This is kind of an interesting juxtaposition with the "10 Gaming Myths" story from ExtremeTech claiming that "you don't need a $500 graphics card."

Id like to see them put together a $500 PC that can run Crysis with all options on.

>Lunker
You don't need a $500 graphics card for MOST games.

This game, on the other hand, could use a $700 x1900 crossfire setup.

599 US dollars eat your heart out.

Honestly....do PR people REALLY think people buy this type of shit?

I mean...I may not be a fan of MS or Sony, but I have the intelligence to know that either of them have the POWER to handle their overhyped love child.

they may not have the hardware to handle some specific instructions of DirectX 10, but that is FAR from not having the power to calculate what would need to be done if it knew how.

Please PR people....There is a reason I don't follow politics. DON'T FOLLOW SUIT!

I thought Crysis could run on Direct X 9, but was recommended to be used on 10. Recommended meaning, if you have gobs and gobs of money to throw at things on a whim, and want the best graphics, and don't want us to kill you. So if it can run on Direct X 9 (even though the "experience" would probably be so much less, according to them) wouldn't it be able to run on both machines?

Guys its not so bad.
The PC is not only for gaming. I do a bunch of home movies and a new PC will certainly improve performance. Im willing to buy a new PC and DX10 card when Vista is out to play this, but I am NOT willing to buy a $699(CDN) PS3.

For me its PC + Wii and possibly a 360 or PS3 in 2-3 years.

Well, I guess that PS3 fanboys were right when they claimed that the 360 could not run this game. Another hit for Microsoft. :P

Seriously though, what is so special about this game other than the fact that it has the best graphics ever? I guess that is pretty big.

I hope this game ends up falling into the "awesome looking but not really that fun" category.

Translation: Our game is such a resource hog that even you mid-range PC gamers will be lucky to get 20 fps.

Nothing like making a game that wont sell that well since nobody can run the friggin' thing. Something to be real proud of. Way to go!

Crytek is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S!!

The game can run on DX9 PCs that aren't that high end...

The game could surely run on the PS3 and 360. Just possibly not at full detail (where texture memory would be the biggest problem).

They're hyping their own game. Just like the guy who made Black and said it couldn't be done on PC.

Actually this is the reason I went from Hard core PC gamer to Xbox 360 gamer. I used to spend $2500+ a year on PC upgrades. New RAM, motherboard, processor, graphic card, power supply, liquid cooling, hard dries...the list goes on and on.

Since I got my Xbox 360, even including the 22 games and accessories, my total is still less that what I would have spent on hardware upgrades during that time.

The main problem is that even after I spent all this money on hardware upgrades, then I have the problem of updating drivers, installing patches, changing configuration files, as most PC games do not consider HD Wide-screen gamers.

Sure I can do other stuff with my computer, but nothing other than games required so many expensive upgrades.

Like it or not, consoles are simpler and cheaper for your average gamer.

I'm sure they can tone the game down to be playable on both of those consoles. Are they saying that the game won't scale for PCs without $700 graphics card? Way to shrink your audience to almost nothing.

"Just like the guy who made Black and said it couldn't be done on PC."

Did he really say that? If it could run on a freakin PS2, how the hell could a PC not handle it? I mean, it's was on XBox too, right? That is just a simple port away from getting a PC running it right there.

#15, he also went on and on about how PC gaming sucks.

He's just the opposite of these Crytek guys, platform fanboys. That's all.

It probably just a PR way of admitting that the game is so inefficent that only a serious super computer has the power to make up for problems in the game they couldnt be assed trying to fix it

Honestly, I don't understand how this is "hype" ... I'm not denying that it is intended to be hype ... But, seriously, who does this appeal to? The ultra-ripped 1% of gamers that will only buy a game if it is the absolute most system stat hungry thing on the planet?
They were already going to buy this game.
All this does is turn off people with a passing interest (such as myself) as "meh, why bother?"
And, honestly, WHO CARES if the graphics are the "best thing ever"? At one point, Myst was the most gorgeous game ever.
Doom 3 was touted as the most graphically brilliant game ever.
Altered Beast blew me away when I was 10.
Super Mario Brothers 3 was a religious experience when I ripped open the shrink wrap.
Graphics are going to be eclipsed as long as games are being made ... Hyping your game as graphically advanced/intense is only dating it to laughable status in five years and turns off mid-line game BUYERS right now.

If you've got a fairly recent PC anyway for other purposes, all you'll have to do is buy a new graphics card for Crysis. That costs about the same as a console. But you end up with so much more.

Anyway, this just goes to show- no way can console game graphics rival what PC's are capable of.

And why is there no PC fanboy site yet?!

@Enzo

"I'm sure they can tone the game down to be playable on both of those consoles."

