Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis sales poor in the US

Tags:
  • Crysis
  • Internet
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 18, 2007 3:53:34 PM

Crysis sales poor in the US - 17th December, 2007
Reports are coming from the Internet that suggest Crysis is currently selling very poorly in the US, with only 87,000 uniques sold since its launch on November 13th 2007. The sales data was released by the NPD Group which specialize in creating reports on sales in the entertainment industry.

Crysis was an extremely hyped shooter that requires a very powerful system, and this is most likely to be blamed for the poor sales. There just isn't enough people that want to upgrade their machines or have the money to do so in order to experience Crysis at its full glory, and this is a huge problem that is becoming more and more of an issue for the PC industry.

Its been happening for a good few years now, you'll purchase a PC and within about 6 months it's actually outdated and you can't always play the games that you'd want and expect to. A lot of people just can't afford to keep upgrading so they go down the console rout and that is why PC gaming is starting to decrease although its had a nice boom from the MMORPG genera but that doesn't really solve the issue for people that aren't fans of those types of games.

It isn't just Crysis that has seen poor sales, another popular title that you should know of called Unreal Tournament III has been doing very poorly with only 33,995 units soled since its launch.

Do you think sales would be far greater if it was released on the PS3 or Xbox 360? We think they would be far greater and that's a huge issue that we hope is resolved sooner rather than later.

More about : crysis sales poor

December 18, 2007 4:06:39 PM

It occured to me Crysis might still be selling at full price/be on the radar at all (and not in the bargin section of your local game shop) for, well years perhaps. Seeing as it wont be considered say, outdated or backward for a long long time to come people can buy it in 2 years time and think, hmmm this old shooter looks pretty good! Well, Im rambling a bit here, but my point is I think it will have longevity, whereas cod4 might be old news by say, next autumn or so. UT3 not selling at all well is a bit of a mystery to me, given its supposed to alot of fun, maybe its unfortunate to be on sale alongside COD4, quake wars and battlefield 2142 (&bf2 ...ftw!), rather than just it being a fragging quick shooter thats out of fashion.
December 18, 2007 6:50:45 PM

Not surprised, didn't far cry flop in the states too on PC when it came out? UT (since 04 anyway) seems to be only played by euros, same as quake wars.

It might've helped to sell on the consoles, but.. really does the prospect of having another game perform like oblivion on consoles sound good? (does the ps3 stutter as much as the xbox version?)
Related resources
December 18, 2007 7:30:35 PM

That is unfortunate. The PC industry is facing quite a crysis compared to consoles which seems to be blooming. Its only after reviewing sales trends and its future forecast can you only really start worrying about PC games as a whole. Thank God for globalisation because otherwise, PC industry would be failling to its knees if it was just for markets in America.

As much as I like to see Publishers like Crytek push technology to its current limits, the management may have misread the demand for a product that would never only cost 50$. When consumers purchased Crysis, they actually paid anywhere from 1500$ and over to actually play the game. Who would buy a game for 1500$ ? Well, enthusiasts and people that were looking to upgrade their PC anyways. These numbers are low because the "real" market was overshot. The demand for such a game was not coming from your original consumer with an extra 50$ to spend for Christmas.
December 19, 2007 6:00:09 AM

I think its a mental thing, every time I read a post someone says that the game looks great on medium or even low settings. I just got a 3870 so I'm looking to pick the game up soon.
December 19, 2007 8:19:01 AM

EA and Crytek have obviously not done enough to make people aware, how scaleable the graphics engine is for this game.

Having said that, the first videos released of Crysis were pre-renders done by a 3rd party special effects company. At the start, Crytek didn't even know that there would definitely be hardware available that could run the game by the time it was released. As it turns out, there is. However, they can hardly be surprised if people's systems aren't up to the task.

People talk about how Half Life 2 is beginning to show its age graphically. Maybe so, but Valve do a massive hardware survey every month, and make sure their games run on systems people actually own. For this reason, HalfLife2: Episode 2, runs great on my old P4 2.4, 1Gb, GeForce 6600, while still looking better than the original game.

You only need to compare the graphics on early PS2 games to some of the later releases to see how it's possible to continue pushing old hardware for years. Also, remember the old SNES? Nintendo kept that going against 32bit competition for longer than anyone expected.

