Quantcast
Crytek will most likely go bankrupt if their engine doesn't catch by next gen

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Crytek will most likely go bankrupt if their engine doesn't catch by next gen

Perhaps this is why development studios should, you know, focus on making GAMES, and not on developing all-purpose game engines they can license out to other people.

Personally, I can't stand the Unreal Engine, mainly because I get sick of so many developers using it. And FAR too many games made using it, seem incredibly "Samey".

I understand that building your own engine from scratch can be time consuming and not cheap. But I also know that MOST developers used to do that, so cry me a river.



Around the Network

They should give up the engine and just go for the third party development. They make good looking games. I'm sure someone would hire them.



Crytek's problems have nothing to do with the quality of their game engine.  

Their game engine is incredible.  

The problems with the engine have to do with documentation and tutorials.  The other game engines are much easier to use.  So many more people are using Unity and Unreal, that the amount of material and information on them is pretty staggering.  That's pretty much the CryEngine's biggest fault.  It's hard to use, and the documentation isn't really there.

 

I don't know too much about Crytek's problems. But it seems to me that they expanded way faster than they should have.  They had a bunch of studios and a few of their games sold less than they were expected to.



the-pi-guy said:

Crytek's problems have nothing to do with the quality of their game engine.  

Their game engine is incredible.  

The problems with the engine have to do with documentation and tutorials.  The other game engines are much easier to use.  So many more people are using Unity and Unreal, that the amount of material and information on them is pretty staggering.  That's pretty much the CryEngine's biggest fault.  It's hard to use, and the documentation isn't really there.

 

I don't know too much about Crytek's problems. But it seems to me that they expanded way faster than they should have.  They had a bunch of studios and a few of their games sold less than they were expected to.

You may not know too much about their problems, but you've summed them up nicely.



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

If Crysis ever got a remaster, they would obviously make a lot of tweaks to make it perform better on modern computer much like Dark Souls. But they would likely just port it to their current engine. Far Cry 3 and Sleeping Dogs look significantly better on PC even though there are console ports. So I don't buy the argument supporting consoles cripples PC potential.

We've only seen Crysis 1 on CryEngine 3 via 7th gen consoles. It not really a reflection of that could have possibly looked on PC. Also, EA owns Crysis. Crytek only does what EA allows with Crysis.

Well. The PC has almost infinite amounts of memory from a development standpoint in comparison to consoles, that does have an effect on a games world, the PC simply has the baseline to have larger, more impressive worlds.
CPU's being orders-of-magnitude faster also has a stupidly big effect on simulation quality, A.I and so on, but we don't see any of this.

And that is before we touch on the topic of visuals.

Fact is, the consoles keep the visual/simulation quality baseline low, because developers need to build games with those platforms in mind.

Back when games were made for PC first, games were bloody impressive. Morrowind, Crysis, FarCry, Doom, Half Life, Quake, Unreal Tournament... Are all such examples.
Today if the developer doesn't put the effort in, then the PC version is really no different from the console release, complete with 30fps caps/720P limits... And that is some real bullshittery there.
Which ultimately is the crux of the issue in my eyes. PC gamers expect more.

Crysis 1 as in the original PC release was simply impossible for the 7th gen consoles to handle.
That statement has never changed.

CryEngine 3 is far more console memory-optimized, it relies far more heavily on streaming assets to make better use of limited memory pools, this means "cells" are smaller and assets will generally be simpler/lower quality and popin more prevalent.

And despite all that, the framerate, resolution, shadowing, texturing, lighting, foliage detail and density... Were all left much to be desired anyway.

In my opinion... Crytek should go back to it's roots and start doing what they were renowned for, being a PC-centric Developer. Shit. It worked for Blizzard.

Generally speaking, PC games just aren't designed the way you're speaking. There are baselines on PC as well, because they want games to function well on many PCs. In the DF video they discuss sacrifices made in the original PC release of Crysis so it would be less resources intensive. Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

People argue Crysis 2 was linear for consoles. But the open world of Crysis 1 seemed to translate pretty well on console. Not 100% the same, but for the most part its the same game.