Of course they could.......

But if they do that, what would make the game stand out?

Without it's "Bleeding edge" visuals, it's just another generic Far Cry clone offering nothing more than the same FPS run arounds we've been spoon fed for years.

Crysis is proof that marketers are lazy and find it easier to improve visuals rather than try to come up with something truly "new".

....not that I have an opinion or anything.

There is a very serious difference between being "inefficient" and being "too fucking pretty for an Xbox 360 and it's feeble RAM count to handle". In Crytek's scenario, they are very skilled with their engine (as they made it) and it is quite a sound engine. With two years of experience under their belts, I would almost want to slap the man who claims they are "too inefficient" in the face. The fact is, there are physical limitations to hardware. The Xbox 360 happens to have one: dick for RAM.

In an age where Oblivion for PC easily uses 2GB RAM (and looks twice as good while doing it, versus the 360, mind you), I can see Crysis using at least 2GB, if not 4GB (if only because 3GB of RAM is technically not feasible for most, dual channel, for one). While owning a high-end PC and a 360, I can very much vouch for the fact that, while 360 games look great on my HDTV, my PC will always be able to produce much higher quality graphics (assuming certain hardware components stay current). This is more expensive, sure, but then we are slipping past the main arguement.

If you're bored and want to see me proven right, do the following:
-rob a bank for at least $2,000 cash money
-build a high-end system, and buy a spare 512MB RAM chip
-play Oblivion first with the 2GB, then with the 512MB

Even if you have high-end everything else, which is the case with the Xbox 360, your blatant lack of system memory (cutting Windows out and using less, or not, from the 360) is going to screw over Oblivion. This is one of the main problems with the Xbox 360 and probably will also be for the Playstation 3, only time will tell.

@TeddyN,

Your reply demonstrated perfectly what is wrong with PC gaming today...

Ummm, yeah i'm calling BS on this. While neither of the systems run DX10, both graphics chips likely have similar instruction sets. The X360 is a modified DX9 instruction set with the ability to do some of the DX10 effects and the Nvidia chip can, i'm sure, just a easily do the same. To say the game simply can not be done on either next gen system is a bunch of bull.

I think people need to consider the fact that a 3.0ghz p4 is not the same as a 3.0ghz a64 this is true with whatever cpu the 360 or ps3 have, it might not be enough to display the game to crytek's standards. I read an article that said the 360 cpu performed comparable to a 1.7ghz celeron.

Im sure the 1up podcast talked about this, saying 360 cant handle DirectX 10. but as its a custom chip they can and will most like port Crysis to 360

It behooves Crytek to deny the possibility of a console version of Crysis until well after the PC version ships. I Wouldn't be too suprised if a couple of months after the PC release if somebody figures out how to get this thing (or something 75-85% as good, slightly above average PC performance) on 360 and PS3.

And the 360 should be able to handle it as well as the PS3, considering the PC-to-360 conversion will be smoother, leaving more time for optimizing (my opinion only).

@atomos

Hmmm a Triple core processor with two threads per core, essentially equalling 6 threads, on par with a Celeron 1.7? Please tell me what idiot told you that.

Thyron:

You're clearly one of those people who absolutely has to have the best possible graphics in order to consider it a real gaming experience. You can spend $1500-$2000 every four years and have a rig that can play every PC game for the next few years very nicely, even though it might not be at a ridiculous resolution with insane AA/AF levels.

Thinking you need to drop $2500 a year to be a PC gamer = you're doing it wrong.

Does ANYONE remember Doom 3?

When it came out it was heralded as the most incredibly graphics intense engine out there. Most people couldn't play the game on their systems. Only now can avg people them. And you know what? THE GAME SUCKED (rather, I was incredibly bored playing it).

Personally, they can brag all they want about the graphical might of the engine, but I've been there, several times. I'll wait and see if its worth *playing*, not watching.

Well there you have it...$600 PS3 isn't even out yet, and already outdated. So what potential are you paying for now? The potential to NOT play crysis? What about when the new Crysis killer comes out in 2008/9 requiring even MORE intense hardware? the PS3 will be able to run those games? hahahhaa

I find all the comments from console fanboys hilarious. Just last week they were saying "360 does not need DX10! No game will use it!" And here comes Crysis with a development team that actually WANTS to use bleeding edge technology. Imagine that.

Fanboys then immediately jump to the defensive, going "But graphics aren't everything! Gameplay is what matters!" Shit, why did you buy a 360 then? Get a PC clone of geometry wars, and I guarantee you, that's more fun gameplay than 80% of what's on the 360 right now.

What about all your arguments about your 360 "looking gorgeous" on your HDTV? It's called a DVI to HDMI cable. 25 bucks from tigerdirect. You can even chat on AIM on your HDTV if you wanted to.