December 19, 2007 10:56:35 AM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
As much as I like to see Publishers like Crytek push technology to its current limits, the management may have misread the demand for a product that would never only cost 50$. When consumers purchased Crysis, they actually paid anywhere from 1500$ and over to actually play the game. Who would buy a game for 1500$ ? Well, enthusiasts and people that were looking to upgrade their PC anyways. These numbers are low because the "real" market was overshot. The demand for such a game was not coming from your original consumer with an extra 50$ to spend for Christmas.


I'm starting to think crysis was an ad campaign for intel & nvidia, they each paid millions (4 and 2 I think) to Crytek, and they handled most of the Q&As you see at sites like incrysis, with the answers being like "runs best on quad cores" and stuff like that.

http://www.bahnhof.se/wb803739/

Here's a list of pc games exclusives coming, we're not short any good looking games, personally looking forward to Starcraft 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire (dudes that made Homeworld Cataclysm).
December 20, 2007 3:00:58 AM

I can certainly appreciate game companies pushing the boundaries of performance. And I certainly appreciate the work Crytek put into Crysis. But I can't help but to think that they over-thought this one. By the time hardware catches up to the game's "real" requirements, those who would be counted on to be interested in the game will have long lost interest in the game. The buzz will be long gone--especially if multiplayer is not up to par to sustain it ala the Battlefield series.

I think that the lesson here is that game companies need to target the bleeding edge for the release of the game--not the bleeding edge 6 months FROM the release of the game. It is one thing to ask the hardcore gamers to upgrade for a game, but another to tell them to buy it, then upgrade in 6 months for it.

It will be interesting to see how this ultimately plays out...
December 20, 2007 8:04:31 AM

Yeah but as graphics catch up people whove never played crysis might be picking it up in a few years time and feeling its still fresh cos they can max the settings and enjoy the visuals. Theres supposed to be unlocked graphical features coming next year aswell.
December 20, 2007 8:20:20 AM

On the battlefield issue, Im amazed by how popular bf2 still is, i love it personally and i was shocked a few days ago when i saw how much more popular it is compared to bf2142. Can it really blow that hard?

http://www.serverspy.net/site/stats/
December 20, 2007 8:37:43 AM

Yeh

BF2 >>>> 2142

On the Crysis note:

It's just not as good as it was hyped to be.

It has an extremely good engine, though demanding. However it doesn't provide the same YEAHHHH experience as Far Cry did for me (max settings on my 6600 256mb!) as Crysis did (not maxed on DX9 on my 320mb GTS). It has some good ideas. I think partially that the Nanosuit ruined it tbvh. It's good sometimes but others it should be a pure and simple hunting game. Crysis is at its best it in a dense jungle with lots of men, then the suit is good, but it can still make it just that little bit too easy. It's more of an MGS style shooter than a pure and simple shooter (e.g. Q4). Its a tricky one.

The downloadable missions should be good though! :D 

What does everyone else think?
December 20, 2007 8:39:42 AM

P.S. I like bum Q4 - one of my fave shooters ever! No idea why! (again all maxed on my 6600 256mb...)
December 20, 2007 11:28:01 AM

wow, i wonder why? lol
December 20, 2007 11:39:32 AM

I'm gonna stick to my Wolfenstein 3D
December 20, 2007 12:39:48 PM

Downloadable missions? I.e., expansion packs? Very cool, if that is the case.

I am partial to 2142 myself. Gaming is an entirely different experience when you have a 4 or 5 of your best buddies on VOIP all working together to kick some ass on multiplayer. That's what makes 2142 so great (but apparently is lacking on Crysis). I have a feeling that Crysis will get a couple more weeks out of me, and then I will be headed back to 2142.

Spoonboy, I see your point re: future residual sales, and kind of agree. BUT, those future sales and lower margins are low compared to what Crysis could have captured if they better matched their target market's equipment capabilities.

December 21, 2007 12:39:13 PM

Crysis drive me crazy, but i just got a 76GT card.....so....
December 21, 2007 1:02:28 PM

Well UT3 has been floundering here because of the half assed release of the networking part of the game. No redirect, no server web admin, and going through 10 menus to get to a game.

With Crysis, they did shoot a bit too high with it I think. The game itself is alright, and some of the sandbox play is a lot of fun, but in terms of multiplayer, it's quite weak. I think it also got buried by better made games coming out at exactly the same time, such as COD4 and the Orange Box.

