and maybe this rumor is bunk..

Probably.

maybe i can get your mom in the bunk

No, XBL's crappy p2p sucks.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

No. 1 Crysis & 1 Far Cry.

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

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

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

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

english FTW

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