Crytek Boss: PC Gaming "Held Back" By Consoles

Game Informer: "PC gaming is far more technologically advanced than its fixed hardware console competitors, but the current economic climate is preventing developers from taking advantage of it according to Crytek founder Cevet Yerli.

"PC is easily a generation ahead right now," Yerli told the UK publication Edge. "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."

[kancerkid]

No, PC gaming is held back by a lack of dedicated, PC only developers. Why, because there is seemingly little money in the PC gaming market...

[MisterNiwa]

Exactly, nobody is holding anyone back. Why are they waiting for the Consoles?

[Spydiggity]

you two really need to read the article first...that's EXACTLY what he said.

the economy is holding developers back from pushing hardware so they stick with the fixed hardware of consoles. the economy also prevents the consumers from upgrading their hardware as often as they did in the late 90s.

doesn't make his comments any less true. technically, it's the existence of this current gen of consoles (which for PC, is last gen) that is holding back the cutting edge developers.

[Soldierone]

@spydiggity

To counter that comment. I personally hate upgrading things on a yearly basis, i hate doing it for phones i hate doing it for PC. Thus I became a dedicated console gamer. One console lasts 5 to 10 years, and the funny thing is developers find ways to push the boundries even further year by year.

Now the question is why cant pc hardware makers and PC developers do the same thing? Simply because they think "oh just buy a new one" instead of playing around with current technology and trying to push it further. There is so much lost potential in tech with PC gaming. yeah its advancing, but come on. Build one thing that isnt the price of 10 consoles that will last a good 5 years without any issues.

[BattleAxe]

STEAM can change everything. Its essentially a console platform on a PC with a friends list, market place, achievements, chat system and an overlay similar in idea to the XMB on the PS3. With over 30,000,000 users, MAC support, STEAM Client preloaded onto all Dell gaming PCs, STEAM connectivity to Portal 2 for PS3 and possibly future games, support from all publishers in the industry except Microsoft Game Studios and a solid publisher/developer/owner like Valve supporting STEAM, this could be the future of gaming especially since STEAM can sell games from any generation of gaming including the next generation of games, without ever changing anything.

If STEAM ever starts to market themselves to people watching their TVs and reading the paper like Sony and Microsoft, look for STEAM to become the main competitor for Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo. Although, you could argue that it already is.

@Soldier One

I agree with your point that PC Devs should be doing more to max out the capabilities of PC hardware like console Devs do. Some great examples of that on consoles would be: God of War 2 on PS2, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 on PS2, God of War 3 on PS3, Uncharted 1 and 2 on PS3, Metal Gear Solid 4 on PS3 and Killzone 2 and 3 on PS3.

Sony Santimonica, Kojima Productions and Gurilla Games are the best at maximizing console hardware. For PC I would have to go with Crytek, although I'm waiting to see what Valve does next.

[Spydiggity]

you aren't countering my comment. i don't disagree with you that unchanging hardware lasts for as long as the company that made it wants it to last. that's a completely unrelated argument.

to counter your argument, however, and to go back to what crytek is saying...once you see crysis on max settings on PC, you never get a wow factor from any console game. you've seen the best back in november 2007. nothing has topped it, and as long as developers focus on this generation of consoles, nothing will (i know fanboys...there are some of you in denial about this and will say certain exclusives on a certain console look better -- they don't, and you're speaking out of ignorance). the whole point of the article wasn't to say console is bad, it was to say that gaming tech could be so much further along if more developers could afford to develop for the PC.

why do console-only games blow everything out of proportion?

think of it this way. the wii sold really well cuz it was cheap and it appealed predominantly to an audience that didn't understand there was better stuff out there. most of the people that bought a wii didn't know what HD gaming even meant. they didn't know games like gears, uncharted, halo, gow, etc... even existed. and since the wii was like 200-250 dollars, they thought it was great. why buy the 400 dollar systems when you can get one for 250? that's the mentality of all the other console gamers that wanna think they are "hardcore". why buy a 1300 dollar computer when you can buy a 400 dollar console? 90% of the ppl they talk sh*t on crytek and crysis never got to experience it outside of youtube videos. from a PC gamers perspective, ps3 and 360 owners are basically what Wii owners are to you. no doubt you get better graphics than wii on your ps3 and 360, but you certainly aren't getting cutting edge.

