Crysis Cost $22M To Make!

AWPC · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:15

http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/crysisbudgetrevealed.shtml

Yet they still made a profit on it. Bet the gameplay budget was around 50p

iBot · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:25

quite cheap for a game.

shame it sucked

scorza · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:26

$22m doesn't seem all that much to me, considering the length of time to develop it. Plus if they sold 1m units in the first 3 months then that's what $40-50m in sales (I know - the publishers will take a massive cut, but still).

Amnesia · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:34

$22m seems quite a lot to me but i know nothing of games budgets...but if they still made a profit why were they moaning ?

snowdog · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:36

AWPC said:
Bet the gameplay budget was around 50p

I agree, and then still whining about piracy for the apparent ''bad sales''.

XPE · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:37

This will most likely cover the cost of developing the engine for the game as well.

snowdog · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:38

XPE said:
This will most likely cover the cost of developing the engine for the game as well.

If so, then it's not surprising it runs so ****.

SkeeterUK · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:45

Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

mr.sly · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:46

SkeeterPSA said:
Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

People's butts still hurt.

Teaf · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:48

SkeeterPSA said:
Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

Yeah but it should have ran a lot better than it did, even Crytek said it wasn't optimised well enough.

NokkonWud · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:48

$22m is what I would expect really. Even the very lowest quality games cost ~$1m.

Monkeynut · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:50

memory said:
$22m seems quite a lot to me but i know nothing of games budgets...but if they still made a profit why were they moaning ?

Because they are greedy and want MOAR! (that's what happens when you associate with EA)

XPE said:
This will most likely cover the cost of developing the engine for the game as well.

Well it wasn't made from scratch, it is an updated CryENGINE 1 from Far Cry remember?

fail at the internets · 25 Aug 2008 at 16:58

SkeeterPSA said:
Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

The graphics aren't even that much better than other games..

helmutcheese · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:01

SkeeterPSA said:
Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

You obv did not read anything before launch.

NokkonWud · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:02

Monkeynut said:
Because they are greedy and want MOAR! (that's what happens when you associate with EA)

Because some developers don't want to make any money.
EA are fine.

Monkeynut · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:04

NokkonWud said:
Because some developers don't want to make any money.
EA are fine.

You didn't read the hint of sarcasm in my post?

snowdog · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:05

SkeeterPSA said:
Why does everyone think crysis would run maxed out with 60fps etc? They told everyone its made so it wont run on current hardware fantastic but it was made so future hardware would run it smooth and high fps with maxed out details.

No, one guy even claimed it ran fine on high an a 1950xt before release...
Also the whole dx10 thing was rubbish.
Also forget 60 fps, in the ice level you won't even get 20 fps on ''high'', never mind ''maxed out/very high'' on a g80...

Monkeynut · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:13

snowdog said:
No, one guy even claimed it ran fine on high an a 1950xt before release...
Also the whole dx10 thing was rubbish.
Also forget 60 fps, in the ice level you won't even get 20 fps on ''high'', never mind ''maxed out/very high'' on a g80...

Apart from Assassins Creed with the performance boost it had in 10.1 (before they "fixed" it) there hasn't been anything worth shouting about that DirectX 9 can't do really. Roll on OpenGL 3 and DirectX 11!

willhub · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:20

fail at the internets said:
The graphics aren't even that much better than other games..

Give an example? Graphics in crysis are far ahead of most games, such as COD4. I LOL'd when someone claimed COD4 had better graphics than Crysis

.

Streeteh · 25 Aug 2008 at 17:25

willhub said:
Give an example? Graphics in crysis are far ahead of most games, such as COD4. I LOL'd when someone claimed COD4 had better graphics than Crysis .

If you take graphics to performance ratio into account then imo COD4 comes out on top. It's all very well a game looking fantastic but if the framerate plummets as soon as something remotely interesting happens it ruins the whole feel of the game. In order to get frame rates even comparable to COD4 on max settings i had to set crysis to medium/low and THEN it looked worse than COD4.

It's all very well saying its the best looking game ever, it is, but that's useless if you can't actually play it looking that good.

(this is on a 8800GT and opty 175 running at 2.8ghz, more than sufficient according to their min specs)