Sections

Crytek: PC “easily a generation ahead” of PS3, 360

Thursday, 25th November 2010 14:42 GMT By Johnny Cullen

crysis28

Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has told Edge that PC is still “a generation ahead” of PS3 and 360 in terms of the quailty.

Speaking to the mag (via CVG), Yerli said, however, the focus of developers on PS3 and 360 is holding back the PC platform.

“As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both,” he said.

“PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won’t be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks.

“I generally think it’s still developers’ mentality [to blame],” he added. “A lot nowadays don’t consider PC a big issue any more; their [sales] expectations are nowhere near what they are for the console versions. Until the PC market creates comparable revenues, companies are not going to spend enough on the PC SKU of a game.”

Crytek are currently developing Crysis 2 for PC, 360 and PS3 for a March release.

The German company is also creating 360 exclusive Codename Kingdom.

Latest

54 Comments

  1. StolenGlory

    I smell a pre-emptive excuse for what will likely end up to be poor console versions of Crysis 2.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. theevilaires

    ^ + 1 :) just shut up and release the game Crytek.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. f1r3storm

    I’m actually happy with console tech right now. Peeps should now focus more on gameplay.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    @1 Because it’s not a fact that PC is a generation ahead?

    console tech is a 2006-2007 story.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. evilashchris

    Well yeah, the consoles are 5 years old. Duh.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. StolenGlory

    @4

    Yep, I agree with you on the fact, i’m just saying they’re gonna use it as an excuse when the console versions end up running at 15 FPS and have screen tearing all over the place.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. G1GAHURTZ

    @1: Spot on.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Anders

    I actually don’t think that games needs to be better looking than what they are on PS3/360 now. Shiny graphics is fun, but what @3 said.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. G1GAHURTZ

    I think games could look a huge amount better than they currently do.

    I think that the problem is that right now, a £10,000 gaming PC doesn’t produce graphics significantly better looking than a 360 or PS3.

    Sure, the resolution is much higher, with more AA and a bit ‘light scattering fog’, but not much more than that.

    Until we get real-time Disney Pixar quality visuals on PC, I don’t think the current gen of consoles will ever look that much worse.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    @8 if you are looking for the platformer – Mario, Kirby experience than no.

    But for me who likes immersive games i need a better visuals. God Of war III, Crysis graphics are always welcome if devs can push themselves hard.

    Consoles are old and because of them you can’t create new experience that are just not graphically superior. You can’t push art, except for some epic platformers like Kirby’s Epic Yarn and e.t.c.

    @6 If you played the beta, it’s already not the best port. Loading textures in the game and low effects and textures. You can see it in youtube.

    @G1GAHURTZ, “I think that the problem is that right now, a £10,000 gaming PC doesn’t produce graphics significantly better looking than a 360 or PS3.”

    Have you ever played METRO 2033, STALKER, CRYSIS 1, GTA4 ARMA 2, Battlefield:BC2 or RAGE on PC with maximum graphics quality?
    I think not and you don’t need this amount of money for super high end PC.
    Another one that know about PC gaming *a lot*.

    you need 900$ at best for the best setup for 2 years and another 2 years if you want to play with middle graphical options.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Quiiick

    I’d love to see better console graphics.
    In other words: It’s time to release PS4/Xbox720.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Psychotext

    At the top end it’s arguably more like two generations ahead at this point. There’s no way the next PS / Xbox is going to be packing anything like the sort of power offered by a Core i7 Extreme / GTX580 combo.

    Well, unless they’re released in 2014 or something anyway.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. freedoms_stain

    tech wise it doesn’t have to be about better looking games, but things like better loading times (seriously guys, loading times on consoles are painful if you play on pc too) the number of things you can have on screen without compromising frame rates or visual fidelity.

    But tbh, if I have a 1080p display I would like my games to run in 1080p.

    edit:

    @9, last week I was playing Mass Effect on PC with an older gpu at 720p with medium textures and high particle detail, probably roughly what you’d get on a 360. Yesterday I installed a new gpu capable of running the game 1080p with everything set full.

    My jaw fucking dropped. The difference wasn’t significant? It was staggering.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. StolenGlory

    @10

    Yeah, I saw/played the 360 code at the Eurogamer Expo.

    Fucking dreadful.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Crysis

    Thank you Cpt. Obvious, that’s like stating “My PSP is much more powerful than your Tamagotchi”.
    But the main difference while gaming between the conole & pc is the experiance.
    PC support with Multiplat games isn’t the greatest, & for the same price for top end graphics, well i could just buy a PS3 & a 360 & half a dozen games for the same price as the Graphics card, i prefer the console experiance even if it is less detailed.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Erthazus

    @Psychotext, “GTX580 combo”

    Oh man… that thing with combo will destroy any console, it’s the fastest GPU on the market. Not the best one.