[Soldierone]

Im not being an ignorant console fanboy when I say this. I Owned an Alienware laptop just for games like Crysis back then, I now own two gaming capable computers. Certain creative games like Sims and Dragon Age are indeed better on PC. However thats a creative aspect that PC gaming allows to be that way.

As for graphical impressions I have never seen a need to upgrade to "fancy" hardware on a yearly basis for any PC game. battlefield looked fantastic, but it wasn't pushing the boundries of tech and looks just as good on both consoles. Crysis on full settings didnt impress me. I understand the technical aspects behind it and why it deserves a wow factor, but it didnt blow me away. Let alone that games all visuals, beyond that it did absolutely nothing and was kinda boring at the end of the day. Killzone 2 had a much bigger wow factor for me, it was one a console and looked on par with top of the line PC games. Uncharted and so on, the are beautiful games that also add gameplay elements as well.

Then you have games like Resistance 2 or MAG where PC gaming has yet to venture off into. Why dont we see technical aspects other than visuals being brought to PC if the tech is so amazing? All the videos from Crysis 2 show great visuals, but your fighting like one or two guys at a time....where is the fun in that.

[Ducky]

Fighting onslaught of enemies or only a squad at a time is often a design choice than a technical limitation.
You have games that are slower, while others are more like SeriousSam.

I found Crysis to be more impressive than killzone's grey-brown world, but to each his own.
Personally, visuals aside, I'll take a game running at 60+fps over a 30fps one.

I'm not sure what you mean by Resistance2 or MAG venturing into something new.

[kaveti6616]

there's more money made in the PC market than the combined revenue of all non-PC platforms.

There is a lack of dedicated PC developers because they've all been bought out by a company who shall not be named.

[SuperKing]

I'd say it's actually the PC that's holding them back. Due to the open ended nature of PC hardware, you have to make your game work on a vast variety of hardware, not to mention the expensive task of optimising it. Such a thing is too much for ordinary PC developers, so they switched to making games for consoles in mind then porting it to PC.

It's so much nicer on consoles to be honest. Yeah you lose some thing like mods and such, but to know your game works on your console straight away without worry for thing like drivers, hardware is awesome. Not to mention there are a hell of alot of better games for consoles. Halo Reach, Bayonnetta, GOW3 etc. Plus you get first party support on consoles, you'll never get that with PC.

[FanboyPunisher]

Look at crytek, they were PC only and because they got the shit torrented out of their game they jumped ship.

Warhead sold well though because hardware caught up with the game, not that it was better. Crysis still is more enjoyable.

End of the day, 720 low res console games screw all mplat games from looking anywhere close to where we'd be (not resolution, effects, features, dedicated*, and the full power).

But no, a 2007 game is still the graphics champ. Excluding warhead since graphically nothing much has changed since the first (No killzone fanboys here, post-processing effects alone dont make a game look good, doesnt make up for no Geo/Mesh/Consolitis level design.)

Rule of thumb, lowest common denominator is what is met, and because of this we have a word called...

CONSOLEITIS

Thanks Sony/MS -- Thanks for the contracted disease.

[Soldierone]

The thing I dont understand. Why doesnt that stuff count?

I mean I understand the technical aspects, that stuff does make a quality of a game better etc.... However there is no denying the fact that Killzone 2 is one of the most beautiful looking games out there. post rendering or not, it still compete with games like Crysis hands down. It still plays perfectly fine and runs great. So whats the issue with using a differnt technique to get the same outcome?

[Baka-akaB]

They released a game that was indeed a graphical king , but had barely anything new or interesting to offer despite asking a costly material at the time , then blamed piracy .

Why would people have bought in droves such an insipid fps ?
The engine wasnt even optimized enough to warrant being used with licensed games .

At least when ID sofware and epic released their hardware consuming no games , it brought something exciting and new , with a whole new level of polish , and was later on down the road massively used for other games .

So if you wanna be pissed than right now you can't justify buying a new card every year for a single game actually using fully ...hardly the fault of console players .