I agree Crysis 2 was designed to function well on consoles and it appears they were treated as lead platforms. This also meant Crysis 2 worked better with dated specs. However, the game is also a product of its time in game design. EA and Crytek were likely motivated to make it a more linear experience given that style of campaign was doing really well at the time. Yet the environments of Crysis 2 were still much more open than the typical FPS game. I believe Crysis 2 was trying to find a middle ground of open and linear.

Crysis 1 was built for high end PCs of the time, but due to poor optimization does not function great on modern PCs. As you suggested its well beyond the capabilities of 7th gen consoles (primarily in visuals). Yet they still managed to pump out a good port for consoles of that same era. We saw this with Witcher 2 as well, that was a game people just assumed couldn't work on consoles. Its mostly visual tweaks that make these games functional on console specs. Battlefield 3/4 also come to mind, built to take advantage of PC but tweaked for consoles.

PC games you named either had good console ports eventually or the console specs of the time just were very different from PC. Games like Doom and Quake were way ahead of consoles at the time. Morrowind had a good port. Unreal Tournament on consoles seemed to struggle with lack of RAM, especially on Dreamcast. The OG Xbox was getting good ports of games designed for PC.

Blizzard builds games for low end PCs. Are you gonna blame 7th gen consoles for Diablo 3 playing well on low end PCs?

Anywho, developers design games in mind for cheap specs (PC or console) because that's what the average consumer will buy. So your arguments of limitless potential on PC don't matter, developers don't focus solely on high end rigs. SOME developers do focus on high end machines, but there are valid argument why they don't.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 23 June 2018

Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:

Generally speaking, PC games just aren't designed the way you're speaking. There are baselines on PC as well, because they want games to function well on many PCs. In the DF video they discuss sacrifices made in the original PC release of Crysis so it would be less resources intensive. Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

Crysis 1 was already pushing past the high-end PC's even in 2007, it was a game that crippled high-end rigs for years, so of course they would have had to make a few cutbacks to allow the game to scale downwards.

Mr Puggsly said:

Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

I don't actually disagree with that. But PC's are so far ahead of consoles on a technical level it is pretty staggering, if a game was to leverage the PC in it's entirety... Then it simply won't be able to scale downwards to consoles without essentially remaking the game from the ground up again.

Mr Puggsly said:

People argue Crysis 2 was linear for consoles. But the open world of Crysis 1 seemed to translate pretty well on console. Not 100% the same, but for the most part its the same game.

Crysis 1 on consoles was only possible for the reasons I iterated prior... And the game was indeed poorer for it.

 

Mr Puggsly said:

I agree Crysis 2 was designed to function well on consoles and it appears they were treated as lead platforms. This also meant Crysis 2 worked better with dated specs. However, the game is also a product of its time in game design. EA and Crytek were likely motivated to make it a more linear experience given that style of campaign was doing really well at the time. Yet the environments of Crysis 2 were still much more open than the typical FPS game. I believe Crysis 2 was trying to find a middle ground of open and linear.

And that is the reason why it was brutally shunned by the PC community. :P

Mr Puggsly said:

Crysis 1 was built for high end PCs of the time, but due to poor optimization does not function great on modern PCs. As you suggested its well beyond the capabilities of 7th gen consoles (primarily in visuals). Yet they still managed to pump out a good port for consoles of that same era. We saw this with Witcher 2 as well, that was a game people just assumed couldn't work on consoles. Its mostly visual tweaks that make these games functional on console specs. Battlefield 3/4 also come to mind, built to take advantage of PC but tweaked for consoles.

Crysis 1 doesn't perform poorly because of poor optimization though as I iterated upon prior.
It was a case that Crysis 1/CryEngine 2 was built with future hardware in mind... And it turns out Crytek was incorrect about which way hardware would go, hardware went wide, rather than higher frequency.
Crysis 2/CryEngine 3 however was built with old, antiquated hardware in mind. And that is much easier to "guess" for as the hardware actually exists.