All consoles really have are price and exclusive game ratio. Even that's going out of the door, as you can see with the high PS3 price, Xbox live subscription price and charge for downloads. Consoles are also trying to become media centers now, too, because companies are afraid they just can't rely on exclusive titles forever.

Wow, how did they even fit that game on a disc if it wasn't BluRay? :P

They should sell this game to an arcade like environment. I probably won't be able to afford the PC hardware that this game is going to cost me. But I sure as hell would plunk down some coin to able to play it. If only there was an internet gaming cafe by me .... On that note they should make "internet gaming buffalo wings place." They would have to make some kind of plastic wrap to go over the keyboard and mouse. So everything wouldn't get so messy. But buffalo wings = gooooooooood. Cafe = eh.

I might do what I did when I got FarCry. Pick it up years later out of the bargain bin when my PC can actually run it...

@logikil

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/771007114731

I think I read it from anandtech although I cannot find the original article. How does a powerpc compare with athlon/pentium?

Maybe they dont wanna waste time on a console version? Look at far cry's on consoles they're poor games, bad single player, and mediocre multiplayer. Gamepads suck for shooters anyways.

Eric,

You are exactly right with regard to:

"I used to spend $2500+ a year on PC upgrades. New RAM, motherboard, processor, graphic card, power supply, liquid cooling, hard dries...the list goes on and on."

Wow, that is really crazy. Why are you buying a new power supply, liquid cooling, and hard drives every year? That has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. All those components should last much more than a year if you research your upgrades at all. Graphics card? MAYBE every year, but if you have ever bought a 500 graphics card, its certainly good for 2 years at least. Games and tech in the PC world move fast but not that fast. 90 percent of the games can be played perfectly on middle of the road hardware.

If you plan your upgrade cycle with some forethought, you should easily be able to follow the tech curve of PC gaming for about $500 per year.

Yes, its more than console gaming costs, no doubt about it, but I have run a gaming PC in tandem with my consoles every generation and within 18 months of the release of a console, my PC games start looking superior. I'm not all about looks though so thats not really important. I want certain experiences. One of which is FPS on PC. I just can't get going with dual analog for FPS so no Crysis on console doesn't bother me a bit.

As another poster said, remember XYZ game? Well in that categoy is Quake 3. When they were building that game, everyone was talking about how no machine could handle it. That the graphics card wasn't invented yet that would run it at full settings! Well, they were right, but we all bought the game anyway, scaled it back to what our PC could handle without puking and we went nuts playing on dialup getting 15 frames. I imagine Crysis will be the same, assuming its half the game Q3A was, but even thats a tough sell. Far Cry was fantastic but can they do it again? We'll see.

Hm... They didn't even mention the Wii.

Knowing Nintendo, the Wii can probably run Crysis easily. :p

I guess I don't know much about the tech end of games. But is it naive of me to think that with talented programmers, they should be able to get by the obstacles presented by the 360 and PS3 hardware? I'm naive enough to think that they could get it exactly like the PC version, but couldn't they at least get it pretty damn close?

On a side note, I would like to see more than pics. I want to know if all this horsepower is being utilized in the AI department. We all know that enemies in a game that just stand there is pointless, now matter how great they look graphically. I have this concern because this is from the makers of Far Cry which was pretty to look at (at the time), but a joke to play through.

I doubt it has anything to do with the hardware. It is the software. DX10 offers powerful tools to developers, and neither the PS3 or 360 has anything that can match it. Hardware is only one part of the puzzle. If the software support isn't as strong, then the full power will never come out. That is what DX10 is all about.

Matt: Your oozing PC fanboy there mate, here is a towel! All I can say is fine let the stupid PC gamers play Crysis and the 3 other games that are coming out for the PC. While console owners enjoy the over 100 titles coming out between now and Christmas. I play games for entertainment not to nerd out over my PC trying to upgrade the hardware all the time to keep up.

That's a string pointing to an article from Jun 2005 before the 360 had even been released. Not to mention that most devs were at their first crack getting their feet wet with multi-threaded game design. C'mon man you can't sit there and throw something like the Xenon is less powerful than a 1.7Ghz Celeron based on that.

As to whether or not PPC procs compare to AMD or Intel, well i guess that depends. Apple seems to think that Intel was the route to go rather than stick with PPC architecture. But all three console makers essentially went IBM, so it remains to be seen if that was the right way to go.

razer: you're oozing a bit there yourself pal...

100 qualiy titles? Yeah right razer. Most are bad. Maybe only two or 3 worthy titles to own. Plus you guys pay 10 and sometimes 20 more a game then we do. I cant justify a system 500 or 600 dollars that i only buy 3 or 4 games for. The wii is the only console that has my interest. Nintendo give you bang for the buck, PC also.