PC seems healthy enough with blizzard and valve games , rts mmo and lots of other games .

[solar]

in part yes, i agree. im an avid PC gamer who hasnt turned on my Ps3 since the great UC2. with this console generation we as gamers have seen a massive shift from gaming as a nerd sport, to 7-11 cups with Halo plastered on the front and Madden being thrown in our faces at every football game.

gaming is a mainstream medium now. and the mainstream medium is a console compared to a PC. for various obvious reasons.

the most powerful platform will always be PC, and there always need to be PC gamjng to push forward gaming. graphics, AI, tech, etc.

i could go on and on right now but the booze and my clan mates are waiting for me in BLOPS aftEr this smoke. :P

as much as i see console gamers wanting PC gaming to die, they need to remember the roots.

[DragonKnight]

PC tech is holding PC gaming back, not consoles. Every month you hear about another graphics card company coming out with "teh uber grafix card" that is 10% better than the last one, and yet costs $200 more than the last one. It's ridiculous. Looking at nVidia's newest card, it costs $520. I could buy an entire notebook for that.

You think that people like being told that their gaming PC is obsolete every year? People don't want to have to fork out the price of a console every year for a damn graphics card. And really, Crytek's gripe is about performance, not gameplay mechanics or story development or character development, etc.. Crytek doesn't make great games, they make playable tech demos.

You know why consoles have more developers? Simple. Console developers don't have to develop for multiple configurations, they don't have to create multiple patches for the smallest issues (typically only one or 2 patches are ever really needed), they don't have to completely re-work games because of new updates to technical specs. There are so many reasons why developers choose consoles beyond the economy excuse Crytek is crying about.

And hell, Crytek is being hypocritical in this because they are making, you guessed it, a game for a console. So are they holding themselves back then? Nope. They're going for the money and the market. And simply put, convenience will always win, no one likes having to always upgrade every year just to get "teh best grafix". The costs add up.

And before PC elitists use the tired "the cost of console games makes console gaming more expensive" argument, I present to you two things.

First, typically a multiplat game that includes the PC sees the cost of the PC game being maybe $10 cheaper. Added to the cost of the graphics card alone needed to play the latest games every year, an entire console generation is vastly less expensive than PC gaming.

Second, piracy would of course make PC gaming "cheaper" if you really want to get into it. And piracy plagues the PC gaming industry.

[solar]

"PC tech is holding PC gaming back, not consoles. Every month you hear about another graphics card company coming out with "teh uber grafix card" that is 10% better than the last one, and yet costs $200 more than the last one. It's ridiculous. Looking at nVidia's newest card, it costs $520. I could buy an entire notebook for that."

that has been PC gaming from the beginning. so no, that is no where near holding it back. hell, AMD/ATI alone has sold 25 million DX11 cards already and DX11 is still in it's infamy. so i cant agree with your argument one bit.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/new...

[BrianC6234]

PC gaming is being held back by piracy. Also, since there's no standard developers are wasting time pushing the hardware. What percentage of PC gamers will have computers good enough to play the game? Console gaming is easier to deal with. They don't have to worry about 1000 variables like graphics card and processor.

[All_4_One]

Again, nothing is stopping them from developing PC only games. They want a piece of that console pie, yet they want to complain about it too. Sorry, doesn`t work like that.

[kaveti6616]

apparently, it does, you see. because they've complained about it, and they're releasing a game for consoles. so, it does work like that.

[JAMurida]

It's most likely EA making them do it. Kinda same reason Mass Effect 2, (and most likely Mass Effect 3), are coming to PS3.

[Baka-akaB]

i dont think they were forced into anything . Crytek just love making bunch of silly excuses lately . Again i remember them blaming piracy for "only selling above a million" of Crysis back then , wich was still a lot , and quite quickly .

When it was pretty clear the game wasnt worth the hardware jump it warranted for many people at the time .

Seems like they are already covering their bases . IF crysis 2 was "to fail" , they'd blame consoles then + piracy on pc .

[HDgamer]

Well the money to cover their losses from pirates on the pc, but now it's tripled. Well doubled, it depends if they pirates can use the game on the pc.