Mr Puggsly said:

PC games you named either had good console ports eventually or the console specs of the time just were very different from PC.

Games like Doom and Quake were way ahead of consoles at the time. Morrowind had a good port. Unreal Tournament on consoles seemed to struggle with lack of RAM, especially on Dreamcast. The OG Xbox was getting good ports of games designed for PC.

... Which is exactly my point. Eventually consoles released that caught up with the PC to a degree that made those games possible.


Mr Puggsly said:

Blizzard builds games for low end PCs. Are you gonna blame 7th gen consoles for Diablo 3 playing well on low end PCs?

It is well known even during the early years of Diablo 3's development cycle that it was console-optimized.
Overwatch also took note of consoles as well.

Games like WarCraft and StarCraft however may not be very GPU intensive... But they tend be significantly heavy on the CPU all things considered.


Mr Puggsly said:

Anywho, developers design games in mind for cheap specs (PC or console) because that's what the average consumer will buy. So your arguments of limitless potential on PC don't matter, developers don't focus solely on high end rigs. SOME developers do focus on high end machines, but there are valid argument why they don't.

It's not just GPU speed. It's memory capacity. It's bandwidth. It's CPU processing.
Even the lowest end PC's can eclipse a consoles total memory and bandwidth capacity, let alone dwarf it in the CPU department.

Plus like Crysis 1, developers will sometimes build their games for future hardware, not current hardware.

The fact is... If a game is built for the PC... It can have a world size and a level of simulation that is simply impossible on Consoles. - There is actually one such PC game trending along that path right now.



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Generally speaking, PC games just aren't designed the way you're speaking. There are baselines on PC as well, because they want games to function well on many PCs. In the DF video they discuss sacrifices made in the original PC release of Crysis so it would be less resources intensive. Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

Crysis 1 was already pushing past the high-end PC's even in 2007, it was a game that crippled high-end rigs for years, so of course they would have had to make a few cutbacks to allow the game to scale downwards.

Mr Puggsly said:

Also, I'm suggesting a game could be designed solely around PC specs and still be scaled back for consoles. Hence, gameplay can be (mostly) intact even with lower quality visuals.

I don't actually disagree with that. But PC's are so far ahead of consoles on a technical level it is pretty staggering, if a game was to leverage the PC in it's entirety... Then it simply won't be able to scale downwards to consoles without essentially remaking the game from the ground up again.

Mr Puggsly said:

People argue Crysis 2 was linear for consoles. But the open world of Crysis 1 seemed to translate pretty well on console. Not 100% the same, but for the most part its the same game.

Crysis 1 on consoles was only possible for the reasons I iterated prior... And the game was indeed poorer for it.

 

Mr Puggsly said:

I agree Crysis 2 was designed to function well on consoles and it appears they were treated as lead platforms. This also meant Crysis 2 worked better with dated specs. However, the game is also a product of its time in game design. EA and Crytek were likely motivated to make it a more linear experience given that style of campaign was doing really well at the time. Yet the environments of Crysis 2 were still much more open than the typical FPS game. I believe Crysis 2 was trying to find a middle ground of open and linear.

And that is the reason why it was brutally shunned by the PC community. :P

Mr Puggsly said:

Crysis 1 was built for high end PCs of the time, but due to poor optimization does not function great on modern PCs. As you suggested its well beyond the capabilities of 7th gen consoles (primarily in visuals). Yet they still managed to pump out a good port for consoles of that same era. We saw this with Witcher 2 as well, that was a game people just assumed couldn't work on consoles. Its mostly visual tweaks that make these games functional on console specs. Battlefield 3/4 also come to mind, built to take advantage of PC but tweaked for consoles.

