Rumorang: Crysis '1.5' to PS3, not Xbox 360

by James Ransom-Wiley { Jan 17th 2008 at 5:30PM }

The latest whispers down the lane from Crytek sound something like a Crysis port bound for PlayStation 3, but not Xbox 360, at least, that's what PlayStation World UK is hearing (reposted by Games Radar). "Technical reasons" are cited for the lack of Xbox love, but with money kinda tight these days, we're guessing the gang hasn't turned its back on Microsoft's console just yet. (Heck, Ubisoft managed to shovel some semblance of Far Cry onto the original Xbox.) You can bet EA's got a few tricks up its sleeve too.

We've reached out to the publisher for the customary "no plans" comment. We'll keep y'all posted.

[Thanks, Eugene]

Tags: crysis, crytek, ea, port, rumorang

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Akamaru @ Jan 17th 2008 5:32PM

Maybe the Cell processor wasn't all hype?

jsn @ Jan 17th 2008 5:33PM

and maybe this rumor is bunk..

Akamaru @ Jan 17th 2008 5:33PM

Probably.

Patrick @ Jan 17th 2008 6:16PM

maybe i can get your mom in the bunk

ark_v2 @ Jan 17th 2008 6:20PM

No, XBL's crappy p2p sucks.

Lekko @ Jan 18th 2008 3:16AM

Well, only if the game were CPU intensive, which it really isn't...

The only way Cell could help is if it did various pre-render or post-processing effects.

KurtM @ Feb 25th 2008 11:14AM

I have both consoles. I think if there was a unified console, fanboyism would halt, which may be good..but more importantly we would win, right? I mean doesnt the ps3 have a better cpu, and the 360 has a better gpu? If you combined these features would running a game like crysis even be an issue?

Marty @ Jan 17th 2008 5:35PM

Seems that if they are having money problems, they'd best stay out of the console game... especially if the only machine they release it for is the PS3, with the lowest user base of the three.

Akamaru @ Jan 17th 2008 5:37PM

Um.... wouldn't common sense say that because sales were beyond shitty for the PC version, they would try to recoup development cost with a console port?

Curtis @ Jan 17th 2008 5:47PM

Your comment doesn't make sense. If you have a game already done and that will take little effort to port over why wouldn't you? It would cost less than 5% of the development cost and would easily make a profit. That would be like EA not putting Madden on PS3 because it has the smallest amount of users.

FidliousWong @ Jan 17th 2008 6:00PM

Curtis, according to Ubisoft Montreal, it only ran them an additional 10% cost development to develop for two systems at the same time on Assassin's Creed. Given this info and the plans from the ground up, where do you get 5% for a complete conversion.

Mal F4cti0n @ Jan 17th 2008 8:05PM

Seems to me that if they are having money problems, porting the game to the 360, with the largest install base and being so similar in architecture, would help them recoup some costs.

I would call BS on this rumor of being a PS3 port only. They would more likely port "only" to the 360.

Lekko @ Jan 18th 2008 3:19AM

What I find hard to believe is EA porting a game to only one system.

If they could cram "crysis" onto a cell phone in 2D, they'd do it.

GRANTED @ Jan 18th 2008 11:15AM

so far the 360 has been chugging and whirring and blinking along with the prettier games of next gen's first two years. but it's graphical and processing threshold is known: it's essentially a gaming-optimized computer, and a great one at that.

360 owners keep saying the ps3 processing architecture sucks because no game devs know how to design for it. well, any time a game developer, especially the ones that design their own graphics engines, decide design or adapt their "showcase game" to the ps3, there's a better chance for more breakthroughs in utilizing the ps3's processing architecture to its fullest abilities. any 360 fans that are bothered by this PS3-centric news are just pouting that another group of people are trying to understand and make better games for the ps3, and that's just craven and pathetic.

good games for all, i say. but i wouldn't buy crisis. besides looking pretty, it doesn't bring much to the fps genre, and it won't even look that pretty on a console anyway, ps3 or other.

upz @ Jan 17th 2008 5:37PM

I love my PS3, but unless EA manages to find some superprogramers from the year 2012 to do the port, I doubt it'll look nearly as good. Then again, I've heard that even with the best PC hardware it's tough to run DX10 max settings faster than 15FPS. Anyone who's running max settings on PC care to chime in?