    5970 HD still takes the crown.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Psychotext

    You sure? the 580 seems to be handing the 5970 its ass here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-580-gf110-geforce-gtx-480,2781-6.html

    #17 4 years ago
  18. ybfelix

    It doesn’t neccessarily need the combo though, TV’s 1080p resolution won’t get any higher in like 10 years. Would be interesting if we manage to make practical naked eye 3D during that time..

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Psychotext

    Maybe we’ll have 4k in 10 years. Stranger things have happened.

    But even so, they’ll always find a way of giving us jaggies and tearing, even with stupidly powerful kit. ;)

    #19 4 years ago
  20. pukem0n

    and this is news how?

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Erthazus

    @17 it’s Metro 2033. They have Nvidia support since launch. Of course it will be always better with Nvidia.

    Here you go a test of benchmarks. Everything what supports Nvidia is basically better. 580 GTX is the fastest GPU on the market right now. But not graphically superior, although tesselation is incredible.

    http://gizmodo.com/5685541/nvidia-geforce-gtx-580-review-the-real-fermi-arrives

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Anders

    “But for me who likes immersive games i need a better visuals. God Of war III, Crysis graphics are always welcome if devs can push themselves hard.”

    So because I don’t think that the appeal of games lies in graphics, I must be a casual gamer?

    The higher the threshold for graphics in games become, the more expensive they will be to develop. Higher development costs means less risk taking from the developer and publisher side, which means less Singularity and Alan Wake and more Call of Duty and Just Dance.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. freedoms_stain

    @22, you seriously want to pick Alan Wake when arguing about development costs?

    #23 4 years ago
  24. OrbitMonkey

    @22 +1 :D

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Erthazus

    “So because I don’t think that the appeal of games lies in graphics, I must be a casual gamer?”

    Where i said that?

    #25 4 years ago
  26. M2Kx

    This guy is so lame, everytime you read something, that he said it’s always the same, boring sh**…

    #26 4 years ago
  27. OrbitMonkey

    @23 I think that’s his point. As graphics get more advanced games like Alan Wake will cost so much more & what developer is gonna risk it? Who can afford to?

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Anders

    @23 Exactly. Alan Wake is one of many examples of developers getting burned after trying something new and exciting. Will Remedy dare to try something like that again? Will other developers?

    #28 4 years ago
  29. triggerhappy686

    Has anybody actually seen Metro 2033 at 1920*1080 on highest settings?? It looks ABSOLUTLEY STUNNING, best PC graphics ive seen this year. Im not even sure next gen consoles will be able to achieve this…

    #29 4 years ago
  30. Erthazus

    @29 yeah, mate… that thing blows a fucking mind.

    but with 3D it’s just blows your brains off. I tried it in 3D in PC shop, i can’t afford 480 GTX SLI for now, but thats mental.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. freedoms_stain

    @27, Alan Wake took so long and cost so much because they developed 75% of the game then almost completely redesigned it from the ground up. If anything Alan Wake is an example of how budgets can afford to get bigger and still make money.

    @28, er are you sure that’s an example of what it is?

    #31 4 years ago
  32. Anders

    @31 With 800 000 copies sold, Remedy would’ve lost money even if they had developed it in two years instead of six.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. back_up

    completely wrong PS3 “easily a generation ahead” of PC, 360 and Wii.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. triggerhappy686

    @ 30 i played it maxed out on a GTX 295 and 3GHz Quad core in DX10 and could not believe what i was seeing infront of me, and it was a great game too.

    @ all those talking about Alan Wake

    Poor Remedy, Alan wake is a beautiful game in so many ways, a true ‘next gen’ title pushing the bar on so many things, yet its so sorely over looked. I stay in the UK and seen ZERO advertising for this game on TV. Ive got a friend who is into action/adventure games and didnt even know it existed. Also releasing it a week before Red Dead did not do it any favors either.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. G1GAHURTZ

    Does anyone have a video link to any of these alleged jaw dropping PC graphics?

    …Where is bdh when you need him??

    #35 4 years ago
  36. blackdreamhunk

    I have been watching the development of crysis 2 and looks like junk compared to the first crysis.

    #36 4 years ago
  37. Gekidami

    @Giga
    Here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVREUuuNIgg&feature=related

    #37 4 years ago
  38. Erthazus

    “…Where is bdh when you need him??”

