CryTek Says PS3 and XBox 360 Not Good Enough for Crysis |
Ó
We've all seen the super-realistic in-game footage, and we've all hoping that it would be a superb indication of what to expect for next-gen gaming. The thing is, game developer CryTek has opted to skip the next-gen consoles and just stick to the PC for their upcoming alien-themed shooter Crysis. The question in everybody's mind: Why?
Well, CryTek finally released an explanation. CryTek's Bernd Diemer had this to say, "next generation consoles like the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 do not offer the sufficient power."
It's still debatable if this is just some form of spin from CryTek to help market the game, or if it really is an indication that the most expensive video card out there can still beat your next-gen console. What do you guys think?
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
I sent you guys
I still think it is possible. It may take awhile to utilize all of the power that the Xbox 360 and PS3 has but I do think it can be done and since EA is the Publisher I am almost ready to say that you can expect one by late next year. ;)
wtf, i pressed crtl or something and it submitted in the middle of my typing, whatever.
I sent you guys this link a few days ago yet that wasn't posted
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/30/Crytek_devs_say_new_consoles_too_weak_for_Crysis/
I guess you were afraid that it would prove this article wrong
http://xbox360.qj.net/Why-the-absence-of-DirectX-10-on-the-XBOX360-won-t-matter/pg/49/aid/63216
this news fully supports what I wrote in that article
"it still doesnt support all of the dx10 features and the new sequence of processing that dx10 does"
althought crytek is acting strange about thier because they're also making the game compatable with dx9 features and processing, which is similar to the way 360 works.
well this is directed to microsoft fanboys, source from an interview on ign.com
IGN: The game's tech specs have been a frequent topic of discussion. So that said, what level of HD will it run in (720p, 1080i, 1080p), what's the final framerate, and what sort of audio codec have you decided to support?
Al Hastings, Chief Technology Officer: Our intention is to support all HD modes including 1080p. The framerate will be locked at 30 frames per second in both single-player and multiplayer. We use a number of different codecs internally including AC3 and ATRAC3 depending on what's best suited to each particular case. The highest quality output format our game supports is 7.1 uncompressed over HDMI.
well that settles it all, straight from the developers. what else will MS come up with now.
um yeah it is possible they just want to hype it up and or to lazy to put it on any consoles dumb as mofos. F U C K them!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
Lets analyse the situation... Crytek will undoubtedly launch this game for the Windows Vista OS, thats the first peice of this puzzle. The XBOX360 is inferior to the Playstation 3 (fanboys can argue all they want, but at the end the Cell + RSX is lightyears beyond the technology present in the XBOX360). so their you go, we now have 2 peices to the puzzle, peice 3 is obviouse... The XBOX 360 is manifactured by Microsoft, Holy SHYT!!! isnt that the people who are making the Vista OS!!!!... it cant be! well duh, think about it, Crytek has this big conference with the Microsoft people telling them how many advancements is present in their new game, but then they say "it wont run on the Xbox 360, but the PS3 is more than capable!" the Microgeeks quickly pull up a red flag saying things like "but wouldnt that make our product look inferior! dont put your game on the PS3, we got alot of money, we'll pay for you not to give our competitors the upper hand! (maybe it didnt happen just like this, but you get the point unless you are missing half your brain, in which case you dont get the point and suicide isnt really all that bad of an option for you) " so Crytek thinks their situation over (go ahead and think about it too, maybe you can understand how they aquired the ability to say next gen cant handle this...)
Hmm lets all pretend were the Crytek people!, dont worry this is gunna be fun. "So our game is coming for Vista, gonna be a blockbuster hit because of its display of new technology found on the Vista OS's DirectX 10, so were going to get money from the PC market, we cant let that go!" so now their at a crossroad, "hmm its either get guaranteed moola from the PC side of things, or release my game on the OS's Competitors console and probably loose future privilages with MSoft, i mean diam, I would come out with the game on the 360, but lets be real... it f***ing suck in comparison with what we created this game for!"
This is when the plot thickens. you are forced to make a decision... does Crytek go for the 1080p, 1 teraflop power horse we will be introduced to in the near future called the playstation 3 and possibly (most likely) loose credibility with Microsoft (and give them a bad name.) or do they follow through on their launch for Vista and Guaranty itself a load of cash as a Vista Exclusive!
wow, sucky situation to be in huh?
well I hope they make the right decision cuz I cant wait to get my PS3 and see Crysis playing on my HD TV!
where did you get all that horse ***** speculation?
ps3's gpu(rsx) is geforce 7800 base and it has 128bit
memory bit ..