[Pandamobile]

Crysis + Warhead sold about 4-5 million copies when all was said and done.

You're acting like the people that pirated the game prevented Crytek from breaking even or making a profit.

If Crysis wasn't profitable, how the hell is Crytek able to run and operate 5 separate studios?

[Baka-akaB]

yeah the piracy thing was an excuse at the time , when they expected more sales .

The game was always a hit , it quickly sold its first million .

[evrfighter]

Lol you should look up how much crisis sold before you start talking about sales. It's sold more than most of your console kids precious AAA titles.

Last I checked almost a year ago it was pushing 3 mil.

Edit. Panda beat me.

[Pandamobile]

It was pretty slow out of the gate because of the steep hardware requirements.

In 2007, an 8800 GT cost about $400, and was barely enough to run it on high at 1680 x 1050 at 30 FPS. Once the hardware caught up with the game, it sold very well.

[Doc_Splice]

@Pandamobile
Their engine is also another source of income as well as simulation work being one. They've got another studio dedicated to simulation work, including for the military. I'd expect that to pay well :)

I really don't think Crysis has been their main source of income by far.

[awiseman]

YES

[Letros]

Shogun 2 begs to differ, there are still some games consoles cannot handle, and still some developers who refused to dumb down their product.

[Organization XII]

why make crysis 2 on the consoles?? if you like to support pc gaming make full use of pcs power and make it a pc exclusive

[SuperKing]

Because they realised that you can't get good sales on the PC. Seriously Crytek admitted it, no wonder they're more interested in console development (I hear they're also making an 360 exclusive too).

[solar]

Minecraft has 2 million players and it looks like Super Mario Bros. on NES. you make a game worth buying, PC gamers will buy it.

[Soldierone]

If they are that explains why they think consoles are so restricted....haha! (only playing calm down)

[Pandamobile]

Well, Crytek are able to push PC hardware to its limits, but at the same time gain extra revenue from the console versions.

When you see a console exclusive, most of the time that game is exclusive to that platform because Sony or Microsoft either own the developer, or are publishing the game, so the developer doesn't get its say in which platforms it will be on.

There's no single company that holds a gun to the backs of developers and dictate that their game must be on PC, and PC only.

[s8anicslayer]

Get used to it buddy, it's only going to get worse!

[wat634]

It would be easier to make crysis 2 a PC exclusive (Or PC & 360 too). Besides, I find Crysis nothing but a tech demo used to crash peoples gpus.

[andrew171994]

just die every one knows that xbox is for a bunch of pussy gamers and the graphics suck to ps3 and the pc

[RockmanII7]

Am I the only one who thinks Crytek trash talks a little bit too much?

[Spydiggity]

you aren't the only one. there are tons of over-sensitive, immature gamers out there.

[peowpeow]

I see what you did there :P

[Bigpappy]

They can pratice on PC until new consoles release. Not having to upgrade every 6 months and the small form factor, while being connected to your tv , infront of the couch, is what made consoles the prefered choice for gaming.

[Godmars290]

Why are these guys coming to consoles again?

[INehalemEXI]

.... $ http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[Cyb3r]

I was wondering why no PC games have surpassed Crysis graphiclly now I know. I dont see the point in upgrading my PC to play Crysis 2 when its cheaper to buy the game on Console

[TABSF]

and you know the PS3 and 360 version of Crysis 2 will look like shit

Beyond 1080p resolutions
8x MSAA and greater
More AI
Better physics
Better overall graphics
Native 3D support with Nvidia 3D vision
Surround gaming

oh and the PC version will cost less

PC it only laughs at consoles

[peowpeow]

I LOVE ME SOME MODS!

Crysis has a vast array of custom maps including lengthy sp levels. Also has alot of new guns, different skins, and graphics mods which make the game look better than it originally was (already awesome) with minimal impact on performance.

[Cyb3r]

Yeah but are you actually going to spend over $500 on PC hardware just to play one game?

[andrew171994]

i agree that the pc versions will domanate and the consoles are holding them back mostly the xbox for its lack in about everything, the ps3 is atleast more modernized and will hold more data than the xbox that why sony and computer games should team up and leave xbox in the dust

[hoops]

Metro 2033 in most cases passed Crysis from graphics

[RonXD]

Why the hell would I invest in a PC when there are hardly any games on the platform i'm interested in?

