-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crytek details - Crysis: 3+ million. Warhead: 1.5+ million. Far Cry: 2.5+ million
- Thread starter dLMN8R
- Start date
UT3 is a funny situation, it didn't even do that well on PC for example so it had other problems. Besides that, it's more comparable as a game to Gears of War than UT3.Vaporak said:
I'm not saying Crysis 2 is going to sell 7 million units, but it sure as hell is the reason for Crytek going multiplatform, they want to achieve more. And business wise, it makes sense.
Teetris said:
Your complete disassociation of UT's sales on PC from it being multiplatform is part of the mindset I was criticizing. You said they want to achieve more (sales) and so it makes sense to go multiplatform, when the evidence suggests that it's very inconclusive if a Multiplatform development strategy actually achieves more sales (thought profit is the better metric to use) than dedicated platform development strategy.
TacticalFox88
Banned
That Crysis vid gives me hope to be able to play a game with Pixar level of detail. ;_; It was beautiful.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Sweet jesus, I need that mod that makes the gun move like Red Orchestra so goddamn bad.DennisK4 said:
Why does it matter? Crytek said the game was profitable for them, and that was more than 2 years ago. It wasn't heavily discounted until 1-2 years ago, well after it made that profit, which means that all those subsequent discounted sales were even more profit on top of what they'd already made.Chiggs said:
Chiggs
Member
dLMN8R said:
It matters because if half of those sales came from the price being $19.99 it's not nearly as impressive financially. My guess is that once people got more powerful rigs, they purchased the game. Then again, how many people purchased new hardware because of Crysis? And how many pack-in deals was Crytek awarded? Something to chew on.
Crysis is an incredibly forward-thinking game in terms of visuals; I hope part 2 is along the same lines, but a little more viable for people with reasonable rigs. That way the sales are at full retail pricing.
CryTek obviously underestimated the man-baby aspects of the PC gaming community. I vividly remember the torrent of whiny forum posts when people discovered their uber-rigs couldn't max out the game.
It really was sad that CryTek was punished for future-proofing their game by having settings that weren't really playable in 2007. I guess they should have included them later as DLC !
I loved, loved tweaking the game and admiring what was possible now even if I had to turn some settings down when actually laying.
Unfortunately, CryTek has probably learned their lesson for Crysis 2....
It really was sad that CryTek was punished for future-proofing their game by having settings that weren't really playable in 2007. I guess they should have included them later as DLC !
I loved, loved tweaking the game and admiring what was possible now even if I had to turn some settings down when actually laying.
fuck no I didn't turn anything down, I just played wth 15 fps
Unfortunately, CryTek has probably learned their lesson for Crysis 2....
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
WTF? There is something about that video that makes my videocard shit bricks on IE9.DennisK4 said:
MS needs to sort out their hardware acceleration.
It matters significantly because, again, they were profitable long before any of those sales took place.Chiggs said:
-They reached 1.5 million as of June 2008.
-They announced the game was profitable in August of 2008.
-The game wasn't even available on Steam until September of 2008
-Before the game was on Steam, it never had any major discounts of any sort
So with all that said, that's another 1.5 million to go after June of 2008, and that's at a minimum $10 for each of those copies sold (Crysis has never gone for cheaper than that, I don't think).
Then consider that Digital sales get them a huge portion of that $10, compared to retail, and you're looking at a huge wad of cash. Still impressive.
I really don't think people appreciate just how wide a chasm revenue is for digital sales compared to retail sales for PC games. Even Crysis selling for $10 on Steam gets them a pretty decent amount of money compared to a discounted title selling at retail.
Darth Kupi
Banned
szaromir said:
No....just....no.
UT/Quake/Tribes are games from an earlier era. I personally always preferred UT from the "big 3" of hyperkinetic deathmatch/arena shooters.
They don't seem to be in demand in today's 'modern war' obsessed world, sure, but by no means are they bad.
If a game tanking means it must be bad, then games like ICO, Okami, Psychonauts etc. must be utter shit.
Visualante
Member
Depends on the product. Rockstar titles for instance are very competitive day one for pricing. Some stores claim after logistics/retail overheads they only make a few bucks per unit and they make their money through the sheer volume and having no choice but to stock it.dLMN8R said:
Poimandres
Member
_tetsuo_ said:
How about this...
F.E.A.R for the raw satisfaction of combat
Crysis for the best open environments
STALKER for the best atmosphere
Now, someone go and splice them for the best game ever!
Mr Sandman
Banned
TimeSplitters 4 I hope.dLMN8R said:
Chiggs
Member
DennisK4 said:
:lol
I would just prefer it if developers created a targeted system spec for their games and would state in confidence that those who meet that targeted spec will run the game at a certain fidelity. And, no, I'm not talking about recommended system specs which are utter bullshit.
I think Crysis 2 is being developed with a GTX 580 in mind, so don't count that game out just yet in terms of next-gen visuals.
Darth Kupi
Banned
Mr Sandman said:TimeSplitters 4 I hope.
Maybe the humour turned off those german sourpusses, and they cancelled it out of spite.
I keed, I keed.
But I was ecstatic upon seeing the concept art Free Radical released/leaked.
Heres hoping The 'Split lives on.