(pc vga version geforce 7800 has 256 memory bit)
so ps3 is very weak than pc
and to shoot your arguement, they said neither next-gen systems are capable because it uses advanced direct 10 stuff, which your glorious PS3 doesnt support AT ALL!
ok, done =P
wow, they should just make tone down versions for the ps3 and 360
It’s long since been known that NVIDIA will be providing the graphics processor for Sony’s Playstation 3, otherwise known as the RSX "Reality Synthesizer". While the expectation has been that it would be of a similar configuration to NVIDIA’s G70 chip, powering the GeForce 7800 series, a precise answer as to its composition has never been given before. However, accordingly to an article at watch.impress.co.jp, which has slides from Sony’s GDC briefings, RSX is confirmed as being “NV47” based.
NV47 is actually the previous codename for G70 – in fact development tools still list G70’s codename as NV47 rather than G70. The graphics slide also highlights that RSX has 24 texture units, which is consistent with G70. Given the architecture of NVIDIA's G7x series, this indicates that RSX will also have 24 fragment shader pipelines with two ALU’s per pipeline.
This may also give some clues to why NVIDIA sought to release G71 in the configuration that it has, with the same pipeline counts as G70, rather than opting for a chip with more pipelines as the popular speculation indicated prior to G71’s release. It is likely that much of the 90nm optimisation undertaken with G71 was to cut down on duplication on the work being carried out on RSX.
The other, known, primary differences between G71 and RSX is that the PC's PCI Express interface will be replaced with a FlexIO interface for communication to the Cell processor, and RSX will only use a 128-bit bus, rather than a G71's 256-bit interface. Given the memory bandwidth difference between RSX and the PC versions, it begs the question as to whether RSX will retain all 16 of G71's ROP's. With the previously stated 700MHz memory speeds for RSX it will end up with the same local bandwidth as NVIDIA's mid-range GeForce 7600 GT, but also has to contend with twice the texture consumption (when sampling
@ #10
exactly, they already have it toned down to play dx9(what all the screenies and videos are in because there are no dx10 cards yet) but for some reason they're not going to. and #6 is an idiot, ms has no control over crytek and EA, the DX10 dev tools are open to anyone.
But consoles never stay ahead of computers for long. The console you have is the console you have. Your computer can always be upgraded to fit the latest technology on the dot. Consoles cant. Unless the developer wants to split their customers down the middle by implicating the new tech into the next wave of x consoles being shipped.
One of the reasons? Look at your computer and look at your console. Which ones bigger. Consoles generally have to abide by size limitations of the system itself. You are NOT going to fit 2 linked graphics cards, a physics engine card seperate for processing that kind of effect, an 80 gig hard drive, 2 gigs of ram and all of the other parts in your computer into a game system without basically turning it into a computer.
Wow, I find it unbelievable that these tools would just leave their explanation for not doing Crysis on next-gen consoles due to lack of power. Well, no ***** Sherlock you frickin' morons! That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard from a game developer. Why don't they just give us the real reason why they're not going to do next-gen versions and that's because they're lazy ass mother*****ers! Simply put, they just don't want to try to get Crysis working on next-gen consoles. I bet in less than a year, we'll see games on next-gen consoles that look just as good as Crysis and that's on consoles that are NOT powerful enough to handle Crysis. Whatever, I didn't really give a ***** about Crysis anyway because it looked like another *****in' rehash of Far Cry. Why else would they continue the same tropical jungle type ***** again...that's all they know. Besides, they can't even come up with a good name, they came up with CRY sis. Let me guess, they're next game is going to be SISter Sledgehammer. You get it? They just took the last word from their last game and simply added to it. Whatever, I don't want anything next-gen from these lazy ass mother*****ers anyway. Crytek can rot in hell. Turok looks better than their ***** anyway.
nocomment
welcome to 2 weeks ago!
@ the noob saying crap like "PS3 is lightyears ahead of 360!!!!!1" Go die #6, the RSX is garbage. Read 11 to know why
This is old news BTW
-->"The XBOX360 is inferior to the Playstation 3 (fanboys can argue all they want, but at the end the Cell + RSX is lightyears beyond the technology present in the XBOX360)..."
#6, it was at that point agthang that I realised you had nothing sensible to say here (as confirmed by the rest of your post). The PS3 is only slightly more powerful than 360 thanks to the Cell processor, and has more storage capacity thanks to Blu-ray. That about it (and developers agree).
#13, good post SlamSlayer, you summed it up very well, although some gamers will continue to be in denial (especially those naively believe the PS3 blows everything away).
It's a great GPU and will offer fantastic results in the PS3.
The GPU in the 360 is equally powerful (perhaps slightly more according to some developers), but overall, it's about the same.
