Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Second Take: Crytek Blames PC Piracy

Last response: in Site Feedback
Share
May 8, 2008 4:37:46 PM

Ben and Rob discuss Crytek President Cevat Yerli's comments about the effects of piracy on Crysis and PC games sales in general.

Watch Video: http://www.tomsgames.com/us/site/flash_videos/second_take_crytek_blames_pc_piracy.html

Are PC exclusive shooters going the way of the dinosaur?

-Ben

More about : crytek blames piracy

May 8, 2008 6:29:49 PM

A million sales on the game doesn't sound bad to me. Especially considering you rated the game an 8. I don't buy shooters that are rated an 8, especially when there are lots of better ones available.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I honestly don't care that much about eye candy in my shooters. I might turn them up and ooh and aah at the single player for a couple of hours, but I'm really only interested in the multiplayer. I crank the graphics down to whatever will get me 60+fps steady and I jump into an online server and never have the time to look at the finer points of the graphics engine again.

I don't feel like this game would have done considerably better on the consoles. The only thing it had on it's side was that it was the most graphically impressive game ever. If you put it on a console it is mediocre gameplay meets mediocre graphics. Why do they think they would have sold 5 million copies? What is compelling about this game as a console title when it is sitting next to CoD4 or Halo 3 on a shelf at a game shop? Bad story, standard gameplay, and mainstream graphics all in one! Sign me up!
May 8, 2008 7:08:08 PM

Well if you sell a game that doesn't work on the average computer, but PCs that are financially unobtainable, chances are you're not going to see strong sales. Blaming piracy is legit, but not the sole reason why they didn't see a huge revenue. Hell, I would have bought the game had it not been necessary to completely overhaul my PC. It's stupid to develop something that everyone can't play.

I think Ben hit the nail on the head. PC gaming is all about pushing the limits, but there's a point where you'll actually push away the end-user because the effort is just too costly. I'm a good example of that.... I got tired of the contant upgrading that typically only stayed ahead of the times for a year or so.

Again, why would someone purchase a $500 card to play a $40 game? Might as well buy a Ps3 or X360.
Related resources
May 8, 2008 7:23:43 PM

Somebody tell me why I should care if they make games "ONLY" for PC. As long as it runs on my PC I don't care who's console it plays on.
May 8, 2008 8:22:13 PM

Yeah, I think most people will agree that sales suffered because the game really didn't live up to the hype and was underwhelming along with the fact that most people were disappointed with how it performed. I think when you have a game that is getting such mixed reviews, is so graphically advanced, and has so much hype, I think it's just like putting a big "pirate me" sign on it. I think if they'd made a better game, they would've sold more copies. I completely understand them wanting to move to consoles. It makes sense from a business stand-point. I just hope they don't stop trying to push the envelope of PC gaming. Make watered down console ports so that PC gamers still have the option to play with top-notch graphics that consoles envy. The reality is most people can only afford to buy a few games a year, and in a year where you have so many high quality titles coming out on both PC and consoles, like Call of Duty 4 and Bioshock, other games are going to suffer in sales. I think they just need to make a better game. I feel bad for saying that because Crysis wan't a bad game, it just lacked something and I think Far Cry was a much better game in comparison.
May 8, 2008 8:39:52 PM

ram1009 said:
Somebody tell me why I should care if they make games "ONLY" for PC. As long as it runs on my PC I don't care who's console it plays on.


I think we explained this in the video: Because if they're simultaneously developing for the consoles, then we won't have developers that try to push envelope and making cutting edge games. We'll have games that are dumbed down with console-level graphics that run at 30 FPS and have console friendly interfaces (hello, UT3). That may not bother you, and that's fine. But I think that's a chief concern for gamers who love PC gaming but see more and more developers defecting to the console-first school of development.

May 8, 2008 9:06:42 PM

Maxor127 said:
I think if they'd made a better game, they would've sold more copies.