When more developers start taking PC seriously and produce games people want to play, then i'll go out and spend more money on PC hardware and software. Consoles aren't holding anyone back.

[Spydiggity]

you are completely missing the point. you are thinking backwards.

[RonXD]

How am I thinking backwards. People here in the comments keep talking about PC this and PC that. When PC gets some real titles i'm interested in, then i'll head over to PC.

[theonlylolking]

By consoles he means 360 and wii. PS3 gamers should not get offended because we have all seen KZ3 and its huge world with crysis graphics.

[Xfanboy]

lol Crysis shits on KZ3 allready & most Ps4 games!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
& it's in color..

[Ducky]

Wow.
Although I'm not a fan of the excessive head-bobbing and bluriness, that was pretty awesome.

It looks like a pre-rendered scene.
o.o

[theonlylolking]

IN all my time of playing crysis on highest settings and watching it on highest settings it never looked that good.

[Cock4Gamers]

I'm telling you, don't go there. KZ3 and Crysis are not close graphically, not by a long shot. Crysis is WAYYYYY better graphically and looks WAYYYYY more realistic while having WAYYYYY bigger open-ended levels that you can tackle in whatever way you want. Once you start adding hi-res texture mods, realistic DOF mods, photorealistic maps, and better TOD mods, then KZ3 gets even more embarrassed graphically. I know that you want the ps3 to have a game that can reach the upper echelon of pc graphics,but it doesn't, it never will, and pitting it against a pc just isn't a fair fight.

[Bathyj]

I think you're selling KZ abit short.

Obviously a console cant compete with ultrahigh resolutions and textures, but KZ has better lighting, better animation, better ragdoll and hit effect. The weapons feel better, bla bla bla, I could go on.

I'm just saying give it credit where its due. Its not all about tech specs, the artists have a pretty strong say in how a game looks too, not just the code monkeys.

And you must admit its quite a feat for half a gig of RAM.

[Cock4Gamers]

Honestly, I had KZ for my playstation 3 and I loved it to death, and I respect the fact that you feel that KZ has certain aspects that look better to you than they do in Crysis, but I have to disagree with the choices you presented. In my opinion, the lighting in Crysis is lightyears beyond that in KZ since it looks almost exactly like what light looks like when I go outside and in KZ the light rays sort of jut out at strange angles and look like they're attacking your eyes. Also, the animations in KZ are not better than in Crysis, especially if you enable 3rd person mode and are able to see how naturally your character moves. Furthermore, that "weighty" feeling of KZ can be added to Crysis by using the "cl_bob" command in the console. Basically, in my humble opinion, KZ looks good but Crysis is just in another league completely.

[Bathyj]

Ok, no worries dude.

I respect your opinion because of how well you put it.

[Pandamobile]

KZ3? Huge world? Crysis graphics? Lol?

[thebudgetgamer]

:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

then just make pc games.

[QuantumSponge]

Stop making sense.

[JAMurida]

PC held back by PS3, 360 and Wii

PS3 held back by 360 and Wii

360 held back by Wii.

Funny thing is if you look at the install base it's:

Wii
360
PS3
PC

Funny how the better tech has lower install base than the outdated tech. I think that in itself says something...

I personally think a dev should make the most out of each console. Crysis 2 for example. Make it the best for PC, PS3 and 360. Don't just make it look good on 360 as lead, than port to PC and PS3, knowing it would look/perform better on PS3 and PC. Make the most of each console!

[INehalemEXI]

It says $$$ that same order flipped is how expensive they are at purchase.

[TABSF]

Sorry but PC gaming install base is over 300 million, more than all consoles combined.

[JAMurida]

That may be, but how many of them can actually run games like Starcraft 2, Final Fantasy XIV, Crysis, etc...?

I have nothing against PC gaming at all, hell if anything I wish I had a gaming PC right now, but it's just that it cost more to get a rig to run those types of games compared to just getting a PS3 or Xbox 360. It's one of the main reasons why a lot of people are waiting for the PS3 version of Final Fantasy XIV or just staying on FFXI.