So, is the 360's GPU garbage too?
I'm well aware that top of the line PC's will be better then my 360...but my 360 also costs less then a video card for said computer. The differences also aren't that great, the real only noticeable difference between oblivion and prey on PC is better textures because of more vid/sys RAM and higher resolutions....but on an SD TV high resolutions and fancy textures mean crap to me....so i'm more then happy to pay $400 once for games equivalent to a pc that costs 3-4 times as much...it will take a few years for PC to seriously start looking alot different....
Anyways, checking out the video I can understand why they think it would be too crazy....but maybe they will change their minds, dumb it down abit (get rid of wind, im sure that's expensive).....regardless I have buddies that keep up on the PC race so I can check it out there
The cards are fine, and I don't think that's the problem here...Both systems Could probably handle just the graphics of the game, but it's the ridiculous physics they have put into the game...and it will no doubt require a dedicated physics card to run at max settings.
The big difference with the 360's vid card is that it has dynamic shader pipelines....so actually if doing just pure geometry it can dedicate all it's pipelines to vertex shaders and be twice as powerful as the RSX (although that's pretty unrealistic). But it can still offer alot of advantages....because if you need more geometrey and less SFX then you can, and vice versa....the RSX has 8 Vertex Shaders and 24 Pixel shaders...the 360 has 48 that it can assign to either vertex or pixel....
A Good link that has theoretical maximums....
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=19237
You know what? They are talking bs and they know it.
At first you just CAN'T COMPARE PC AND CONSOLE.
Second thing is: Crytek isn't too much into console coding.
The proof that it may work on PS3 or XBOX 360 is: FarCry came out for consolesl, too. The engine of Crysis is - no doubt better - BUT it's not THAT much better than an xbox 360 is compared to a xbox.
Next thing: They didn't start developing with the devkits by sony. And getting all the power out of a PS3 means much knowledge aout the devkit. They are just not into it.
So I say: *****c what they say... Theay are just lamers (on consoles)
-The isles are much bigger then before (need much more ram to store).
-The textures are much bigger too. (you know what i want to say^^).
The AI needs more ram.
You can destruct the complete environment (and it stays so) and this needs more ram too.
on PC i would say you need at least 1GB ram.
to play it fluidly 2GB.
The PS3 has only 256MB for environment (much too less) and 256MB for gfx (useless without enought main ram).
The Xbox360 at least has 512 that can be split (416MB for environment and 96 MB for the gfx for example...) this is much better. But the xbox360 has no harddrive in standard.... so: useless for crysis, crysis needs to swap to the hdd if there is not enought ram.
Everyone shut up. PC have always dominated. No console will ever out shine a PC in hardware ever.
Why not having two 360 connected together, it would do a Sli-60 or Sli-360 and this game woul run ok ! ;P hahahahah
Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP
looks like FloW3184 was right and sure they could dull it down but i bet they could get Doom 3 running on the ps1 but it would look like Doom 2 and who wants that. So in the end if you want to play crysis then update your pc or just have fun playing the great games coming to 360/ps3/wii.
you will no longer have to compare your computer with the 360, because www.360vspc.com is coming soon :). Betatester and I are making this site, he has a brand new computer with specs that rival the dream pc in maximum pc, and i will be doing the 360 screenshots.
The folks at crytek must be smoking something...
I don't see how the Ps3 can't run this game... it can handle ingame physics thru the Cell and has a mean RSX...
I think that Crytek need to get over supplyng games for the 500 people worldwide that have the power to run the game and focus on gameplay rather than Graphics.... or at least tone the game down so that the other 99,999,500 people can play it.... Losers.
meh, they can keep their stupid game.. Ps3 and 360 have alot more to offer than another measly fps.
InCrysys has a new article with Cervat that basically saiys Crysis is impossible on the consoles, but when probed (not anally) said they may code it for the consoles after all (which suggests an in-house port), including the Wii! No kidding! Go to GI or In-Crysys which has a direct link to the interview with Cervat
@number 13...
Hmmm Well obviously you can...
Well.. PS3 handles physics thru the cell, has a beast of a GPU (not sli.. but Sli is overrated), has 512 ram (not hard to fit 2gb... but who uses it?) Has expandable HDD Space.... And it's like 1/10th the size of a top-end Desktop...
Why didn't Sony and M$ beef up their systems? Because they don't have to... 99% of the game will look better on Consoles than the equivalent PC title anyway...
and well, Console developers have a tendency to worry about gameplay rather than eye-candy... coz now we have hardcore gamers that well... play the game for what they are and NOT what they look like.
I dont see how a great looking title makes the game more fun than a title with lesser graphics...