Let's not kid ourselves though. PC gaming has always been a niche market, and it will continue to be. I think focusing on the games that work best on the platform is key. Strategy, MMORPGs, sims, and FPS games. Also the PC is a great platform for some unique and innovative games. Spore comes to mind.
December 21, 2007 8:32:19 PM

I hear and read all the comments about PC gaming being in a state of crisis/crysis. But it's just not true. What is true is that PC gaming in North America/Europe/Australia is in a state of crisis.

Sometimes I wonder how the top business people at some of these developer/publishing firms get their jobs. The biggest PC gaming market in the world is South Korea. If you are a game publisher and you don't take that into consideration when designing your game, you are an IDIOT. The second biggest PC game market in the world may be the US, it may be China, its give or take right now, but hands down it will be China in 5 years. If you plan your PC game title development schedule and don't take that into account, you are an IDIOT. The ROK and PRC are markets where consoles are non-existent. PC gaming has 100% market share in these places. And they are growing FAST.

The problem with most Western devs/publishers is that just don't get it. They still take the NetKiddy attitude that only pirated and copied games get played in these these markets. In fact a single company in the PRC, Shanda, will make more in after-tax profits for fiscal 2007 than Electronic Arts, Take Two and Activision....COMBINED. And for every Shanda there are a dozen other companies like it in the PRC or ROK. These companies how figured out how to make money selling PC games. They do that with a different payment/business model than the one traditionally used by Western firms. It's interesting that the only Western firm that has figured out the same thing, Blizzard, uses very similar techniques. And makes buttloads of money. But then there are the doofus Western firms that try to make money selling PC games when the biggest revenue source for PC games in Korea ....by pedalling a game where you shoot Koreans. Forget about the political correctness, this is just the dumbest *business* decision in PC gaming I've seen all year.

December 21, 2007 9:11:20 PM

Although I did hear Crysis sold amazingly well in Japan, especially for a market completely dominated by Nintendo and Sony. The Japanese must really dislike Koreans.
December 22, 2007 1:05:41 AM

ikso said:
I hear and read all the comments about PC gaming being in a state of crisis/crysis. But it's just not true. What is true is that PC gaming in North America/Europe/Australia is in a state of crisis.

Sometimes I wonder how the top business people at some of these developer/publishing firms get their jobs. The biggest PC gaming market in the world is South Korea. If you are a game publisher and you don't take that into consideration when designing your game, you are an IDIOT. The second biggest PC game market in the world may be the US, it may be China, its give or take right now, but hands down it will be China in 5 years. If you plan your PC game title development schedule and don't take that into account, you are an IDIOT. The ROK and PRC are markets where consoles are non-existent. PC gaming has 100% market share in these places. And they are growing FAST.

The problem with most Western devs/publishers is that just don't get it. They still take the NetKiddy attitude that only pirated and copied games get played in these these markets. In fact a single company in the PRC, Shanda, will make more in after-tax profits for fiscal 2007 than Electronic Arts, Take Two and Activision....COMBINED. And for every Shanda there are a dozen other companies like it in the PRC or ROK. These companies how figured out how to make money selling PC games. They do that with a different payment/business model than the one traditionally used by Western firms. It's interesting that the only Western firm that has figured out the same thing, Blizzard, uses very similar techniques. And makes buttloads of money. But then there are the doofus Western firms that try to make money selling PC games when the biggest revenue source for PC games in Korea ....by pedalling a game where you shoot Koreans. Forget about the political correctness, this is just the dumbest *business* decision in PC gaming I've seen all year.


Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are idiots. I think Crytek is a somewhat young company that can only do better as time goes by. As you know, an initial study is needed before planning for such projects (Crysis) and the results may not have pointed towards Asia. Yes, Japan is pretty big right now but at the same time: the bigger the market, the greater the competition... and thats HUGE competition barriers. Just compare Crysis's release vs. COD4, Orange Box, Halo 3, etc. in American markets and you already have great competition. Now, imagine twices much competition (if not bigger) with companies like Squaresoft family, a HUGE political barriers and a study to interpret each country's culture as Japan is a lot different than China or Korea for that matter. Get my point?

