-
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: PC Market Can Not Support Large/Expensive Games By Itself, Consoles Needed
- Thread starter Mr_Brit
- Start date
Completely different topics, this is about Crytek's comments on PC exclusive viability, that is a post release analysis of the tech behind Crysis 2.markao said:old topic posted already
But a less sensational "The Making of Crysis 2 - DF interview" title that actually covers the whole interview is not good enough for modern GAF anymore.
What happened to you GAF, you used to be cool
It's more that most publishers won't green-light a $50M budget game that targets only one platform, PC or otherwise.
I'm fine if developers want to expand but why is it almost always the case that it happens on the expense of the PC version? I'm not even talking about gameplay and setting but basic stuff like options to configure.
Secondly, when we do have PC exclusives (big and low budgets) they seem to do well enough. And as many of you already mentioned, Crytek itself took the risk\initiative and made Crysis 1 which turned out to be very successful. They have overcame that obstacle of doing a high-end PC exclusive and netted great sales. Crytek was in the best position to build on that and increase their profits.
I'm fine if developers want to expand but why is it almost always the case that it happens on the expense of the PC version? I'm not even talking about gameplay and setting but basic stuff like options to configure.
Secondly, when we do have PC exclusives (big and low budgets) they seem to do well enough. And as many of you already mentioned, Crytek itself took the risk\initiative and made Crysis 1 which turned out to be very successful. They have overcame that obstacle of doing a high-end PC exclusive and netted great sales. Crytek was in the best position to build on that and increase their profits.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Maybe it should be. Maybe Blizzard doesn't just magically succeed for no apparent reason. Maybe developers should take lessons from Blizzard (and Valve) so that they can succeed in the PC market too.abstract alien said:
Cervat Yerli: "You cannot be a very large, rich and influential developer on PC alone"
I think the issue here is that he wants to make huge blockbuster type games and have CryTek be a very big name developer. And that is indeed very difficult for a PC-only developer. The only once that sorta can do this are Blizzard and Valve.
I think the issue here is that he wants to make huge blockbuster type games and have CryTek be a very big name developer. And that is indeed very difficult for a PC-only developer. The only once that sorta can do this are Blizzard and Valve.
plagiarize
Banned
and Valve arguably aren't doing it anymore (even though they could).DennisK4 said:
obviously Valve are still doing a lot right, and i'm sure portal 2 is going to feel more like a PC exclusive than Crysis 2 did, but neither actually are PC exclusive.
Crytek made a fraction of the money on Crysis that they'll have made on Crysis 2, i'd bet, and furthermore their tech is going to be much more desirable to licensees now that it is multiplatform (and elegantly so).
Crytek seems to have forgotten what made Crysis 1 successful in the first place.
Crysis 1 sold so well because it was a graphical showcase. People who bought a new PC also bought a copy of Crysis in order to see what their PC was capable of - even though there might be better games to prove the power of a new PC. "My PC is able to run Crysis" has become some kind of an universally accepted benchmark.
Well, and what is Crysis 2? It's neither the best-looking console game nor the best-looking PC game. It's just a shooter with great graphics and a generic design.
Crysis 1 sold so well because it was a graphical showcase. People who bought a new PC also bought a copy of Crysis in order to see what their PC was capable of - even though there might be better games to prove the power of a new PC. "My PC is able to run Crysis" has become some kind of an universally accepted benchmark.
Well, and what is Crysis 2? It's neither the best-looking console game nor the best-looking PC game. It's just a shooter with great graphics and a generic design.
plagiarize
Banned
oh really.wrowa said:
maybe there have been 'better games to prove the power of a new PC' since Metro came out, but prior to that Crysis was not only the best looking PC game, but also the best PLAYING pc game.
people that haven't really played Crysis always seem to overlook that Crysis was equally praised for its gameplay as it was its visuals.
generic design? again Crysis 2 may not be as open as Crysis was, but it's far from being 'generic'. and Crysis 2 is also a shooter that plays great.
so Crysis 2 is 'just' a great playing, great looking shooter that runs well on a much wider spectrum of gaming PCs than the original did when it came out.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Or they could create their own lucrative space in the PC market by doing something different, and doing it intelligently.StuBurns said:
Blizzard and Valve didn't succeed by accident (even if the degree of success they achieved was surprising for them). They focused on perceived quality even at the expense of immediate profits, they built up tons of goodwill and carefully managed the value of their brands, and in general they thought long-term. There were other MMOs and digital distribution networks. There are good reasons why Blizzard and Valve became dominant, and not the others. Crytek should look at those underlying reasons and learn from them. No, they can't capture the same markets that Blizzard and Valve did. But there are other markets to capture, and other markets yet to be created.