Crysis 1 doesn't perform poorly because of poor optimization though as I iterated upon prior.
It was a case that Crysis 1/CryEngine 2 was built with future hardware in mind... And it turns out Crytek was incorrect about which way hardware would go, hardware went wide, rather than higher frequency.
Crysis 2/CryEngine 3 however was built with old, antiquated hardware in mind. And that is much easier to "guess" for as the hardware actually exists.


Mr Puggsly said:

PC games you named either had good console ports eventually or the console specs of the time just were very different from PC.

Games like Doom and Quake were way ahead of consoles at the time. Morrowind had a good port. Unreal Tournament on consoles seemed to struggle with lack of RAM, especially on Dreamcast. The OG Xbox was getting good ports of games designed for PC.

... Which is exactly my point. Eventually consoles released that caught up with the PC to a degree that made those games possible.


Mr Puggsly said:

Blizzard builds games for low end PCs. Are you gonna blame 7th gen consoles for Diablo 3 playing well on low end PCs?

It is well known even during the early years of Diablo 3's development cycle that it was console-optimized.
Overwatch also took note of consoles as well.

Games like WarCraft and StarCraft however may not be very GPU intensive... But they tend be significantly heavy on the CPU all things considered.


Mr Puggsly said:

Anywho, developers design games in mind for cheap specs (PC or console) because that's what the average consumer will buy. So your arguments of limitless potential on PC don't matter, developers don't focus solely on high end rigs. SOME developers do focus on high end machines, but there are valid argument why they don't.

It's not just GPU speed. It's memory capacity. It's bandwidth. It's CPU processing.
Even the lowest end PC's can eclipse a consoles total memory and bandwidth capacity, let alone dwarf it in the CPU department.

Plus like Crysis 1, developers will sometimes build their games for future hardware, not current hardware.

The fact is... If a game is built for the PC... It can have a world size and a level of simulation that is simply impossible on Consoles. - There is actually one such PC game trending along that path right now.

Crysis didn't just scaling options, DF had examples of less demanding effects during gameplay (versus cutscenes) to reduce load. Therefore some effects were scaled back entirely even though this was a product designed for future specs as well.

Again, developers don't just make games for the highest end PCs. PC gaming is not synonymous with most powerful gaming devices, its a wide range of specs. Its unlikely a game would have to be entirely rebuilt to function on a console, unless the consoles specs are really low. For example numerous high end PC games worked on OG Xbox in the early 2000s with tweaks, as opposed to being rebuilt entirely. That includes games like Half Life 2 and Doom 3. The OG Xbox could handle the engines, but really struggled with large levels and assets. Doom 3 for example changes to the level design and lower quality assets, but that was the same engine.

Crysis 1 is also a game that didn't need to be rebuilt entirely for consoles, it was mostly tweaks and the updated Cryengine. I'm not arguing its the best way to experience Crysis 1, but a viable product.

We both agree on reasons Crysis 2 was poorly received by some. But as an FPS game, it was still better than most sold well.

I'd argue Crysis 2 was better optimized, more efficient, it also took advantage of more modern specs that weren't theoretical. There certainly was a focus on consoles but ambitious PC visuals were a huge priority and still looks impressive today.

But of all the 90s games you mentioned, Quake 1 was really the only game truly punching above consoles for years to come. It wasn't until Dreamcast that a console could easily handle Quake, but by then they pushed Quake 3 on Dreamcast and that was a respectable port that ran the actual engine. Hence, around 2000 the PC and console gap was getting smaller in the sense PC and console games were at least running the same engines.

I believe Blizzard's strategy has generally been make games that function well on a potato. Less barrier to entry means more potential players. Diablo 3 didn't just work well on consoles, it worked well on PCs that were below 7th gen consoles. Meanwhile there are arguments that Crysis 1's demanding requirements deterred people from buying that game.

The average PC audience focused game simply isn't pushing consoles out of the water in bandwidth, AI, etc. Its mostly in the GPU department and achieving higher frame rates, so visual fidelity and responsiveness. You may have examples of PC games that simply wouldn't work on consoles, I would simply argue its rare.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 26 June 2018

Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)