Also, when doing business in Asian countries (let me generalize), you also have to partner with the governments to even be able to reach the country's market...and therefore, not the easiest thing to do when you're an outsider and want a good profit. The paycut may have been too much and Crytek may have just decided to target, European -N&S American- combined...which ends up being pretty close to the current Asian markets. The Asian markets are blooming like you said, so repost this in 5 years and I'll agree with you.
December 22, 2007 4:36:54 PM

>I did hear Crysis sold amazingly well in Japan...(they) must really dislike Koreans.

Long history there. Suffice it to say that until very recently it was ILLEGAL to import Japanese consoles, i.e. Ninetendo or PlayStation into the ROK. I think most industry observers have taken note of the difficulty Xbox & now X360 has had in Japan. The suspicion is that consumers there don't like the Xbox and want to support domestic producers. Well it's not just a suspicion. It's true. But to be honest this is no different than the environment Japanese auto makers faced when entering the US market in the 1970's. If MSFT is persistent, in 30yrs they will be able to compete on something approaching an equal footing in Japan. But it will take that long. More to the point as disadvantaged as Xbox is in Japan, it is just as much "advantaged" in the ROK and PRC - where all else being equal consumers show a high preference for US rather than Japanese products. MSFT's unwillingness to push X360 in those two markets is I think related the cannibalization costs associated with console gaming pushing out PC gaming in those markets. But I think this is somewhat short sighted on MSFT's part. I would expect MSFT's attitude to change over the next few years.

>Just compare Crysis's release vs. COD4, Orange Box, Halo 3, etc. in American markets and you already have great competition.

All the more reason to address market segments not targeted by that avalanche of titles. And no, the competition from Asia targeted titles is not twice as high, in fact its much LESS outside of the MMORPG space. The big problem Western devs have is that they have zero understanding of that market space and they just give up. They don't even try. Well that's a bed of their own making....

>when doing business in Asian countries (let me generalize), you also have to partner with the governments to even be able to reach the country's market

This is just a really bad excuse, but used commonly by devs who (see above) just give up and don't even try.

Take the PRC for example. Foreign firms currently have over 50% market share (by revenue) of the PC gaming market in China. Let me repeat that. Foreign firms have over HALF the PC gaming market in China. This makes the excuse that it's too hard for foreign firms to enter that market pretty lame. What is true is that most of those firms are Korean and Japanese. The difficulty with entering these markets has nothing to do with government "partnering". That's just bull. The difficulty has to do with making a product that consumers there respond to. And yes, they may respond to different things than the consumers you used to target. Deal with it. Or die. Ask Blizzard how tough it was to customize WoW for Korea and China. They didn't do anything gameplay wise other than translation. And they're making gazillions from Asia. That's how low the bar is. There's just too little time and too much money to be made for professional run companies to complain about this sort of stuff. If they can't compete properly they are incompetent idiots.
December 22, 2007 6:36:14 PM

I think the main reason Crysis is being overlooked by many people is because of the high requirements, add to that the ignorance of said people in regards to PC hardware.
They think that they have to spend $5000 on a gaming rig to play the game decently, which is not true at all. If you're living in the US, $800 will get you a pretty nice gaming rig! If you're living outside the US, it'll definitely cost you more, but then so will the alternative (consoles).
It's true that currently the game cannot be absolutely maxed, but even on medium it looks pretty good.
I'm playing the game on an X1900XT 512MB BTW, which is probably considered a low-midrange card at the moment especially with the release of the 8800GT and HD3870/3850, but I'm playing the game pretty decently on high settings (with the exception of shaders and shadows being set to medium), on 1280x800 no AA, and the game still looks very good and plays pretty well (perhaps not the best framerate averaging around 22-30FPS, but it's very playable).


crom said:

Let's not kid ourselves though. PC gaming has always been a niche market, and it will continue to be. I think focusing on the games that work best on the platform is key. Strategy, MMORPGs, sims, and FPS games. Also the PC is a great platform for some unique and innovative games. Spore comes to mind.

I'm gonna have to disagree with ya on this.
I think, if anything, PCs should represent versatility and variety in game genres more than any other platform, instead of focusing on the genres that "work best".
Sure, FPSs, RTSs, etc.. are best played on a PC, but that doesn't mean, at least in my books, that the PC should be overlooked as a viable platform for other genres.
RPGs, platformers, sports, adventure, TPSs, survival horror, etc.. all would work equally well as any other game would on a PC, if given the right amount of work and effort, and not just presented as some crappy console port. Add to that the ability to use almost any gaming accessory for the PC (gamepads, joysticks, racing wheels, etc...), and it makes it even better for the people that don't find it comfortable playing one genre or another on a KB/M, and for the games that are not best played with KB/M combo.