There is a difference between next-gen console gamming and next-gen gamming in general. PC will always be the power machine of choice for the best and latest graphics because it constantly evolves, while the consoles stay as they are for 3 years at a time. This time though, the consoles are being released in the past compared to PC. I am a 360 player, I play it for the games, not the graphics. My main gamming system will always be my PC and since I can afford upgrades from time to time I can safely say my PC is way better than my 360 graphically. The 360 and PS3 should never be compared to the PC in terms of graphics, they cant win. Gameplay is another story. So be happy you have a system that will get a lot of great fun games, because that is what the console is for. Graphics are just a selling point, and if you are looking for Crysis graphics, console gamming isnt for you.
If the money is there it'll happen. Yea, I can state for a fact my PC smokes the 360 (which I have and love) and from the specs I can see will smoke the PS3 (which I will buy and love) But remember half life 2 was put out for the Xbox and given that system's restraints turned out okay.
It can go one way or the other but that explanation seems like Bull S*** to me.
One of the reasons why you will not see many pc to ps3 ports is the cell cpu. It runs processes very differently than any other cpu's out on the market. the cell is muiti core and a-simetric. Pc & xbox use a simetric type core. (developers like jhon carmack @ id have already talked about this last year)
So this means that ps3 ports will half to be rewriten from the ground up in most cases!! so it is up to the developer to put the money/time in it.
The gpu's in the 360/ps3 are for the most part the same, whats really going on there is the whole ATI vrs. nvida war.($$$)
#6 is a fanboy
I think if EA buys crytek you will see ports just like far cry. (whitch was tolaly rebuilt for consols)
an overclocked pc with
intel core 2 extreme
intel 975x mobo
7950gx2 or x1950
3-4gig ram @800mghz
raptor hd in raid
sound & pyhsics cards
Is more power than nexgen consols. And dx10/vista will set pc far ahead.
Is it really worth a 2-5 thousand dollars set up just so you can have a 1080i or 2500x1900 display??
Your still missing my point. Room in the ps3 or not sony is NOT going to upgrade the ps3 everytime new hardware comes out. They can do the best they can to EMULATE it. But thats about it. 2 gigs of ram well this game sure as hell looks like it could use it. With a pc its like what my computer cant handle this awesome looking game comming out? Upgrade, bam now i have 2 top of the line video cards linked and working together. What now theres a card specifically designed to handle physics calculations and free up my cards from that? Boom sign me up. Expensive? HELL YES. The point however, is flexability.
Alright, now before you classify me as a hardcore PC only gamer or w/e think again. I've been a console gamer for almost all my life, just now started PC gaming. I still play my 360. 360 & PS3 are both good systems, but they aren't anywhere near as powerful as a top end PC. Now, power isn't everything, more or less, gameplay is. Consoles usually reign supreme in gameplay, so it evens out. Anyways, I'm just sick of all this BS, and I'm going to try my best to set it straight.
"Hmmm Well obviously you can..."
Hmmm, well, obviously you can't. But this is according to the developers, and who listens to them anyway. After all, they're the ones who make the game, and it would be stupid to believe what they say, right?
"Well.. PS3 handles physics thru the cell, has a beast of a GPU (not sli.. but Sli is overrated), has 512 ram (not hard to fit 2gb... but who uses it?) Has expandable HDD Space.... And it's like 1/10th the size of a top-end Desktop..."
GPU is pretty much upper mid range. Nowhere near a "Beast". 512 MB RAM is petty for gaming. Not hard to fit 2GB eh? Good luck actually finding and replacing RAM for it. lmao. Expandable HDD space? Hmm.. I thought computers had that too, but I could be wrong. 1/10th the size of a top-end desktop? Buddy, my laptop is 1/10th the size of a PS3 and 7-8 times more powerful. ;)
"Why didn't Sony and M$ beef up their systems? Because they don't have to... 99% of the game will look better on Consoles than the equivalent PC title anyway..."
Thats completely untrue. Since high end PCs are a lot more powerful, the games are going to tend to look better. Unless the developer seriously coded the game wrong, it's going to look better on a high end PC. I don't really understand where your comming from here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. ;)
"and well, Console developers have a tendency to worry about gameplay rather than eye-candy... coz now we have hardcore gamers that well... play the game for what they are and NOT what they look like. I dont see how a great looking title makes the game more fun than a title with lesser graphics..."
Despite my better interests, I whole heartedly agree with you here. Like I said earlier, gameplay is usually better in a console game. Also, you are contrasting your earlier statement about the PS3 being an all powerful super system.
Anyways, gamers with open minds win in the end. If you really want to experiance gaming to the fullest, I suggest you look at everything with an open mind.