That is what it all comes down to!
May 8, 2008 10:13:44 PM

The claim of Piracy is surely overrated. I downloaded the demo and realized I couldn't take advantage of the eye candy in the game that is only a mediocre shooter with underdeveloped weapons. I'll wait till it's in the bargain bin and my PC is upgraded enough to run it Maxxed. On the other hand I tried the COD4 Demo and immediately ran out and bought it. BTW My system is not a clunker

AMD 64x2 4600, 3GB RAM, 2x250GB WD 7.2k SATA2 HDD, 2xBFG 7600 GT OC in SLI.
May 8, 2008 11:22:50 PM

I think the biggest problem with this game is the high hardware requirements. You can't build a big community if only 10% of the PC owners are actualy able to run the game.
Console gamers don't care about this fact. I'm sorry to say but it's the console gamers that are dumb enough to believe the hypes and go out and buy games that maybe are **** but have a big promotional campaign. You can't fool PC gamers like that.
Games are becoming more like movies. You just walk around in them following the storyline, your skill doesn't realy matter as most people just go easymode and want to enjoy "the view".
If developers want to make games like this I'd be happy to see them go to the console market.
May 9, 2008 12:26:35 AM

I don't think the requirements were THAT big of a problem. The game had a wide range of graphics settings. Everyone just wanted to play with the best graphics and when you see what the game is capable of, anything less looks like crap.
May 9, 2008 5:47:52 AM

exfileme said:
Well if you sell a game that doesn't work on the average computer, but PCs that are financially unobtainable, chances are you're not going to see strong sales. Blaming piracy is legit, but not the sole reason why they didn't see a huge revenue. Hell, I would have bought the game had it not been necessary to completely overhaul my PC. It's stupid to develop something that everyone can't play.

I think Ben hit the nail on the head. PC gaming is all about pushing the limits, but there's a point where you'll actually push away the end-user because the effort is just too costly. I'm a good example of that.... I got tired of the contant upgrading that typically only stayed ahead of the times for a year or so.

Again, why would someone purchase a $500 card to play a $40 game? Might as well buy a Ps3 or X360.


You have a good point there. They need to start taking into account the reality that most people with computers are using integrated graphics solutions or VERY old discrete graphics cards (mine, until recently, was an ATI X300).

YouthNAsia said:
The claim of Piracy is surely overrated. I downloaded the demo and realized I couldn't take advantage of the eye candy in the game that is only a mediocre shooter with underdeveloped weapons. I'll wait till it's in the bargain bin and my PC is upgraded enough to run it Maxxed. On the other hand I tried the COD4 Demo and immediately ran out and bought it. BTW My system is not a clunker

AMD 64x2 4600, 3GB RAM, 2x250GB WD 7.2k SATA2 HDD, 2xBFG 7600 GT OC in SLI.


Your computer is DEFINITELY not a clunker in the slightest and if IT cannot get good frame rates in Crysis..... the fact is that they put too much eye candy into the game for the normal person's computer to run it.
May 9, 2008 6:48:51 AM

Rob W. -- so you folks now understand the problem?? Come one guys, I find it hard for TG to suddenly come to this understanding that Piracey is killing the PC industry along with many other factors:

1. Consoles doesn't require much knowledge, press button and play
2. Piracey has always been a problem with the PC market and the bone heads that pirate copies are just that, boneheads with ZERO ability to think beyond 2 minutes in the future
3. Vista and DX10 is total garbage, Microsoft haven't promoted a real gaming platform with Vista but only make DX10 available on Vista which is SLOWER and has higher hardware requirements

I brought this problem up many years ago and was pretty much laughed at. Now that more and more and more companies are folding or moving to Consoles, this is suddenly a shock now??

Now all the boneheads here that do "Share" the games with other's cause they wanna be "cool" or "in with their friends" are now in denial, it's pathetic.

And TG, a long time ago did NOT moderate this topic and pretty much let their members advocate piracey posts and made ZERO attempt to address those that are Pro-piracey.

Now the **** has hit the fan in more than just a few PC gaming companies, these weasels are once again in denial and trying to come up with their own pathetic justifications for stealing and being a thief.

