Second Take: Crytek Blames PC Piracy

[rickpatbrown]

I think Microsoft cares very much about it's windows OS. Wasn't Crysis touted as the game that would drive the Vista platform. It was supposed to be so great that everyone would want vista for the DX10 support.

I think that Crytek dropped the ball on developing the game (from what I hear I haven't even played it). Now they are trying to come up with a reason for poor sales.

The difference between the two is that MS can do whatever it wants. That's the benefit of having a monopoly. Even if Vista sucks, when they stop supporting XP, people will have no choice.

Crytek on the other hand, if they made a crappy game, there are a lot of other games out their to play.

I am sure that piracy is hurting the industry. As Rob said in the video, until we see the numbers, we won't know for sure.

FTW I think thieves (pirates) should be punished by the judicial system.

 

[tlmck]

Crytek developed FarCry, got the "big head", and decided to leave Ubisoft because they thought they knew better. Now they have discovered that that do not know better, and they are looking for a scapegoat. "What? Not everyone wanted to buy a new $1500 system to play a $50 game? Who knew?"

The guys that made COD4, and a few other game developers knew. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[robwright]

Crytek developed FarCry, got the "big head", and decided to leave Ubisoft because they thought they knew better. Now they have discovered that that do not know better, and they are looking for a scapegoat. "What? Not everyone wanted to buy a new $1500 system to play a $50 game? Who knew?"

The guys that made COD4, and a few other game developers knew. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

Actually, Infinity Ward, the guys that made CoD4, really aren't laughing all the way to the bank because 1) they've complained about piracy, too, and have gone as far as saying half the number of people playing online multiplayer are using pirated copies, and 2) it's the PUBLISHER who laughs all the way to the bank in the gaming business. Whether a game is a huge hit or not rarely matters for the developer, since the publisher is one that gets to reap the big sales.

Furthermore, I don't know Cevat Yerli at all, or anyone else at Crytek, but "big head" would be the last term I'd use for Crytek. They made an ambitious product, but at no point did they emngage in what I'd call excessive overhype, which instead came from the publisher, EA, and Microsoft, which was telling everyone that would listen that Crysis was going to be to Vista what Halo 3 was for the Xbox 360. Yeah, not so much...

And lastly, when did gamers get so pissed at developers for trying to push the envelope and make a game that was truly cutting edge visually? Whenever I hear people argue about consoles vs. PCs, the PC gaming crowd always cites the the platform's advantage to produce the best-looking and most cutting edge games, and rightfully so. But now when Crysis comes into the piracy debate, now so many PC gamers out there are taking part in a massive backlash BECAUSE the game was pushing the envelope. I just don't understand it....

 

[eliastech]

Hardware requirements and Games for Windows arguments.

If the gaming companies want sell 2 million copies then they need to release games that the PCs of their 2 million target audience can play. That's simple.

The Games for Windows argument as to Crysis not getting enough publicity makes sense as a conspiracy theory. Let's face it. Games for Windows will try to promote games from companies that Microsoft has an economic relationship with. Unfortunately there are no MAJOR game review magazines or websites who are completely objective.

All game makers suffer from piracy. The argument that consoles won't have that issue is ludicrous. That said, piracy is wrong. Pretending it won't exist as much on consoles is disingenuous. If the game makers were to produce 100% console games you'd better believe that you will be able to get a copy of the most popular or expensive games on the street corners of most cities along with the latest movies.

 

[Taelron]

■The game was way overhyped and didn't live up to expectations
■Required massive resources (computer specs) that many of users didnt have at release
■Only DirectX10/Windows Vista game, look at the dismal gaming experiance on Vista as it is
■Many Vista computers can barely run the basic Vista Aero interface, there is no way they can run the game

The fault doesnt lie on Piracy, it lies on Microsoft releasing a dud OS and Crytec for making the game Exclusively for the dud OS. Overall, the fault is Crytec's...

 

[richpb7]

Another one here for the 'game was just too demanding' lot. My machine is not bad (2.6 dual core, 2Gb RAM, 8800 GTS 640Mb) but with a big monitor I just can't get the performance out of it I'd like.

I know my machine will run it in an acceptable way, but they made so much of the quality of the graphics who on earth would want it without being able to use it properly? It's like buying a Ferrari just to drive around Jersey ...