December 23, 2007 2:49:07 PM

ikso said:
But then there are the doofus Western firms that try to make money selling PC games when the biggest revenue source for PC games in Korea ....by pedalling a game where you shoot Koreans. Forget about the political correctness, this is just the dumbest *business* decision in PC gaming I've seen all year.
I would have thought that shooting North Koreans would be cathartic for South Koreans, ne?

The main problem I've noticed with Crysis is that people who did invest in an OCed quad core Ultra/SLI system were terribly disappointed that they couldn't play it in "Very high," with AA at their native resolution (I think that the fact that LCDs have a native resolution is hurting PC gaming horribly because it limits the most effective form of scaling, but that's off-topic, I guess). Even if it looked better than most other games in "high", it made them ashamed that their super-system would not handle it in the maximum setting and so, they didn't invite their friends to come see it and word-of-mouth died early.
December 23, 2007 4:01:44 PM

The PC game industry is doing fine... COD4 is FLYING off the shelves. I would say that PC gamers are more demanding and discriminating.

I have plenty of money to buy any game at any time. However, Crysis is sooo boring (yes, I've played it). It's like a pretty flight simulator.

December 25, 2007 8:21:37 AM

Ikso,I'm in China and the console market here is big, real big, most kids have 2 consoles of they have 1,computers here are expensive a low end will set you back 4000 to 5000RMB a mid will cost7000 and a good high end will be 10,000-yes the PC games really aren't that good,I still play Serious Sam and MechWarrior,got Doom 3 and Quake 4 which is really good,Return to Castle Wolfenstein is OK, but the newer games cater to the people that have the monet to max out a system to play them, like a lot of others I'll wait for a while to get another FPS
December 31, 2007 4:04:02 PM

astrotrain1000 said:
I think its a mental thing, every time I read a post someone says that the game looks great on medium or even low settings. I just got a 3870 so I'm looking to pick the game up soon.



It's alright with a 3870 ... that's what I'm running .... but COD4 takes numeru uno to me over it . Try the COD4 before you plunk down for the crysis disks .
January 2, 2008 6:40:09 AM

My personal thoughts are that Crysis was really hyped up and for good reason. It has raised the bar for games. It just so happens that despite the games excellent graphics, there isn't much of a story line.

Crytek continues to license it's engine to other companies and we have only just begun to see this new generation of gaming. As more games come out using the crytek engine, people will be more motivated to upgrade their rigs. My personal belief is that we are seeing just the beginnings of a new generation of cutting edge games that will continue to push the limits of current technology. Exciting in my opinon.
January 4, 2008 9:04:52 PM

bash007 said:

They think that they have to spend $5000 on a gaming rig to play the game decently, which is not true at all. If you're living in the US, $800 will get you a pretty nice gaming rig! If you're living outside the US, it'll definitely cost you more, but then so will the alternative (consoles).


This isn't really accurate. It costs $800 for a person who spends time looking at Tom's Hardware forums to put together a reasonable PC. The people reading this forum are a subset of a subset (serious knowledgable computer gamers vs your average computer owner). The VAST majority of computer users think solitaire = computer gaming. Most computer owners are actually somewhat afraid of their computers. They don't open them up. They couldn't point to the video card. They want a laptop because it's neat to watch movies in planes.

So then the average person who wants to buy a pc and maybe try a game or two calls Dell (not to pick on them, they offer a fine product) and says "I want a PC that I mostly do blah blah blah and occasionally will play a few games". I guarantee you that person won't have an optimum Crysis experience. The helpful kid at the game store in the mall will ask what he's going to run that game on. The proud new pc owner says "its a brand new Dell". The kid asks the guy to read the minimum requirements on the box fearing a return. The pc owner looks at the box...blinks a few times in confusion...then buys an Xbox360 and Halo3.

This REALLY is what happens. This is why there is a diminishing market for pc games.
January 5, 2008 5:51:28 PM

well its 2008 and even cheap pc's finally come with pci-e slots so i dont see what the big deal is. in the past it was cheaper for the manufacturers to sell garbage mobos, that forced people to upgrade the whole thing or purchase a new pc. now they can just pop in a videocard. pretty trivial even for a noob.
!