Cost of PC + FFXIV = $750+ish

Cost of PS3 + FFXIV = $350+ish

Of course I'm not saying there is no one out there with gaming PCs but compared to the console market and some of PC only devs now developing on console as well now, it's pretty obvious why things are the way they are. Same reason why third party exclusive games like MGS, GTA and Final Fantasy went multiplat.

So it's either make a game exclusive to get one piece of the pie and be able to make that game look as good as possible or make it for all platforms, (at the cost of visual quality), to get the whole piece of the pie.

[madjedi]

@tabsf Sorry care to show proof that 300 million pc are used for gaming beyond freecell and facebook games, basically all console are bought for gaming, pc that's not always the case.

(not targeting you specifically) Gotta love the random pc idiot boasting about how much better pc graphics are to consoles, no shit sherlock, your not running off of a 5-6 yr old hardware that is held back by not enough memory..

So when we finally max out the graphics to just below realism, maybe the pc gamers will make shift to concentrating on gameplay rather than just graphics.

[ipe]

yup, so much pc gamers and elitists and all time greatest witcher sells 1.5 million, same with crysis.

Name those games that sells beside few games warcraft, sims and starcraft?

And if we take in count 300 million base(lmao) even warcraft sales of 10 million is laughable.

[XeoZin]

Graphic is so overrated these days.
Too many developers thinks graphics = equal good game.
Companies tend to spend too much time, money and effort on the look than the rest of the game.

[newflesh]

Graphics is at least 50% of the new game's success. And I know, to lots of people it's more than that.

[Imalwaysright]

Couldnt agree more. The very best PC games i ever played are Fallout 2 and Planescape torment and we all know how those games look.

[QuantumSponge]

Too bad hardly anyone remembers Planescape: Torment any more. Way better than Baldur's Gate, in my opinion.

[ultramoot]

That's what we've been saying all this time. And yet, you went multiplatform with Crysis 2 anyway. Who's the hypocrite now?

[Bathyj]

PC gaming, held back by consoles.

Hmm, ok, I can acknowledge that.

As long as you acknowledge PC gaming is only still alive because of all the console games they get.

And I dont want to hear "all games are made on PC" or anything like that.

Certain games, like GTA, Assasins Creed, Red Dead, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fable, Splinter Cell, hell even CoD now are all console games at heart. They are designed for and aimed at console players, then put on PC as well.

REAL PC games, like Starcraft or WoW, usually stay PC only.

So while true to a point, I wouldnt complain too much.
Its like going on a roadtrip with your Gramdma. She wont let you drive too fast, but she is paying for the fuel and sandwiches.

[Ducky]

Although the multiplats do add much life, I wouldn't say that they're what's keeping PC gaming alive.

I've only played a few game that were "console games at heart", and asside from BadCompany2 (and maybe MassEffect2), none of them really held on to my attention.

So no, I won't acknowledge that consoles games keep PCs alive... but I also don't believe that consoles are holding PC back. =/

[Xfanboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

& CryEngine3 looks.. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[ballsofsteel]

no piracy and decrease is market are whats holding PC gaming back. why make a PC game when your going to see a games being downloaded for torrents MILLIONS of times. crysis was downloaded off torrent roughly 2 million times i think? couple that what the near expotential growth of consoles gaming and this is what you get. PC gaming will never die as some people say but if their isn't a solution to piracy or an increase is market outside of WOW the PC market will be like it is for a long time stagnant and depend on only a few niche games

[HOSe]

fubar

[HOSe]

what does this mean to crysis 2 on ps3/360 is the real ?

[V0LT]

Anyone who says PC gaming is expensive is wrong. A pretty potent gaming rig can be built for as little as $400. Just read some of the SBM's at Toms Hardware.

[Rubberlegs]

Which are called mid-range PC's. Its easy to build up a computer that can play any current games for that price but you also restricted to certain hardware that will fit your budget. Your not going to pushing high end games to its peak with a mid-range PC.

[PS360PCROCKS]

"We're sure the rampant piracy prevalent in the PC gaming community isn't helping the cause, either."

haha yeah tell that to microsoft

[kagon01]

Because PC is an open platform, and consoles are not...