Anyway Rob W. -- too little effort on TG's part, and WAY too late.

May 9, 2008 8:45:20 AM

I think if they'd made a better game, they would've sold more copies. said:
I think if they'd made a better game, they would've sold more copies.


agreed, the game was rubbish, the weapons felt like you were throwing stones at rhino's.
May 9, 2008 1:28:07 PM

When the glut of games came out last fall-winter I bought the following: Crysis, the Witcher, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, and the Orange Box. I have played all of them multiple times...except for Crysis. Compared to the rest, I just don't feel compelled to re-play it for any reason whatsoever. It just wasn't that good. Technologically it is amazing, but it just didn't hook me, and after Fry Cry being so groundbreaking, I was really dissapointed. I agree with Rob, I loved Halo 3 (played on a friend's 360) a lot more than Crysis. Sorry Crytek, but like CGI laden movies, you need to have a reasonably good story tucked in there too, otherwise it's all just effects.
May 9, 2008 7:16:26 PM

V8VENOM said:
Rob W. -- so you folks now understand the problem?? Come one guys, I find it hard for TG to suddenly come to this understanding that Piracey is killing the PC industry along with many other factors:

1. Consoles doesn't require much knowledge, press button and play
2. Piracey has always been a problem with the PC market and the bone heads that pirate copies are just that, boneheads with ZERO ability to think beyond 2 minutes in the future
3. Vista and DX10 is total garbage, Microsoft haven't promoted a real gaming platform with Vista but only make DX10 available on Vista which is SLOWER and has higher hardware requirements

I brought this problem up many years ago and was pretty much laughed at. Now that more and more and more companies are folding or moving to Consoles, this is suddenly a shock now??

Now all the boneheads here that do "Share" the games with other's cause they wanna be "cool" or "in with their friends" are now in denial, it's pathetic.

And TG, a long time ago did NOT moderate this topic and pretty much let their members advocate piracey posts and made ZERO attempt to address those that are Pro-piracey.

Now the **** has hit the fan in more than just a few PC gaming companies, these weasels are once again in denial and trying to come up with their own pathetic justifications for stealing and being a thief.

Anyway Rob W. -- too little effort on TG's part, and WAY too late.


I appreciate your comments, V8Venom, though I'm not sure I understand entirely. I've been pretty vocal about my anti-piracy stance since I arrived year more than two years ago. And this isn't the first time I've addressed the issue with Ben in the ST videos. We've discussed it with the Digg controversy and HD-DVD crack, as well as Iron Lore's closure more recently. And to be perfectly honest, I've taken quite a lot of sh*t from readers, even long-time THG readers who I respect, for coming out against piracy (My view isn't a company policy, by the way. We have wildly different opionions of the matter here at the company). Expressing the view that piracy is hurting PC gaming is hardly a popular opinion here and on the Web in general. Check out the comments page for this video on Tom's Hardware and get a whiff of the reactions. Check out the guy that wrote Ben and I are on the take and are being paid off by Crytek. Awesome, thanks for watching. In any event, we continue to cover the issue in both print and video because we feel it's important, even if the coverage does earn us a considerable amount of scorn from our readership.

In any event, I'm we agree that PC game piracy is a problem. But I vehemently disagree with you that it's too late to do anything about it.
May 9, 2008 8:20:22 PM

This is going to hit hard across the board.

If gaming publishers aren't going to push the limits, then the hardware industry won't be pushed as hard to make better performing hardware.

And it doesn't take a genius to see that if they don't make better hardware as often, then they are going to take a financial hit, which will lead to less development and less competition and less improvement.

I agree with Rob, the PC will maintain their player base with RTS and MMORPG's but for FPS, the future is gloomy. And FPS are really what drove the PC hardware industry for the majority of it's existence. Even MMORPGs are looking to cross platform these days, and that really will be a blow.
May 9, 2008 9:11:34 PM

Quote:
This is going to hit hard across the board.

If gaming publishers aren't going to push the limits, then the hardware industry won't be pushed as hard to make better performing hardware.