 

[Mumblez]

I purchased Crysis and COD4 at pretty much the same time to run on my average spec machine.
At the start I played a bit of both but COD4 appealed as the game graphics were good and the gameplay engaging.
My machine made sure Crysis was graphically just OK but the game was very linear and just not as engaging. I only played it out to get some value out of it and now it sits here gathering dust. COD4 on the other hand is in the caddy ready for another blast of multiplayer.

Two points:

1. Mr Crytec should have looked at Valve's Steams system stats. He may have then determined that if they make a game with bleeding edge graphics and promote that as the BEST reason to buy it that there are only a handful of potential customers. Oops!

2.Piracy IS a problem. Pretend your Mr Crytec for a moment Crysis aside: do I make a PC title and it's pirated and distributed that night or do I make it for Xbox and PS3 where most users just go and buy the damn game? Make some money or make make LOTS of money?

The future of PC gaming could end up being a lot of geeks with water cooled SLI, gigs of ram, quadcores, terrabites of storage and the latest game they will have to run on it is COD4 and bargain bin Crysis.

If PC gamers aren't careful they may pirate themselves out of existence!

 

[Maxor127]

Ironically, spending money to play games on a console costs more than just getting a computer. That's just my opinion. You look at the cost of a console ~$350, the cost of an decent HD-TV ~$500-$800 or even higher. $60 for the games. Plus all of the additional costs that go along with it: HDMI cables, wireless adapters, controllers, etc. You can build a decent computer for around $1000 and do a lot more practical things on it. A computer is almost a necessity in this day and age. If it weren't for the crappy onboard Intel graphics on most computers, people might be more inclined to play games on their computer.

That's why I'm fine with building a computer and mostly playing PC games. I'll usually find a way to play console games too since there are some exclusives that will never make it to PC, but PCs will always be a higher priority.

 

[jalek]

Piracy=bad. I think we got it by now. I think we got it in 1983 or so when the chant started along with the declarations of software development being dead.

Torrents have just made it ridiculously easy to distribute a cracked program. A few years ago, at least people had to search hidden directories on ftp servers.

Half of COD4 players? Don't they use unique registration numbers? Never seen the game, I usually avoid the overly hyped for a while. Anything with limited installs I just avoid permanently.

Wait, that's not true, I have a few user 6-pack floppies here with installs available for MajorBBS if the floppies haven't demagnetized in the last 15 years of storage. Gaming's always moving forward..

 

[mpiva]

Piracy is not the main factor of the decadency of PC as a gaming platform.
But it's the easiest to blame. You'll never hear Crytek saying I’ll blame Intel.

The main factor is Intel.

The Consumer is not hardware savvy. I think more than a half of computers from 2 years or more have Intel graphics, or under capable graphics chipset. Intel marketing engine make sure the consumer things this computers are game capable and they're great. And the consumer goes with that. You can figure out what happens next.

Microsoft should enforce the Windows Experience Index if a publisher wants the Vista Logo, and make sure they print the Experience Index printed with a Big Number in the Front of the Cover. A marketing push teaching the consumer about the Windows Experience Index will help. Computers manufacturers should do the same and print the Index in the case, manual, etc.
That will clear the air.

 

[cliffro]

Microsoft should enforce the Windows Experience Index if a publisher wants the Vista Logo, and make sure they print the Experience Index printed with a Big Number in the Front of the Cover. A marketing push teaching the consumer about the Windows Experience Index will help. Computers manufacturers should do the same and print the Index in the case, manual, etc.
That will clear the air.

The only problem with that is, Unless games have the Windows Experience score on the box on the outside in a very easy to find location, your still going to have people in the dark as to whats required to run the game properly.

I mean hell we have morons that have onboard graphics buying games then going to the game's forums because the game won't run.....because they are too stupid/ignorant to look on the game box and read the minimum required specs...

In defense of those people at the same time as bashing them, Nvidia and Ati are to blame as well, Lets say minimum req's are X800/6800 someone sees that, they have a X1300 or 7300 and think....1300 is higher than 800....and the same with 6800/7300.
Worse yet is ATi's 1050 IGP and Nvidia's 7050/7100 IGP.