[CombineElite]

Actually piracy and the economy excuse is all crap. Three things are holding PC gaming back right now.

1. The Cycle.....
The Cycle is the up and down period when PC gaming and console gaming switch back and forth as to which one gets the most attention. Right now it's the console cause you have three good ones. last time the console was on top was the very early PS2, N64, Dreamcast era and that was short lived compared to this gen.

2. Easy money.....
The consoles are easy money right now. Any developer can crank out a DX9 title and make some money. Are there some great games on the console, YES but most games are crap. Seriously for every God of War 3 or Halo Reach there are like 20 titles that totally blow but sell a couple million copies across two or three platforms. Easy Money.

3.The Transition....
PC gaming is going through a transition in hardware and software. AMD and Intel have new CPU's coming out and most PC developers are building DX11 engines or upgrading freshly built DX10 engines to take full use of the new architecture. Not only is DX11 new but so is Nvidia Physx and OpengL4 is becoming prevalent as well as it's Bullet Physics. This takes time.

PC gaming will advance and always be the determining factor of new tech and game play. If any thing the modding community is holding back PC gaming because of all the great free mods to play.

[Malicious]

Crytek Boss: "PC Gaming is being held back by consoles. Now we want to continue to thank the PC gamers by releasing Crysis 2 on consoles as well as making a mediocre exclusive for the 360."

[theroadtoruin]

why didn't they just keep their game on PC then? they wanna complain, but love the money that consoles bring in.

PC gaming is holding its self back with mass pirating, and more and more lack of game support.

that's the direction PC gaming is going, no company wants to exclusively put something on a platform that's just gonna be posted on some torrent site. like it or not money is what gaming is about to these companies, and they don't care about anything else. they just see dollar signs. you're starting to see more and more ports to PC and less and less games, blame the community.

[yamzilla]

The consoles are only slowing the improvements, not halting, bfbc2 on pc is ages, AGES, beyond the console game, the whole feel, look and controll of the game are light years beyond what you get on console, sure the content is "the same" but the total package is far and away better on pc. This is true for 90% of multiplats. Also, pc features games like starcraft 1 and 2, 10 years apart and both played by MILLIONS!! Backwards compat is a given with pc, hell i still play icewind dale 2 and baldurs gate2, then fire up crysis, then log into steam and choose from a library of games that on average cost me $12.

There is no comparison really....the consoles are DINOSAURS, they are only here to milk the public for another year or two with kinect and move and then they will be found at your local garage sale, they should already be there, 720p is pure poo....it is a 10 year old resolution, it is really, really time to move on!!!

[mobijoker]

We are now in 6xxx and 5xx series in graphics market whereas consoles are in 1xxx and 7xxx series.So,definitely they are holding back.Said that,it has a great advantage-with a decent 4xxx series gpu u can play any game as requirements are low.Atleast until 2012 this will be continued,then new gen consoles will rule graphics for a year or so.Then the same holding back story.

[kasasensei]

"Crytek Boss: PC Gaming "Held Back" By Consoles"
So WHY are you wasting your time with consoles ports? idiot..

[wissam]

Without any text wall the first guy (kancerkid) said it.

[commander]

What great pr when you are going to try to sell crysis 2 on console next year.

Screw this game and his game. I could care less if it has the best graphics.

If people bashed killzone 2 for only being a pretty game(which it was more than just that) wait till ppl play a crysis game. The games are boring an very inpired. The shooting is laughable.

[andrew171994]

have u ever played the game on the computer?
thats one of the best shooters ive play next to halflife and css, also killzone was a good game cause it has recoil somthing that other games lack like the cod series

[il-mouzer]

what a cock

[QuantumSponge]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Crytek don't make games. They make tech demos. Their whole shtick is essentially to use advanced graphics to cover up their weak gameplay, plain aesthetics and laughable writing.

I mean, Half-Life 2 looks like dog's vomit next to Crysis, but we all know which is the superior game.

[andrew171994]

JUST TAKE OUT THE XBOX BECAUSE IT CANT HANDLE THE GRAPHICS