And it doesn't take a genius to see that if they don't make better hardware as often, then they are going to take a financial hit, which will lead to less development and less competition and less improvement.

I agree with Rob, the PC will maintain their player base with RTS and MMORPG's but for FPS, the future is gloomy. And FPS are really what drove the PC hardware industry for the majority of it's existence. Even MMORPGs are looking to cross platform these days, and that really will be a blow.


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Look at something like CoD4. It still takes a pretty hefty machine to run it well and turn on all the eye candy, yet it was released across the various platforms. Oblivion was the same way. It was almost as demanding as Crysis when it was released. The first cards that could handle it at its peak were the 8 series cards and they came well after it was released.

Crysis didn't inspire hardware producers to do anything. They drive themselves. People are always going to want a faster computer regardless of frame rates and hardware companies are going to provide it.

Graphics have gone main stream with the introduction of HTPCs and now even the new operating systems are using them. Suddenly a whole new market has opened up for discrete video cards. Games may have been the first thing to make the cards popular, but they aren't exclusive to PC gaming anymore. I don't think they will suffer too heavily if game requirements manage to become reasonable in the years to come.

Besides if we lose 90% of the hardware companies we'll be better off. The level of quality in the vast majority of products on the market is so low as to be pitiful. Competition breeds improvement is a huge myth and it's been shown in many studies. Competition breeds cost cutting and cheaper lesser quality products.
May 9, 2008 11:50:11 PM

I don't think that the system requirements were unreasonable. Why complain about the option for high-level graphics that the developers provided for the high-end enthusiast? I couldn't run it with all the bells and whistles, but it still looked great on my $800.00 from-scratch build (now more of a $500.00 rig).

Oblivion was at least as much of a system-killer but it did not draw nearly the ire that Crysis did for its hardware demands. And it had many more glitches, IMHO. Why the difference in the level of complaints? If Oblivion had been PC only would it have been in the same boat as Crysis? It probably would have been a better game in any case.....
May 10, 2008 12:19:01 AM

I think the biggest complaint about Crysis and its graphics was DX10. DirectX 10 was a lot slower and was not the revolutionary improvement that was promised by Microsoft. Plus, most of the DX10 "exclusive" features worked and looked great in DX9 but were inaccessible without configuration file tweaks. And Crysis apparently had LOTS of problems with SLI and would actually run slower in SLI mode. A lot of people upgraded their computers specifically to be able to run Crysis reasonably well.
May 11, 2008 10:53:06 AM

It's an ok game with tons of visual appeal that requires very high end equipment.
Considering it cost about 30 million to make the game 1 million in sales sucks.
Add the fact that you have a ton of DRM with the game and it just makes it even more unpalatable.
As games have not gotten much better as to game play, compaired to the look of the game graphics, I just don't run out and buy every new game when it comes out now.
I wait see how it is out in the wild, what it plays like, how badly it messes up the computer system it's installed on. What crap comes with it. Then I look at buying it. I confess I have bought more older games of late.
Heck I still get play out of Halo.

Make it fun, don't crap it up, don't ask for a testicle to buy it, and I'll buy it.
May 12, 2008 1:41:37 AM


I am miles away from being able to play Crysis on my weak PC. I do remember the hype around DIRECTX 10 and how Crysis was going to demonstrate its power.

Ben and Rob, you guys have to do a discussion on the Directx 10 fiasco. Hardware supports it, but gamers don't. Vista runs like a dog and is an unnecessary upgrade for gamers. The prior versions of Directx were not linked to an OS purchase.

Developers are getting seriously stuck in limbo. They can't access the power of the new graphics cards through directx 10 without alienating their target audience.

Microsoft announced a 'Gaming for Windows' push and then they screwed everyone with a massive cash grab called Vista.
May 12, 2008 2:25:47 AM

Rob W.

I know you understand the implications of stealing software. And I had expressed my opinion many moons prior to your start with TG (long before 2 years ago).