    Aahhahahahha XDDDDDDD SCHWING. He is right here.

    #38 4 years ago
  39. G1GAHURTZ

    ^ There he is! lol.

    Nah, I found one, and I have to say that a 100 poly chair is a 100 poly chair, whether it’s at maxed out settings at 2560×1600 or it’s in 720p.

    It’s still a 100 poly chair, it’s just a lot crisper.

    #39 4 years ago
  40. G1GAHURTZ

    @ Geki: LOL!

    #40 4 years ago
  41. Erthazus

    FEAR 2 is not that impressive.

    I will just show you a PC game of 2007 year.

    2007 year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQW8iVCbhY

    and after that trailer search for good Metro 2033 and etc.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. Grimrita

    PC games will ALWAYS out perform consoles because of its sheer power. Just look at games like the Total War series and games are are designed for PCs.

    The quality drops when shoddy ports capped at 30fps enter the arena.

    #42 4 years ago
  43. G1GAHURTZ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpV0L7LyhCY

    Seen it.

    Sure, it’s almost certainly better than anything that any studio could do on the current gen of consoles, but it’s still not that big of a step.

    The character animation certainly isn’t any better.

    (see 5:45 in the above vid…)

    #43 4 years ago
  44. Erthazus

    It’s not actually on high really. There is Direct X 11 version with tesselation. Now there is a magic.

    there are a lot of Impressive titles on PC that looks stunning even if they are multiplat compared to console versions.

    #44 4 years ago
  45. Kuwabara

    No crysis game will ever look as good as uncharted 2 Lol.

    #45 4 years ago
  46. hitnrun

    Well, yeah. It’s always been that way. You’re talking about a mix-and-match platform that releases new tech options every week and has its enthusiast customers do all the real engineering and compromise.

    Consoles, by contrast, are consumer electronics tailored for unerring function, perfect stability, and identical performance across all units for its entire lifespan.

    What holds the PC market back is that games, as an industry, don’t revolve around geeks anymore. The business model has grown up.

    #46 4 years ago
  47. albo88

    every winter pc gets a new techs but not all have money to buy new stuff every year if u got the corect stuff minimum minimum u will spend a 400 dollar for the new one such as gpu cpu and even mobo

    #47 4 years ago
  48. freedoms_stain

    @47, care to elaborate? I don’t really get what you’re saying, that you need to spend 400 a year to meet minimum specs? Because if that’s what you’re saying its complete and utter bullshit.

    #48 4 years ago
  49. bpcgos

    @47
    Spend $400 every year?? Crazy, me think!
    My hd6850 proves it (with $180 only), it can run almost all today modern games (except GTA 4) at silky smooth 60 FPS with 8xAA turned on full HD , eventhough my system are 3 year old dual core athlon x2 4800+ (I spend $300 to build this system 3 years ago).
    in total I’ve spend $480 on my whole system and still its cheaper than a new PS3 or elite x360 at that time.(2007)

    #49 4 years ago
  50. triggerhappy686

    right now hardware is ahead of software unlike when Crysis first came out, no one had a machine that could run it up full. i have hardley spent any money on my pc this year but im still confident i’ll be able to run games up ‘fullish’ for at least the next year. when i bought my gfx card and cpu i was pretty sure i was future-proof for the ‘foreseeable’ future, say two years. it cost me more than a console would but i felt it was worth it. im not saying graphics are more important than gameplay but i do like to see everything at a crispy 1920*1080

    #50 4 years ago
  51. blackdreamhunk

    yea I did not spend much on my pc I have a i5 with a 470gtx right now on my pc. I have all my games running on max settings

    i would have to say that batman looks seck on my pc.

    #51 4 years ago
  52. Virginityrocks

    I think a lot of developers choose to develop for the PC not just for an extra dollar, but they too are PC gamers. They admire what people do with modding, lanning, and so forth, and in a lot of ways, the PC gaming community dominates the Internet. (apart from perhaps nonsensical nonsense youtube comments for gametrailer videos) and in turn that helps generate free advertisement through word of mouth (or word of type in this case)

    #52 4 years ago
  53. bpcgos

    @51
    yeah, BDH!! I just dont understand why people keep thinking that gaming with PC always needs very high end system and cannot be compromised at all!
    The most important things on PC gaming is their graphic card, and of course its upgradeable along with a lot of choice to take based on your budget!

    #53 4 years ago
  54. On2wheels

    So is that why the PC version of Crysis 2 is nothing but a lame port?

    #54 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.