Okay, as I said I am seriously out of it tech wise (I love playing videogames but I don't know anything about what goes into them really). But is it impossible for MS to come up with some sort of solution to bridge the gap between DirectX 10 and whatever the 360 has, considering they make both? Or is that not how it works? I'm clueless....I know.

This is a very interesting post on Joystiqs behalf. For one it shows already that both consoles seem to have limitations already (which I think most of us knew 512mb wasnt going to cut it when the specs for each console were released) preventing us from playing next-gen games. But you also have to take into consideration that the 360 does have some DX10 instructions and at current time is one of the best GPU's on the market...maybe not as fast but alot more ADVANCED. I feel that with alittle tweaking Crysis shouldnt be an issue. I mean, perfect examples are Oblivion and Mass Effect...both massive games but 512mb of RAM doesnt seem the hinder performance any. In my honest somewhat professional computer hardware opinion, if optimized right, Crysis shouldnt be too much of an issue. Look at a game even like Halo 2...that game only ran on 64mb of RAM...

And to the guy that said the 360 CPU is comparible to a 1.7ghz Celeron, I want to fuck you right in the ear after hearing that. Show me an PC no matter what video card, amount of RAM, etc that could run COD2 or hell, even Burnout Revenge for that matter on a 1.7ghz Celeron.

CODPWNER:

The 360 being on-par with a Celeron 1.7GHz sounds about right for general C/C++ code. The 360’s Xenon CPU is highly stripped down from its G5 cousin:
- no branch-prediction
- no out-of-order instruction execution
- reduced instruction set
- simpler cache logic
However, where the 360's Xenon CPU lacks in general computing prowess (Windows would crawl on 360 hardware), it excels at vector math (it can eat physics and 3D geometry like nothing else on the planet).

So, the 360 really is slower than a Celeron at some things, while at the same time it's faster than an Ahtlon64 at other things. Microsoft is selling their console for a fraction of the cost of a gaming PC, they had to cut corners somewhere. So, they cut anything that's not essential to gaming, but they kept everything that's critical for gaming (and even pumped it up a little). It's an very specialized system.

One other thing. It is not valid to compare PC gaming side by side with console gaming in all aspects. No console system spec-wise ever looks as good on paper as the high end PC of the day. But the fact is that consoles are highly specialized boxes whose sole purpose (well for the most part) is to play games. So while looking at 512MB of memory and 10MB texture memory may make a PC gamer laugh, that is more than plenty for a console because it has no real overhead like a PC. You're not worrying about backend processes and passing things to a fully fledged OS API. Consoles use what they have much more efficiently. Frankly, if a console did come out that matched the highend PC of the day, i'd say:

1. It would be expensive as hell (You think the PS3 is bad)
2. Would probably have a shelf life way beyond the current 5yr lifespan.

And the suprise is?

The moment a consoles spec is laid out it's already "outdated". PC games have always and will always push the envelope.

I have a 360 and I love it and I look forward to the slew of fantastic HD games coming for that system (and no doubt the ps3 will also have it's own brilliant games within a year of release).

Just because it can't handle the cutting edge of graphical tricks due to lack of GPU horsepower doesn't mean a console is "no good". It really IS the games that count and consoles, generally have a far higher variety and quality of titles (other than FPS and RTS which the PC excells at).

Which is why any sane person, any keen gamer, typically owns a PC and A console/consoles. So where's the fire?

Just wait a year or so for DX10 cards to drop in price and Vista to be more common and then enjoy the cutting edge PC stuff. In the meantime most people are more than happy with "just" an xbox360 or ps3 (or even Wii) to play killer games on.

Yea I agree with you, that the articles are before the release, I haven't read any post release articles on the subject. I never made the comment and I dunno if a 1.7 celeron could run those games but a console is a closed platform, could they have afforded to stick in an athlon x2? Maybe thats why they all went ibm, is a 1.7 celeron enough in a closed platform?

Bottom line is... Those guys are full of shit. Half Life 2 which everybody said could not be run on current gen hardware was ported and was prob the best looking Xbox game ever released. Isnt Half Life 2 considered one of the most beautiful PC games? Yeah and its on the Xbox. This game will eventually make it over to the 360 and PS3, im sure EA will make this happen.

Ill never understand PC gamers and what justifies spending 500 to 1000 a year for gaming. This is why PC gaming is a niche market that will NEVER surpass console gaming. For about $500 every 4 to 5 years you get a console that you can enjoy on a couch in front of your HDTV with surround sound versus sitting at a desk in front of a monitor with a keyboard and mouse. The choice is pretty damn obvious.

I think if a developer is good, they can make a FPS work on a console. I have no complaints with how Halo 2 handled.