Zeus.:God @ Jan 17th 2008 5:42PM

I hate ignorant people. This game really isn't as much of a PC hog as people says it is. It honestly does not take THAT much to run it at maximum settings at acceptable framerates.

jsn @ Jan 17th 2008 5:42PM

built a system for a buddy about a month ago with a q6600, 8800GT, 2gb, on vista and it runs Crysis wonderfully at 1280x720 on high and the game looks AMAZING. Total cost of the system was 1100 without monitor.

Vidikron (FU) @ Jan 17th 2008 5:43PM

I think it's a given that it won't look as good a console compared to an up-to-date PC. That's true of pretty much any PC games. And, yes, Crysis is very hard on even SLI quad core PCs at the very high settings. But a console version would likely be set to 720p which is a lower resolution than at what many PC gamers attempt to run the game. So 720p plus dx9 would likely result in a very playable console version. It won't look as good as is possible on gaming PCs, but it will still be a good looking game and help the devs pull down some extra cash.

x silence x @ Jan 17th 2008 5:43PM

I'm with you on this. The PS3 can't run simple games at more the 30FPS in most cases. I was just playing UT:3 and the textures, framerate and overall shine lack in all areas.

In other words... I'll believe when I see it.

Oh and wouldn't that be Crysis .5?

x silence x @ Jan 17th 2008 5:44PM

Zeus.:God @ Jan 17th 2008 7:29PM

How the fuck do I get ranked low? I'm absolutely correct in my statement.

I have similar specs to jsn, only with an E6750, and I can run everything on high at 1680x1050 with an average FPS of 45. The lowest is 30. Thats not bad for having a 1000 dollar computer with a mid-line processor, graphics card, and memory setup. I have no reason to suspect that with an 8800GTX or even just 2 GTs in SLI, I can run max everything in DX10 with acceptable framerates.

Stop being such fools. Crysis isn't as much of a hog as everyone makes it out to be.

Slaziman (B-B-BRUSHED WITH FAAAAME) @ Jan 17th 2008 7:34PM

Watch out for the ice levels though...

By the way, does anyone else have ridiculous amount of pop-in in this game? Or is it just me?

Ankon @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:23PM

I run a E6700 with 4 gb ddr2 800 mhz ram and a single xfx 8800 gtx on Vista. The game runs on Maximum with all options on (Except for antialiasing, which is turned off) @ 1024 x 768 with 25+ frames on my pc. But that's with all of my background softwares (download manager, antivirus etc.) enabled. With those woftwares turned off, this game chugs out a very decent 30+ frames per sec.

Fernando Rocker @ Jan 17th 2008 5:45PM

It makes more sense to do a port to the 360... unless they don't wat to earn the double of money.

FidliousWong @ Jan 17th 2008 5:59PM

Double the money, you say? Well, it all depends really. If they have to spend more to get it working on 360, it offsets the profit margins. Whereas if the PS3 port is easier with their code as it stands, it's a lower cost of development, thus fewer copies sold could equate to more profit on one system versus the other.

Mr Khan @ Jan 17th 2008 6:17PM

But wouldn't the fact that it's a Games for Windows title (and thus DirectX based) mean that it would be easier to port to 360?

tmacairjordan87 @ Jan 17th 2008 6:17PM

i'm actually going to side with fernando on this one. Crysis on PC sold ridiculously bad. Most AAA ps3 games actually beat it in sales. If they want to make money, which they should since they didn't on PC, it should be on 360 because of the bigger FPS install base.

Einhanderkiller @ Jan 17th 2008 6:41PM

Only the US sales have been tallied for Crysis. I'm positive Crysis sold much better in Europe, since their PC gaming market is a lot larger than the United State's.

tcc3 @ Jan 17th 2008 7:11PM

FidliousWong

That doesn't make much sense. Its much easier to port from PC to 360. If there gonna spend the effort to port to PS3 it doesn't make sense not to do the 360 as well.

B1gC72 @ Jan 18th 2008 1:52AM

yea im a PS3 fan and even i can admit that it would be better suited on 360 seeing as how the "Xbox 360" is a "DirectXbox" and all. thats why most good games you see on 360 you eventually see on Games for Windows. the code they are written in is very similar and thus easy to port. i dont really understand how it would be easier to port to PS3 honestly. dont get me wrong, i would love to see it on PS3 but im also a realist. ill believe it when i see it.