Many things have to come to a head to cause the current "void zone" of PC games, and I did predict this many many many years ago.

What's the plan to NOT make this too late for the industry?? I'm not seeing any plan, in fact, I only see more of the same and the problem's getting worse:

1. Microsoft's DX10.1 -- this isn't going to help
2. Vista and DX10.x only -- this still isn't going to help
3. Microsoft have not provided ANYTHING to legit developers to help them "secure" their software from the ease of piracey.

You think you can make Microsoft "change direction" or provide DX10.x for WinXP? Good luck!

Microsoft would rather just see their OS not be a gaming platform -- this would more than likely help there "True" gaming platform -- XBOX.

Like I said, you got some secret weapon to fire at Microsoft? Perhaps you can mind meld with Mr. "I don't care" Ballmer? ;) 

#1 Pirates, theives, people who "borrow", or "extended try" software will always exist, that's human nature -- hate'em as much as I do (and you do) they live long and they don't care what the future brings. So, accepting that, who is the ONE company that can really do something about this problem -- it isn't the game developers, it's Microsoft.
May 12, 2008 5:15:30 AM

And remember MS has it's own game console.
So whats their incentive to help.
May 12, 2008 3:39:48 PM

I wish it were just bad driver support, but it's much more than that.

What I don't understand with the folks that hate root level anti-piracey implementations, is that these same folks don't seem to mind the continual Vista UAC Allow/Deny popups -- makes zero sense to me other than these popups don't prevent them from making illegal copies of software.

The root level validation (and this is what should be done by the OS and something that Microsoft should provide access to for legit development groups -- but no such entity exists) does indeed work for 98% of the folks out there and is completely hidden from the user. The folks that complained most had a non-OS compliant DVD/CD drive -- and could remedy the problem with either a firmware update and/or spend a huge $30 on a new compliant drive.

But again, the OS is where this should happen -- not something Sony install, not something XYZ installs, but a service Microsoft should provide as part of the OS and logo certification gets the developers in legit status.

This could have been successfully implemented long ago, if Microsoft really wanted to do it -- but as has been pointed out, what is there motivation to do so? XBOX360 is doing very well and finally returning a good profit. You really think Microsoft honestly care about gaming on a PC? If they did, DX10 would be on WinXP in addition to Vista.

Now I'd love to know how Rob W. thinks this problem can be "saved"?

May 12, 2008 3:58:01 PM

PC game makers should scale back on the whizz-bang graphics requirements and focus more on length of game, replayability and content. Crysis was much, no MUCH, less fun that Far Cry for me, and graphics had nothing to do with it.

In fact, I'd like to see more of the old turn based strategy games come back. I'd buy those.

Piracy had less to do with Crysis "failing" as the draconian hardware requirement and crappy gameplay did.

All in all, PC gaming at the upper levels is just wayyyyyyyyyy too expensive when compared to consoles, and I hate consoles.
May 12, 2008 5:34:26 PM

I think Microsoft cares very much about it's windows OS. Wasn't Crysis touted as the game that would drive the Vista platform. It was supposed to be so great that everyone would want vista for the DX10 support.

I think that Crytek dropped the ball on developing the game (from what I hear I haven't even played it). Now they are trying to come up with a reason for poor sales.

The difference between the two is that MS can do whatever it wants. That's the benefit of having a monopoly. Even if Vista sucks, when they stop supporting XP, people will have no choice.

Crytek on the other hand, if they made a crappy game, there are a lot of other games out their to play.

I am sure that piracy is hurting the industry. As Rob said in the video, until we see the numbers, we won't know for sure.

FTW I think thieves (pirates) should be punished by the judicial system.
May 13, 2008 3:50:20 PM

Crytek developed FarCry, got the "big head", and decided to leave Ubisoft because they thought they knew better. Now they have discovered that that do not know better, and they are looking for a scapegoat. "What? Not everyone wanted to buy a new $1500 system to play a $50 game? Who knew?"