Name a PC developer that's approaching that who've launched in the last ten years?Draft said:
I'm not saying they aren't still awesome, but to just say "Blizzard did it, Crytek can" is ridiculous. There's no evidence that it's true at all. The market and development is completely different now. When a game took six guys a year to make, and sold two million copies, anyone had a chance of being independent and growing into huge companies that can do as they please. Now if you want to compete with top line titles you need thirty million dollars, that has to come from somewhere, and unless you own WoW or Steam, that somewhere is a publisher, and a publisher is going to want more than "Blizzard make PC only games, we'll be fine, cut us a check".
Man I love how people are hating so hard on Crysis 2.....shit guys, its the best looking game to date (could've looked better DX11 lol) one of the best SP FPS campaigns since the first Crysis and the game was multiplatform to boot
I swear people act like spoiled kids when their franchise doesn't look exactly like whatever they scribble in their notebooks during class
And you really think a game that is as good looking as Crysis 2 is cheap to make...HAHA...seriously how anyone could think that a game like Crysis 2 would make just as much money as it did being a PC exclusive that would have cost more to make is beyond me
I swear people act like spoiled kids when their franchise doesn't look exactly like whatever they scribble in their notebooks during class
And you really think a game that is as good looking as Crysis 2 is cheap to make...HAHA...seriously how anyone could think that a game like Crysis 2 would make just as much money as it did being a PC exclusive that would have cost more to make is beyond me
Valve succeded due to Steam, Blizzard succeded due to WoW. Without these two things they wouldn't be the powerhouses in the gaming industry that they are. Just look at how often Blizzard and Valve release their games, they can take as much time as they like due to income coming from WoW and Steam.Draft said:
universalmind
Member
...DennisK4 said:
Creating an autoexec for Crysis 1 won't count because it's a 'mod', but creating one for Crysis 2 does?
Besides, considering mods are being prevented by Crytek for Crysis 2, they should count.
Wouldn't most of their budget for Crysis 2 have come from PC exclusive games?
There's a lot of successful companies in the PC gaming space, even if none of them to the degree of Valve/Blizzard. Look at the expansion of Paradox or C1. Yes, they don't make AAA games or don't sell 20M copies with each game, but they aren't foolishly leaving their roots fot the Call of Duty crowd.StuBurns said:
snoopeasystreet
Member
I think he's right to a point. If you're going to create a FPS and you like money, you probably should put it on a console. It's where the market is.
I just started playing through Crysis 2 on pc this morning and am really enjoying it so far. It feels more like the original Crysis than I expected. Granted, it's more linear and scripted but the moment to moment action is very similar.
In regards to Blizzard and Valve being the last bastions of traditional PC gaming, Valve is a multi-platform developer with a fantastic digital download store and Blizzard's next game will more than likely release a game on console. Despite the PC being their primary platform, they're still designing games with consoles in mind.
I just started playing through Crysis 2 on pc this morning and am really enjoying it so far. It feels more like the original Crysis than I expected. Granted, it's more linear and scripted but the moment to moment action is very similar.
In regards to Blizzard and Valve being the last bastions of traditional PC gaming, Valve is a multi-platform developer with a fantastic digital download store and Blizzard's next game will more than likely release a game on console. Despite the PC being their primary platform, they're still designing games with consoles in mind.
old manatee
Banned
I have a solid gaming pc, loved Crysis, and buy pc games regularly. I didn't buy Crysis 2 yet because they didn't finish the pc version.
Minimum Rage
Banned
Devs need to understand there is nothing wrong with PC. You can survive with PC-only games.
You can't survive if you pump millions of dollars in a great looking game with mediocre content.
The PC market is changing. The devs need to adapt. They commit suicide if they keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Instead of looking at the PC community, and trying to understand what we want. They focus on the console community and make what they want. (Great graphics, easy gameplay) and then port to PC for extra bucks.
The main difference between console games and PC games is that console games with a learning curve tend to be unsuccessful, where PC gamers crave for games with a challenge, where you need to read the manual before you can do anything...
