Crytek: No Crysis for you!

What a pathetic excuse. And with a hint of arrogance.

Yeah, well wait til' EA buys them. It will be out for everything from 360, PS3, to the DS, and PSP.

KingOfGods dont forget calculators.
In all seriousness though EA cant force the impossible. Unless Crytek is just trying to make pc die hards happy and spewing bs. Why would anyone pay upwards of 2k-3k just for pc gaming is beyond me.

k means thousand right? lol

I'm sorry Crytek, but I don't believe you for a second. I remember when "Half-Life 2" supposedly couldn't run on the original Xbox. But it did. Granted, it didn't look quite as nice, but it was more than close enough. It somehow played on a console that came out 3 years before it. Crysis will be 1, maybe 2 years removed at the most. I'd almost guarantee that we'll see Crysis on the 360 before it's lifecycle is out.

There are a serious number of gamers with the kind of power Crytek are talking about. And i think a kickass machine would only cost $2k-3k if your buying it in-store. Anyway if Crytek need that kind of power to run a game they can keep it chances are about 40% of the power they need is probably due to deep seeded inefficiencies in the engine, algorithms or a serious number of unnecessary polygons

BUT..BUT...THE PLAYSTATION 3 IS A SUPER COMPUTER!!! WAHHH WAHHH!! NO FAIR!!

Far Cry was also supposed to be in the "inconceivable" boat. Apparently that word does not mean what PC developers think it means.

Woot for Seinfeld reference!

"Yeah, well wait til' EA buys them. It will be out for everything from 360, PS3, to the DS, and PSP."
"40% of the power they need is probably due to deep seeded inefficiencies in the engine, algorithms or a serious number of unnecessary polygons"
%100 agreed, those people at Crytek are too stupid which such comments on 360 and PS3. A PC exclusive in what day and age? In a time when Half Life: Episode2 is coming to 360/PS3 along with UT2007. If 360 can handle Gears Of War, it can handle Crysis and just like he said, most of that power is for unnecessary polygons and textures/shaders.

Other than only having 512MB of RAM, I'm not seeing what is so "weak" about the PS3 and 360's specs. Memory can be managed. The console GPU's and CPU's should do just find for the next half-decade.

They are full of it. It's conceited and lazy to say that either of these new consoles couldn't handle their "special" game.

lol, screw them then. Last I checked, the total PC game market was worth just under 1 billion vs the 6 billion dollar console market. If they're arrogant enough to stick to the shallow end of the pool, let them stay there.

Well, I think we all should work at Crytek. They are teh noobz and we know how to get this to work on an N64! Christ. It's entirely possible it can't run on a $300 console. It's just one game. I seriously doubt the developer is jaded or spiteful or stupid. RAM is a HUGE consideration. Assuming you reduce the texture space to 256 on the 360, that leaves you with only 256 for the game. Yeah, yeah, yeah, PCs need more RAM because of windows (about 64-128mb after the system is paged to disk while the game loads into physical RAM). Having a large RAM space helps a LOT with complicated physics and even with texture caching, as well as geometry, animation and AI cahing.
I'm sure a version of Crysis can run on the PS3/360, but not the dev's vision as it stands now. I do have to agree that it will one day be on every device possible (PC sales will in no way cover the dev cost for this game).

Am I the only one who doesn't care, on account of Far Cry not being that good a game?

If the 360 or PS3 aren't good enough to play Crysis on, my one month old PC and $300 Nvidia video card will fail the Crysis harddware compatibility test as well. And I'm not going to spend another $300 in a DirectX 10 video card next year. It's just crazy that PC gamers are supposed to cough up that amount of money every 18 months to play the latest and greatest, when you can buy a Xbox 360 or Wii (with change for a game or two) that will last you for years.

There really is something fundamentally wrong with the PC gaming industry the way it keeps raising the minimum hardware required to play a new games. You really have to be a fanatic (and rich) PC gamer to keep up with the latest and greates, but I guess that most pc gamers opt out and switch to console gaming at some time.

ymmv - That is a question that I've always posed to PC gamers.

Don't get me wrong, I still love pc games, as not long ago (ps1 generation) they were leaps and bounds beyond that which was available on the consoles, in terms of both rich detailed gameplay, and graphical fidelity.

But nowadays, with the incredible push for PC games to have the latest and greatest graphics, and the insane prices for the required hardware... how can one justify being a hardcore pc gamer without having to drop hundreds of dollars annually? It's just insane!

One of the reasons that I went with the Xbox is because it also supports the PC developer market. While... yeah, Microsoft still hasn't quite figured out that there are plenty of Xbox players who are ready for the best of the PC market in it's full micromanaging glory (thank you Bethesda for proving this), but at the same time, I am glad that I can play FEAR and HalfLife2 (but mostly Portals) without having to plunk down $1k+, but a comparatively measely $400.

Though Mouse and Keyboard support would be nice... I mean... Sony got away with the "IT'S A SUPER COMPUTER" crap unscathed (well at least from the gamers... not from the european courts)... would it kill ya?

Oh NO! 360 and PS3 lacked enough FPS, and now this? What are we going to do!!???

Anyway... if SNES was able to run DOOM and Killer Instinct, if N64 was able to run plenty of good looking FPS, if PS2 is still able to show us some freaking decent visuals, same with gamecube, let alone Xbox with Doom 3 and HL2, then what are these numbnuts doing developing games anyway? Oh I see now... they want to reduce their market. What do they give a shit? After all, they are not financeers, they are simply geeks that want "MORE POWER PLZ!!". If they do this, they are likely getting bought by EA, as they'll lose a lot of money, and simply become an almost worthless company.

Holy hand grenades, in that case what sort of PC must it need?! Oblivion brought many systems to their knees as it was, and it still managed to work fine on the 360. Nothing says they couldn't make it work on the 360, but this still indicates the PC version will have oppressive specs.

Fortunately I'm not really much into shooters (I'm a sucker for Halo and UT though), so I have no urge whatsoever to upgrade my system for this game. I am hardcore when it comes to RPGs, but must-have RPGs don't push the graphics barrier quite so often or by so great a leap. And when I do choose to upgrade, mods make it more than worth it.

It's this blind lust to bring out sexier graphics than the competitors that is making PC gaming so blasted expensive. I'd be perfectly happy if games went no further than the already stunning graphics displayed by Halo 3 and Oblivion. I'd sooner companies focus on AI and interactivity rather than just giving me the same core experience I got two years ago only with double the polygons.

On that note, I think I'll go play Mount&Blade. Stick THAT in your polygon-pimping pipe and smoke it, Crytek.

Fanboys is exactly what you are. No need to feel pissed just because somebody said your oh so great console is not good enough for them.