The guys that made COD4, and a few other game developers knew. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
May 13, 2008 7:27:36 PM

tlmck said:
Crytek developed FarCry, got the "big head", and decided to leave Ubisoft because they thought they knew better. Now they have discovered that that do not know better, and they are looking for a scapegoat. "What? Not everyone wanted to buy a new $1500 system to play a $50 game? Who knew?"

The guys that made COD4, and a few other game developers knew. They are laughing all the way to the bank.


Actually, Infinity Ward, the guys that made CoD4, really aren't laughing all the way to the bank because 1) they've complained about piracy, too, and have gone as far as saying half the number of people playing online multiplayer are using pirated copies, and 2) it's the PUBLISHER who laughs all the way to the bank in the gaming business. Whether a game is a huge hit or not rarely matters for the developer, since the publisher is one that gets to reap the big sales.

Furthermore, I don't know Cevat Yerli at all, or anyone else at Crytek, but "big head" would be the last term I'd use for Crytek. They made an ambitious product, but at no point did they emngage in what I'd call excessive overhype, which instead came from the publisher, EA, and Microsoft, which was telling everyone that would listen that Crysis was going to be to Vista what Halo 3 was for the Xbox 360. Yeah, not so much...

And lastly, when did gamers get so pissed at developers for trying to push the envelope and make a game that was truly cutting edge visually? Whenever I hear people argue about consoles vs. PCs, the PC gaming crowd always cites the the platform's advantage to produce the best-looking and most cutting edge games, and rightfully so. But now when Crysis comes into the piracy debate, now so many PC gamers out there are taking part in a massive backlash BECAUSE the game was pushing the envelope. I just don't understand it....
May 13, 2008 9:13:59 PM

Hardware requirements and Games for Windows arguments.

If the gaming companies want sell 2 million copies then they need to release games that the PCs of their 2 million target audience can play. That's simple.

The Games for Windows argument as to Crysis not getting enough publicity makes sense as a conspiracy theory. Let's face it. Games for Windows will try to promote games from companies that Microsoft has an economic relationship with. Unfortunately there are no MAJOR game review magazines or websites who are completely objective.

All game makers suffer from piracy. The argument that consoles won't have that issue is ludicrous. That said, piracy is wrong. Pretending it won't exist as much on consoles is disingenuous. If the game makers were to produce 100% console games you'd better believe that you will be able to get a copy of the most popular or expensive games on the street corners of most cities along with the latest movies.
May 14, 2008 2:05:21 AM

  • The game was way overhyped and didn't live up to expectations
  • Required massive resources (computer specs) that many of users didnt have at release
  • Only DirectX10/Windows Vista game, look at the dismal gaming experiance on Vista as it is
  • Many Vista computers can barely run the basic Vista Aero interface, there is no way they can run the game

    The fault doesnt lie on Piracy, it lies on Microsoft releasing a dud OS and Crytec for making the game Exclusively for the dud OS. Overall, the fault is Crytec's...
    May 15, 2008 7:22:21 AM

    Another one here for the 'game was just too demanding' lot. My machine is not bad (2.6 dual core, 2Gb RAM, 8800 GTS 640Mb) but with a big monitor I just can't get the performance out of it I'd like.

    I know my machine will run it in an acceptable way, but they made so much of the quality of the graphics who on earth would want it without being able to use it properly? It's like buying a Ferrari just to drive around Jersey ...
    May 16, 2008 10:48:07 AM

    I purchased Crysis and COD4 at pretty much the same time to run on my average spec machine.
    At the start I played a bit of both but COD4 appealed as the game graphics were good and the gameplay engaging.
    My machine made sure Crysis was graphically just OK but the game was very linear and just not as engaging. I only played it out to get some value out of it and now it sits here gathering dust. COD4 on the other hand is in the caddy ready for another blast of multiplayer.

    Two points:

    1. Mr Crytec should have looked at Valve's Steams system stats. He may have then determined that if they make a game with bleeding edge graphics and promote that as the BEST reason to buy it that there are only a handful of potential customers. Oops!

