my settings just so I could play it. Frustrating yes, but I still enjoyed the game. Third, I allways end up playing the game a year or two later with newer hardware and I can finally crank up the graphics. I know most people aren't patient enough to do this but I've developed this patience and low expectations to the point where it really pays off. For example: When I played the demo for Dark Messiah on my ati 9800 pro it was extremely laggy. But I got through the demo so I could get an idea what it was like. I loved it so much that I planned to purchase the game a year later when it wasn't $40-$50. Then one day I was at Target looking through the clearance and I found it for under $10. I picked up three of em. I've just finished the whole game last week and it ran beautifully on my GeForce 9700 GT and it is my favorite game.
So I don't know if some of you will understand but for me its patience and low expectations that drive my gaming experience. It may sound dumb but I end up being the one who enjoyes more games than everyone else.
I'll let you know how my Crysis experience comes out when I install it in a month or so. I'm just starting Stalker, yet another long awaited release. It really seems like there are a lot of politics with games and hardware. It push push push and then everyone is unhappy at the end. Hence the growth of the consoles.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by aghastpumpkin

True.
But if you develop for the PC you should take the responsibiltiy that not only does it work on all cards, but work well, and work as promised.

I'm not sure Crysis did that.

Near enough impossible to achieve, due to video drivers being modified and updated regularly.

The problem with the PC platform isn't just the wide variety of hardware, but an ever-changing software (OS, drivers) environment.