Chiggs said:
But Crytek did exactly that...They had a component by component list and how much it would have cost at the time. It just basically came down to 8800GTX/GT = high settings, which pissed everyone off who thought their hardware should be good enough to run anything maxed out, regardless of what "maxed out" meant in terms of graphic fidelity.
Chiggs
Member
Vaporak said:
I'm sorry, but this is bordering on revisionist history. Playing Crysis with an 8800GTX at high required you drop to much lower resolutions, otherwise your framerate takes a Texas-sized dump all over your monitor. Even adding a second card didn't yield satisfactory results--and I'm not even talking about the so-called man-babies who were crying because they couldn't hit 60fps all the time. I'm talking about achieving steady framerates that hovered around 30-40fps at 1080p. This is why people were so mad! It wasn't until I got my 4870x2 that I got to experience Crysis in a more respectable manner--and even then the performance sometimes shit the bed.
Then again, I do subscribe to the Valve school of thought regarding pc game performance.
rohlfinator
Member
I don't think 1080p was all that common of a gaming resolution at the time, was it? I'd guess that when Crysis was released, most people were playing at 1280x1024 or similar.Chiggs said:
From what I remember, the game was definitely playable at ~30fps for a lot of players at the time at decent visual settings.
rohlfinator said:
Crysis was late 2007. I would say the "average" gamer probably wasn't playing at 1080p but one of the more common widescreen resolutions at the time (stuff like 1680 x 1050). I remember Crysis being ~25 FPS on the GTX at that resolution on default high settings (though AA was out of the question).
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I remember running Crysis at low-medium settings on my 7600gt at 1024x768 and still thinking it looked amazing back when it first came out.
So...
So...
Chiggs
Member
Wallach said:
Pretty much.
Granted, the whiners who were trying to enable 16X AA and AF were delusional. But if you just spent $450 on a new graphics card that was touted as being the best way to play Crysis and then being greeted by 24fps (18fps for some of the Carrier level), I think there's some validity to the bitching.
When Far Cry came out in 2004 it featured state of the art graphics that really lessened the impact of HL2 and Doom 3; however, the performance on even a Radeon 9700 Pro (a year and a half old card) was superb. I'd sort of like to see that again.
iam220 said:
Yeah, at 1024 * 768. :lol
Chiggs
Member
teepo said:
I tried bringing this up earlier, but it wasn't too popular. I do remember stories from back in 2007 about how EA was disappointed with sales of Crysis. Obviously, word of mouth about the game's performance started to spread. But, hey, I guess we were all just punishing Crytek for being forward-thinking.
In other news, Trespasser is the greatest pc game of all time.
Chiggs said:
The first mention of sales for Crysis by EA was saying it had exceeded their expectations. But PC gaming was notoriously in the throes of death that year and a positive narrative on Crysis's sales was never going to develop, the facts be damned.
Darth Kupi
Banned
Chiggs said:
But it is....
Which reminds me, Crysis need more boobs.
benjipwns said:
I figured, but still....UT3 was still a quality product.
The on foot action felt like a blend of UT99/UT2004.
Vehicles were better then ever. (Goliath no longer felt like you were pushing a box with a big gun on it through sand. necris wheels were dope.)
It was a great arena/DM shooter, the best since UT2004. (since both Doom3 & Quake 4 were duds in the multiplayer department IMO)
It was the best offering in an increasingly niche genre'.
Why hate it just cuz it aint got no M16s?
Chiggs
Member
Vaporak said:
Okay. Not EA. NPD.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/14/crysis-sales-in-crisis-ut3-gets-fragged-too/3
Far Cry's first 2 'levels' were awesome. Haters gonna hate.
Far Cry 2 was craptastic.
Crysis, even played OnLive, was still a blast. The AI had the perfect mixture of awareness and alertness that allowed me to be a fucking asshole.
That's all I want in a videogame: to be an asshole.
Far Cry 2 was craptastic.
Crysis, even played OnLive, was still a blast. The AI had the perfect mixture of awareness and alertness that allowed me to be a fucking asshole.
That's all I want in a videogame: to be an asshole.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
I am a tad dissapointed with the GTX580 performance tbqh (unnoticeable bump over my GTX295). I doubt I will be able to get Crysis to look as good as the promo shots released.Chiggs said:
teepo said:
Chiggs said:
Once again, when the game made a profit on 1.5 million of those sales or less, and continued to sell at least 1.5 million more after that, why does it matter so much exact what the average selling price was?
1.5 million sales or more after successfully breaking even on a risky game on the supposedly "failing" platform is an amazing achievement in its own right.
I was one of the loudest voices championing back then about how those NPD numbers were totally useless. Even though the game wasn't on Steam yet, there was still plenty more to take under consideration.Chiggs said:
Call of Duty 4 did pretty well on PC that year too, and Crysis was right up there in the sales charts with CoD 4 all over Europe. And then those numbers didn't take into consideration any of the digital sales that were there outside of Steam
I bought it for super cheap when i built my new computer. It's a pretty damn good game. Not up to the level of design of something like Half Life 2, but the sheer quantity of options makes it super fun all the way through. Except the last level which ran poorly and looked like a ridiculous light show whilst you play target practice with the weakpoint. Story was also trash.