    2.Piracy IS a problem. Pretend your Mr Crytec for a moment Crysis aside: do I make a PC title and it's pirated and distributed that night or do I make it for Xbox and PS3 where most users just go and buy the damn game? Make some money or make make LOTS of money?

    The future of PC gaming could end up being a lot of geeks with water cooled SLI, gigs of ram, quadcores, terrabites of storage and the latest game they will have to run on it is COD4 and bargain bin Crysis.

    If PC gamers aren't careful they may pirate themselves out of existence!

    May 18, 2008 1:45:51 AM

    Ironically, spending money to play games on a console costs more than just getting a computer. That's just my opinion. You look at the cost of a console ~$350, the cost of an decent HD-TV ~$500-$800 or even higher. $60 for the games. Plus all of the additional costs that go along with it: HDMI cables, wireless adapters, controllers, etc. You can build a decent computer for around $1000 and do a lot more practical things on it. A computer is almost a necessity in this day and age. If it weren't for the crappy onboard Intel graphics on most computers, people might be more inclined to play games on their computer.

    That's why I'm fine with building a computer and mostly playing PC games. I'll usually find a way to play console games too since there are some exclusives that will never make it to PC, but PCs will always be a higher priority.
    May 25, 2008 7:17:54 AM

    Piracy=bad. I think we got it by now. I think we got it in 1983 or so when the chant started along with the declarations of software development being dead.

    Torrents have just made it ridiculously easy to distribute a cracked program. A few years ago, at least people had to search hidden directories on ftp servers.

    Half of COD4 players? Don't they use unique registration numbers? Never seen the game, I usually avoid the overly hyped for a while. Anything with limited installs I just avoid permanently.

    Wait, that's not true, I have a few user 6-pack floppies here with installs available for MajorBBS if the floppies haven't demagnetized in the last 15 years of storage. Gaming's always moving forward..
    June 5, 2008 5:16:07 PM

    Piracy is not the main factor of the decadency of PC as a gaming platform.
    But it's the easiest to blame. You'll never hear Crytek saying I’ll blame Intel.

    The main factor is Intel.

    The Consumer is not hardware savvy. I think more than a half of computers from 2 years or more have Intel graphics, or under capable graphics chipset. Intel marketing engine make sure the consumer things this computers are game capable and they're great. And the consumer goes with that. You can figure out what happens next.

    Microsoft should enforce the Windows Experience Index if a publisher wants the Vista Logo, and make sure they print the Experience Index printed with a Big Number in the Front of the Cover. A marketing push teaching the consumer about the Windows Experience Index will help. Computers manufacturers should do the same and print the Index in the case, manual, etc.
    That will clear the air.


    June 14, 2008 9:33:12 AM

    mpiva said:
    Microsoft should enforce the Windows Experience Index if a publisher wants the Vista Logo, and make sure they print the Experience Index printed with a Big Number in the Front of the Cover. A marketing push teaching the consumer about the Windows Experience Index will help. Computers manufacturers should do the same and print the Index in the case, manual, etc.
    That will clear the air.

    The only problem with that is, Unless games have the Windows Experience score on the box on the outside in a very easy to find location, your still going to have people in the dark as to whats required to run the game properly.

    I mean hell we have morons that have onboard graphics buying games then going to the game's forums because the game won't run.....because they are too stupid/ignorant to look on the game box and read the minimum required specs...

    In defense of those people at the same time as bashing them, Nvidia and Ati are to blame as well, Lets say minimum req's are X800/6800 someone sees that, they have a X1300 or 7300 and think....1300 is higher than 800....and the same with 6800/7300.
    Worse yet is ATi's 1050 IGP and Nvidia's 7050/7100 IGP.
    June 15, 2008 1:07:13 AM

    There many factors to their poor sales

    piracy doesn't hurt sales as pirates wont buy the game anyway

    it is like if you have a party in your yard and your playing music, and your neighbor opens his or her window in order to hear the music also (is that person hindering your party, is it the same as that person coming to your yard and taking the music cd?