Dan Davis @ Jan 17th 2008 5:45PM

I hope my puny PS3 cell processor can handle this behemoth of a game **rolls eyes**

TWIMTBP @ Jan 17th 2008 8:52PM

uh, wake up..its more about the GPU than the CPU. Your cell wont render for you

MasterCKO @ Jan 18th 2008 2:48AM

oh ho, but all those CryEngine physics calculations will head to Cell.

thethirdmoose @ Jan 17th 2008 5:45PM

This crysis 1.5... it is like 2 cryses duct taped together?

DangerMouse @ Jan 17th 2008 6:16PM

No. 1 Crysis & 1 Far Cry.

Admiral_Mike @ Jan 17th 2008 5:48PM

The console version is wii exclusive............Well someone had to say it.

HighFiveJesus @ Jan 17th 2008 5:52PM

And it'll be renamed.. Crysin' raggidy jaggity version.

FidliousWong @ Jan 17th 2008 5:56PM

So what you're saying is we should be looking forward to another Call of Dooty port, right?

Curtis @ Jan 17th 2008 5:50PM

No, that would be Crysis 2

Brian Fantana @ Jan 17th 2008 5:59PM

That'd be smart. Considering the game sold how many on PC? Pick the console with the lowest install base. I call bullshit.

NATO_Duke @ Jan 17th 2008 6:02PM

I'm so disappointed there isn't more fanboyism being spit at us all right now. I came into this topic expecting a war to break out.

What's going on with the SDF?! Isn't this one of those moments you live for?

Noshino @ Jan 17th 2008 6:14PM

haha, nah dude, why do we need to say something when the news says it all....

Noshino @ Jan 17th 2008 6:14PM

haha, nah dude, why do we need to say something when the news says it all....

lawrence @ Jan 17th 2008 6:02PM

it would be good on on the ps3 .and fernandando stop being so you xbox balllickin bug

deaftly @ Jan 18th 2008 10:35AM

english FTW

Bobby @ Jan 17th 2008 6:04PM

It wasn't going to be long for rumors like this to pop up.

FarCry 2 is suppose to come out on the consoles too is it not?

Most people think that Crytek is desperate to make more money because their sales were not high which is not always the case. They make lots of money licensing the engine to other developers.

Although Crytek must be bummed out about the sales, they were hoping to get close to the sales of FarCry (which sold a lot btw). I think we will see Crysis coming out on the 360 and the PS3 in the near future, but don't expect to receive the same level of detail, motion blur, or any other fancy effects.

^ Some one above mentioned that its not hard coding over a PC game to a console, well its extremely difficult. The PS3 and X360 development code is entirely different from one another and from the PC. It takes a very long time, and a lot of man hours to do the transition. Poor transitions results in poor performance. I won't expect Crysis on a console until '09.

Brian Fantana @ Jan 17th 2008 6:06PM

Actually Curtis, it would cost alot to port to the PS3. The hardware is NOTHING like a PC. 360 is a different story. Why do think all the ports to PS3 get delayed? Cause it's a pain to develop on and it's nothing like a PC or 360.

Autopsy15 @ Jan 17th 2008 6:12PM

And the 360 Fanboys around the world say, "Feh, didn't really want it anyway."

colin @ Jan 17th 2008 7:55PM

if PS3 gets Crysis 1.5, Xbox 360 will get Crysis 2 three months before 1.5 comes out on PS3.

Scutt Farkas @ Jan 17th 2008 6:13PM

im really getting tired of hearing how the cell processor is gonna tackle games and make everything it's bitch and sure, the ps3 can play crysis cause it has the cell processor! alright. you all know the PROCESSORS aren't the only factor working when playing game? ram, and the gpu have just as important a role. both of which the ps3 has mediocre and on par with the 360. the cell can't do any more than its graphics card and ram can do, so shut the hell up about it being able to do so much. and crysis can't play on very high settings remotely smoothly with an 8800 gtx, and that card makes the 360 and ps3 graphics cards it's BITCHES. so. can't happen. unless the graphics are severely turned down. which wouldn't be the end of the world. i guess.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments