Crytek: No more PC exclusives ... after this one last PC exclusive

by Christopher Grant { Jun 10th 2008 at 11:08AM }

We'll be honest: when we read about the recently announced PC-exclusive Crysis Warhead, we were a bit confused. Didn't Crytek pres Cevat Yerli just say, "I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future"? If that was his belief a whopping thirty-six days before announcing a major, AAA PC-exclusive like Warhead, we'd second guess arguing politics with the man, if we were you.

But lo, what's this? Here comes Crytek's Harald Seeley to explain that Yerli "was referring to any new projects [Crytek] will start in the future" and that "all new franchises [they] develop in the future will be created with a cross platform strategy in mind." Speaking of that cross platform strategy, Crytek's engine wizards have been busy squeezing the ship-sized CryENGINE 2 into a console-sized bottle and their efforts thus far have made the engine "even more scaleable" – an accomplishment that should be on display in Warhead. We'll see how they did when we try to run Crysis Warhead on our trusty 486 this fall. Scale that!

Tags: Crysis-Warhead, Crytek

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

syrik zero @ Jun 10th 2008 11:16AM

I want some console games... I don't have enough money to build a bad ass PC to play these games.

jynxycat @ Jun 10th 2008 11:31AM

I want some PC games... I have enough money to build a bad ass PC to play these games.

syrik zero @ Jun 10th 2008 11:37AM

Well you are lucky... If more companies go with something like Steam I would imagine more games going to PC. Steam helps a lot with the anti-piracy.

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 10th 2008 12:17PM

Same here jynxycat. I used to be a PC-Gamer, then went towards consoles when I got sick of the constant upgrading and now back to PC now that I have some good money.

PCs and consoles FTW.

Jeff @ Jun 10th 2008 9:53PM

I want more pc games I don't want to spend money on a console. Also I run crysis on a $200 PC so you don't need money just the right parts.

Tiptup300 @ Jun 10th 2008 12:38PM

Constant upgrading? Your doing it wrong!

Tim The Enchanter @ Jun 10th 2008 12:44PM

Watches and Cellphones FTL

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 1:30PM

"Steam helps a lot with the anti-piracy."

Steam isn't an invincible pirate hunter and as a person who pirated a couple of Steam games I can assure you that it's not hard, just requires a bit more effort and googling than P2P.

I'm not sure where the idea of "Steam is good for PC Gaming because it stops piracy".Can someone explain this to me?

DangerMouse @ Jun 10th 2008 1:52PM

Steam won't stop piracy, but it can hinder it a bit. The idea is that since the game is distributed digitally, they can release the necessary files to make the game run at the exact time it's released. With retail games, there's a two week time frame when the game ships to the release date. In that time, the games usually get upped to the net. It fucks with the real buyers, because while they're willing to pay for it, the pirates get to play it before them.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 11:24AM

I'd like some console games as well, but they should have some substance. I'm not interested in Crysis without the amazing graphics cause the gameplay is meh. Last thing we console players need is more mediocre shooters.

Fernando Rocker @ Jun 10th 2008 11:26AM

Crysis is just pretty graphics, meh gameplay and blah story.

jynxycat @ Jun 10th 2008 11:32AM

Crysis is very pretty graphics, great gameplay, and great story.

CTC XBL-supapaypamawio PSN-ctclaw @ Jun 10th 2008 12:06PM

Crysis and great gameplay/story don't belong in the same sentence.

Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 10th 2008 12:18PM

I enjoyed Crysis quite a bit myself, didn't think it was just a glorified tech demo unlike many others. Your all just jealous your puny PC cannot handle the power. ;)

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 12:22PM

First of all I would buy a wii before I ever wasted ridiculous amounts of money on a computer capable of playing crysis. I played the first few levels at a friend's house and it was a complete borefest. I spent most of my time just screwing around with the environment instead of actually playing cause the gameplay was so dull.

I would be more than happy if it never gets ported to consoles cause I don't see anything in it that would make it worth playing since they would have to dumb the graphics down.

Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 12:41PM

Crysis is actually very good. Most people that complain either haven't played it or haven't played it very long. The game shifts about 2/3 of the way through and at that point people seem to love or hate the end, but overall the game is good. I certainly understand people not wanting to have to spend the money to upgrade their PCs to play Crysis with all the eye candy, but I think too many people try to bash the game itself based on the hardware requirements. The gameplay is solid.

Haggard @ Jun 10th 2008 1:15PM

Crysis had great graphics (but unfortunately not very efficient on your hardware), great gameplay in the first two thirds.. and a story so cheesy it makes a lump of gorgonzola look like milk.

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 1:33PM

I find it ironic how a lot of you bash Crysis just because your PC's can't run it/it's exclusive yet you toss each other off over how excellent CoD4 is.

Hypocrites ftl.

Sean @ Jun 10th 2008 1:37PM

Ninja, you're just jealous because the subtle differences of "your" and "you're" are beyond your grasp.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 1:41PM

Jakka we don't need any PC fanboy idiocy here. No one's said anything about not being able to run it on their computer, we just don't like it cause it's a glorified tech demo and would be nothing more than an average shooter on a console.

I even said I wouldn't buy a console port because it would take away the only advantage crysis has over other shooters and that's the graphics.

Between our halos, timeshifts, hazes, and turoks we have more than enough average shooters and DO NOT want anymore. However if Crytek wants to stop acting like the Gran Turismo developers and actually make a game to go along with impressive graphics then us console players will gladly accept them.

Eggy @ Jun 10th 2008 3:00PM

Bullshit, the gameplay in Crysis is good. You have alot of freedom in completing objectives. Must be disorientating and scary for console only gamers.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 3:41PM

Must be fun to think the epitome of FPS gaming is being able to attack an area from the front entrance or the back, something that's been done as far back as goldeneye (on a couple levels).

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 3:50PM

@tmac

Please explain to me exactly how was Crysis generic.If you can come up with 3 reasons that can't be applied to any other AAA high-selling shooter than I'll shut the fuck up for the rest of this discussion.

PS:Requirements are overhyped.The game can run on a £200 PC and still look awesome.

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 3:57PM

"Must be fun to think the epitome of FPS gaming is being able to attack an area from the front entrance or the back, something that's been done as far back as goldeneye"

Hasn't been done on Halo,hasn't been done on Half-Life,definitely hasn't been done on CoD,hasn't been done on Bioshock and probably hasn't been done on Metroid.And only done a little bit in Goldeneye/Perfect Dark.

These were the highest rated FPS's out there.I reckon that attacking the base from different directions using different tactics must be fun because no other high-rated game has done this before!

We know that you hate Crysis but for the love of good stop it.You might as well tell us that the graphics are shit because graphic advancements have been done ever since Pong.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 3:58PM

Seeing as crysis isn't a "high selling AAA FPS", there's no need to answer (read: 1 million in sales worldwide is nothing nowadays). Also, why should I even bother? Would what I say change your opinion no matter how right it was? No you would just debate it anyway, so there's no point.

Irresponsible Robot @ Jun 10th 2008 4:08PM

I heartily enjoyed Crysis, if for no other reason than being able to sneak up on someone and bludgeon them to death with a bunch of bananas.

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 4:11PM

"1 million in sales worldwide is nothing nowadays"

That was...dumb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

Just because the game hasn't sold more than 8M copies doesn't mean it's not high selling.In fact most games that didn't receive the crushing amount of marketing and hype(I'm looking at CoD4,Halo 3 and GTA4) end up below 3M.

And you're right.I'm not touching this discussion anywhere beyond this reply.

tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 10th 2008 4:32PM

No it wasn't dumb, it's completely true. With so many people playing video games in the last few years, it's not a big deal for a game to sell a million WORLDWIDE.

The marketing point, while some marketing helps, looking at that link you provided (which ironically is the same one I looked at when making the previous point) I see quite a few games that sold as well if not better than Crysis with just about equal marketing (0). Games like Theme Park, Anno 1602, and Sacred are games that I've never even heard of and I'm close to the game world and they far outsold Crysis.

Even games that I have heard of, like Baldur's Gate, sold better with hardly any marketing AND sold in a time when PC gaming was even more hardcore and niche than it is now.

So yes games that don't sell 8 million doesn't mean it didn't sell high, but selling 1 million is not a big deal, specially on a platform with the highest install base.

Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 5:06PM

@tmacairjordan87

You guys have derailed this discussion onto the value of 1 million sales, but I say sales are fairly meaningless. Plenty of great games don't even crack 1 million and plenty of crap games do. So what?

But before it was derailed you, tmacairjordan87, were asked to give specific reasons as to why you thought it was generic and boring. You simply dodged the question and focused on sales... but I'd like to hear your answer. How much of the game did your really experience and what about it didn't you like?

DoctorWho @ Jun 10th 2008 11:26AM

There are many more console games to choose from than PC games at the moment. And having played through Crysis from start to finish I can honestly say it would be a Mediocre FPS at best on a console.

If that tell you anything about the actual game play versus the breakthrough graphics/open world aspects of the game then you get my point.

But, consoles are where the $$$ is at this point in will more than likely stay that way for quite a while if forever. So I don't blame Crytek at all for this stance... but it is rather strange that they would make Warhead a PC exclusive.

Pandar @ Jun 10th 2008 11:35AM

Crysis is just a mediocre fps in general. All it has going for it is graphics, which most people can't fully appreciate anyway.

Haggard @ Jun 10th 2008 1:20PM

"more console games than PC games"

If graphics are so unimportant then maybe you should check the PC's back catalogue of several thousand titles..

On your other point, Warhead being a PC exclusive makes perfect sense. It's basically an expansion pack, likely the same textures and engine used on it - so all they have to do is design some new maps, animate some cutscenes and there you go.

Besides, who's going to buy a semi-sequel on a console if they've not played the first?

jynxycat @ Jun 10th 2008 11:34AM

I doubt it's an issue of 'exclusive' and more like, they just haven't taken the time to port it over.

It's probably like that for most PC games. It's not that the developer consciously made it an exclusive, it just happens that they only made PC games at the time, the game wouldn't work on console, or porting it would take a lot more work than most 360 to PS3 ports do.

K387 @ Jun 10th 2008 11:35AM

I don't see this as a big loss. While the graphics were great (for those who could get them maxed), the game play tanked (in my opinion) for the last 1/3 of the game.

Crytek reminds me of id software in that they make great engines with half decent games to sell them and that's it.

K387

jsutcliffe @ Jun 10th 2008 11:42AM

While I agree that Crysis's second half was weak, I thought Far Cry was a blast from end to end, and I've replayed it more than any other FPS.

StuScotsLazyEye @ Jun 10th 2008 11:48AM

This comes down to two things...

1) Crytek is looking at this from a money-making perspective. They know consoles are where the money's at; it's more accessible, it's cheaper, so you're going to have a larger potential target market to sell your product to.

2) Crysis was a heavily pirated game because PC gamers knew if they didn't have a super high-end system, they weren't going to enjoy the game because they would be playing it at 15 FPS or less in most situations. People pirated it to see if it would run on their system, and to use it for telling people "my PC can run Crysis," and never really have any interest in the game itself.

This is all what I think of it anyways. I was never a fan of Crytek's games (I thought Far Cry was an average game, same with Crysis), so I don't care if they don't make PC exclusives anymore. I wouldn't buy their games anyway.

Jakka @ Jun 10th 2008 4:17PM

You forgot one important factor.Crytek tried to turn the hardware requirements into hype like it once happened to Doom 3.

In the end the public thought that the game would barely work on a £1200 PC,which contributed to the piracy(why that fuck would I pay for something that might not even work on my PC?),while in fact it works fine even on a £250 computer.

ApolloIV @ Jun 10th 2008 11:56AM

Crysis was pretty good. I would like to see a more "realistic" take of a game like that. Anyway this game will probably tank like Crysis if they don't better optimize it :(

shawn @ Jun 10th 2008 12:09PM

a 486 ROFL yea try even running anything on that nowadays,maybe some classic games like doom and stuff but thats about it....

Martez @ Jun 10th 2008 12:17PM

You can play Descent and Commander Keen. What more do you need?!

shawn @ Jun 10th 2008 12:20PM

my first pc was a xt so i know how it is,i used to fiddle around with monochrome graphics LOL

Brian @ Jun 10th 2008 12:15PM

Crytek announced no more PC Exclusives while they wre working on Warhead.

Michael @ Jun 10th 2008 1:41PM

What surprises me more is that Joystiq doesn't seem to understand how games are developed.

Games are planned many months ahead of the public knowing about them.

The fact Joystiq would make a "story" about this is ridiculous. Aren't these guys supposed to be the industry experts?

Lame.

seforest @ Jun 10th 2008 1:50PM

Crytek is a horrible multiplayer game maker and now that they've all but given up fixing Crysis they're off to make a new game. Not since Diablo have I seen MP gameplay hacked so badly(nuclear explosions every 10 seconds was common).

I won't make the mistake of buying anything from Crytek until I see what complaints come in on the tech forums after the first week or two. I loved the promised 'patch in 2 weeks' that took months to release and fixed virtually nothing.

I can't imagine what a game from Crytek would look like when they're splitting their attention across multiple platforms. Hold on to your wallet!

Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 10:21PM

Meh... Crysis was obviously always about the single player anyway. If you bought it for MP you bought it for the wrong reason.

t_m @ Jun 11th 2008 12:06AM

Finally they seem to have cottoned on to the fact that giving everyone the impression that it won't run on their PC is bad business... if only they'd told people it was scalable from the start!

SeriousKriss @ Jun 11th 2008 6:01AM

Crysis Warhead won't be their last PC exclusive title. They explicitely stated their future FRANCHISES would be multiplat'. That means the rest of the Crysis trilogy should also be PC exclusive.

And I laugh at all the console fanboys who hate on the game. Crysis is anything but average, deal with it. To even try and compare it to the likes of Turok or Haze is beyond ridiculous.