 

[razor512]

There many factors to their poor sales

piracy doesn't hurt sales as pirates wont buy the game anyway

it is like if you have a party in your yard and your playing music, and your neighbor opens his or her window in order to hear the music also (is that person hindering your party, is it the same as that person coming to your yard and taking the music cd?


while the game had a lot of piracy, it didn't hurt sales, they just lost imaginary dollars

the game sold really well

the problem is that it almost instantly got the reputation os being almost impossible to run

no one wants to buy a game they cant run, and a $50 game is not $50 when it requires $1500 in upgrades just to run it

While it is good to make graphical improvements on games, if they were to make it more gradual and less often, like in console, then their games would sell better

consoles last like 5 years +

pc's last around 6 months



for me, just playing the demo showed how much crysis sucked.

the graphics were good, but the gameplay was sub par


what stores need to do is make the cash register or those self service cash registers ask the user questions before they buy the game

like when they swipe the game through, it will ask them to select their videocard and cpu and memory from the list, and of they don't know they can just press don't know at each section and it will let them buy the game

 

[Flakes]

my *whole* pc lasted two years, would of lasted longer if my 7800GTX hadnt died on me, im in the third year now with same spec apart from now i have a 8800GTX, and i suspect that i wont be upgrading for at least another two years from now.

 

[deus402]

The first thing i would like to point out is that the common rationale that hardware was a big issue in hindering the sales seems to bring up the rebuttal: "when did gamers get so pissed at developers for trying to push the envelope and make a game that was truly cutting edge visually?" or something similar.

I don't think that anyone is really pissed about it ( except maybe some bolo with a integrated graphics card that went out and paid for the game ) other than crytek. I'm sure most people had the same reaction I did: "That game looks sweet, too bad my system can't run it" and then they don't buy the game, and then crytek only sells 1 million copies.

another huge difference between crysis and console games was advertising. ok, crysis only sold around a million copies, and halo 3 had surpassed 8 million several months ago, who knows what its at now. but for months all you could fraggin see anywhere you looked was master chief. they even made a new mountain dew flavor for the game release. idiots were walking around dressed in the halo armor. not to mention that it was the third in a series. the only reason i even heard of crysis is because i have the g4 channel, and the jokes going around saying that it wasn't really a game, it was just a hardware benchmark. It would have been easy to do more to promote the game in the mainstream, like microsoft/bungie did with halo, but it just didn't happen. they could have even worked out a deal with invidia and/or intel. buy this redonkulous video card/processor and get crysis free. or buy crysis and get $40 off a geforce 10800 or intel octo core extreme 5ghz and that would give people who bought the game and were able to play it on minimum setting an incentive to upgrade the video card, as well as being a factor in deciding whether or not to buy the game at all. The least they could have done was release it on steam. i almost won't buy a game unless i can get it from steam.

speaking of which, like Mumblez said, just take a look at valve's survey summary.

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

as of 15 july only 38% of the gamers surveed had 2 GB or more of ram, and only around 9% of gamers had vista with dx10. and this is a survey of people who already buy pc games for their computer.

I had a geforce 7600 and p4 3.0ghz when the game came out. it was like watching a powerpoint slideshow of a fps, even with everything turned to low. i upgraded to a 7800 gtx and core 2 duo 2.0 ghz, and it was playable with most settings on low and a couple on medium (in vista 32 bit).

I actually enjoyed playing crysis, despite all the bad reviews and how crappy it looked. it was not "truly open ended game play" as it was touted, it was just another shooter game. it actually kind of reminded me of timeshift. It wan't the best game in the world, but it was enjoyable.

for crysis, like other games i play, the single player mode is almost an afterthought. multiplayer is where its at. multiplayer is also the solution to piracy. pc gamers want to frag other people, not spend the whole single player mode with stealth on sniping people with an assault rifle. and maybe the crysis multiplayer is good, but i can't play it without getting pwned due to slow frame rates. it at least looks interesting.

I burn through games like crazy, i will play it for a couple days, and get sick of it, and usually never play it again unless it has that special something. the last one that did was counterstrike:source, and before that was quake III arena. cod4 looks promising, but i haven't played it on pc yet, just ps3 and 360.

/rant