Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
CryTek Says PS3 and XBox 360 Not Good Enough for Crysis |
Listed in: PS3, Xbox 360 Tags: Crysis, Crytek, playstation 3 updates, Sony
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?
| This story sucks? This story rocks! |
|
|












Comments
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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!
Reply
Reply
memory bit ..
(pc vga version geforce 7800 has 256 memory bit)
so ps3 is very weak than pc
Reply
ok, done =P
Reply
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is old news BTW
Reply
#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).
Reply
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?
Reply
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
Reply
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
Reply
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)
Reply
-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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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??
Reply
Reply
"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.
Reply