But those kind of games are nowhere to be found these days, and then Crytek complains they can't survive with PC only.
You can't survive if you pump millions of dollars in a great looking game with mediocre content.
The PC market is changing. The devs need to adapt. They commit suicide if they keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Instead of looking at the PC community, and trying to understand what we want. They focus on the console community and make what they want. (Great graphics, easy gameplay) and then port to PC for extra bucks.
The main difference between console games and PC games is that console games with a learning curve tend to be unsuccessful, where PC gamers crave for games with a challenge, where you need to read the manual before you can do anything...
But those kind of games are nowhere to be found these days, and then Crytek complains they can't survive with PC only.
That's completely true, but it assumes that Crytek would rather compromise the type of game they make than the platforms they make it on, which is clearly not the case.szaromir said:
Crysis 2 could have been PC exclusive, there is no question about that, maybe they couldn't have spent as much on it, but they wanted to make something else, that's their decision. If I think it's a good one or not is a totally different question. The issue was if they could get the Crysis 2 budget to make a PC exclusive, I believe them, I doubt they could.
whatevermort
Member
Absolutely agree. Some games are exceptions - yes, throw Blizzard around - but 95% of AAA games released today wouldn't get made if the console market didn't exist.
And that's the entire problem. It's bad for the industry for publishers and devs to constantly chase after this "holy grail" of development.MrHicks said:
Also, it's entirely possible to have a huge budget on a title and be PC exclusive, but you're not going to get there without building a reputation of developing games that ALWAYS deliver. It's like the devs today have a popular title and think that the only thing they can make are titles with AAA budgets. After they get a taste of a well developed game that gains mainstream popularity, they lose all sight of how to make a well developed game that doesn't break the bank.
Pureauthor
Member
StuBurns said:
Um. Zynga?
Ickman3400
Banned
I know it's been said already but...Witcher 2! Stop spending 50 million on marketing for every damn game and tacking on multiplayer and you'll be fine.
Sportbilly
Member
Outside of exclusive, first party system-sellers, is any single platform viable for these sort of games?
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Zenith said:
Stumpokapow said:
When you think of "scope and scale" you think about the openness of Crysis 1's first 6 chapters, but you fail to realize that Cevat is referring to the amount of unique art and environmental assets compared to the original. Crysis 1 has copy/pasted trees, foliage, and roads and the last 5 chapters are very linear. Crysis 2 dwarfs Crysis 1 in scale and scope if you combined all the levels together. The amount of assets Crytek had to create for the game is just massive. I'm not that smart and I managed to figure out what he was referring to.darkpaladinmfc said:
Pretty much. I'm thankful consoles are around for that very reason.whatevermort said:
No, that's another point. It's not just PC, it's just that everything is on both PS3 and 360, and combined the install base is a lot larger than the Western active 'hardcore' PC gaming community. Although the PC offers a lot more advantages over the consoles, than the individual consoles over each other, so it's less attractive to make an exclusive for either console.Sportbilly said:
B_Rik_Schitthaus
Banned
...Who are you talking to?balladofwindfishes said:
reptilescorpio
Member
What? Valve made a boatload of money from HL and then made a boatload of money from HL2. Gabe was already a millionaire from Microsoft to boot.Mr_Brit said:
Blizzard had been making crazy money! Every game did well, Warcraft 2, Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2. Not even including WoW.
Pureauthor
Member
StuBurns said:
I'm pretty sure that was Chairman Yang's point: You don't need to make shooters and more shooters. Find a place where you can carve your slice out and do that.
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
Heavy said:
The trade off is conservative game design. no gamer left behind. I fucking hate huge budgets.
I don't know what the original game had for budget (think somewhere around 20 mil), but this one could easily double that. They had around 80/90 people just working on the MP side and around last years E3, they mentioned that they were already at close to 300 people total working on the title and that was before the delay.spazzfish said:
There is no publisher going to give you that kind of budget for a triple A game, unless you are going multi-platform. As others mentioned earlier, being self-funded, Blizzard/Valve, makes live a lot easier.
I was never a Crytek fan, hated Far Cry and barely played the demo of Crysis. But the way I see it, being multiplatform is hardly the issue, compromising game design is. Dropping what made your previous games popular in order to follow broader market usually leads to the company losing relevance as it loses its fans and still isn't able to compete in the new, theoreticly bigger market.StuBurns said:
Similar threads
- Poll