    while the game had a lot of piracy, it didn't hurt sales, they just lost imaginary dollars

    the game sold really well

    the problem is that it almost instantly got the reputation os being almost impossible to run

    no one wants to buy a game they cant run, and a $50 game is not $50 when it requires $1500 in upgrades just to run it

    While it is good to make graphical improvements on games, if they were to make it more gradual and less often, like in console, then their games would sell better

    consoles last like 5 years +

    pc's last around 6 months



    for me, just playing the demo showed how much crysis sucked.

    the graphics were good, but the gameplay was sub par


    what stores need to do is make the cash register or those self service cash registers ask the user questions before they buy the game

    like when they swipe the game through, it will ask them to select their videocard and cpu and memory from the list, and of they don't know they can just press don't know at each section and it will let them buy the game

    July 10, 2008 1:48:48 PM

    my *whole* pc lasted two years, would of lasted longer if my 7800GTX hadnt died on me, im in the third year now with same spec apart from now i have a 8800GTX, and i suspect that i wont be upgrading for at least another two years from now.
    July 15, 2008 3:14:40 PM

    The first thing i would like to point out is that the common rationale that hardware was a big issue in hindering the sales seems to bring up the rebuttal: "when did gamers get so pissed at developers for trying to push the envelope and make a game that was truly cutting edge visually?" or something similar.

    I don't think that anyone is really pissed about it ( except maybe some bolo with a integrated graphics card that went out and paid for the game ) other than crytek. I'm sure most people had the same reaction I did: "That game looks sweet, too bad my system can't run it" and then they don't buy the game, and then crytek only sells 1 million copies.

    another huge difference between crysis and console games was advertising. ok, crysis only sold around a million copies, and halo 3 had surpassed 8 million several months ago, who knows what its at now. but for months all you could fraggin see anywhere you looked was master chief. they even made a new mountain dew flavor for the game release. idiots were walking around dressed in the halo armor. not to mention that it was the third in a series. the only reason i even heard of crysis is because i have the g4 channel, and the jokes going around saying that it wasn't really a game, it was just a hardware benchmark. It would have been easy to do more to promote the game in the mainstream, like microsoft/bungie did with halo, but it just didn't happen. they could have even worked out a deal with invidia and/or intel. buy this redonkulous video card/processor and get crysis free. or buy crysis and get $40 off a geforce 10800 or intel octo core extreme 5ghz and that would give people who bought the game and were able to play it on minimum setting an incentive to upgrade the video card, as well as being a factor in deciding whether or not to buy the game at all. The least they could have done was release it on steam. i almost won't buy a game unless i can get it from steam.

    speaking of which, like Mumblez said, just take a look at valve's survey summary.

    http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

    as of 15 july only 38% of the gamers surveed had 2 GB or more of ram, and only around 9% of gamers had vista with dx10. and this is a survey of people who already buy pc games for their computer.

    I had a geforce 7600 and p4 3.0ghz when the game came out. it was like watching a powerpoint slideshow of a fps, even with everything turned to low. i upgraded to a 7800 gtx and core 2 duo 2.0 ghz, and it was playable with most settings on low and a couple on medium (in vista 32 bit).

    I actually enjoyed playing crysis, despite all the bad reviews and how crappy it looked. it was not "truly open ended game play" as it was touted, it was just another shooter game. it actually kind of reminded me of timeshift. It wan't the best game in the world, but it was enjoyable.

    for crysis, like other games i play, the single player mode is almost an afterthought. multiplayer is where its at. multiplayer is also the solution to piracy. pc gamers want to frag other people, not spend the whole single player mode with stealth on sniping people with an assault rifle. and maybe the crysis multiplayer is good, but i can't play it without getting pwned due to slow frame rates. it at least looks interesting.

    I burn through games like crazy, i will play it for a couple days, and get sick of it, and usually never play it again unless it has that special something. the last one that did was counterstrike:source, and before that was quake III arena. cod4 looks promising, but i haven't played it on pc yet, just ps3 and 360.

    /rant


    !