Crysis Cost $22M To Make!

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)

Then there's something wrong with your PC not the game.

Edit: Nevermind, noticed what CPU you're using. Its your own fault TBH.
 
Really as they developed a good engien from it some developers will most probably use it and have to pay Crytek for a developers kit and the liscence to use it. So its more of a long term investment.
 
Then there's something wrong with your PC not the game.

What exactly? It plays Mass Effect, COD4, gears of war, bioshock etc on their respective highest settings flawlessly. Crysis is a resource hog, i like high frame rates the combination of the two resulted in me having to run it at lower settings. I did try it set to high and it looked stunning, but the frame rate hovered around the 20-30 mark which was just too low for me in a FPS.

Edit: Nevermind, noticed what CPU you're using. Its your own fault TBH.

I fail to see how, i heeded the recommended specifications on the box, my system met them.
 
What exactly? It plays Mass Effect, COD4, gears of war, bioshock etc on their respective highest settings flawlessly. Crysis is a resource hog, i like high frame rates the combination of the two resulted in me having to run it at lower settings. I did try it set to high and it looked stunning, but the frame rate hovered around the 20-30 mark which was just too low for me in a FPS.

This is Crysis not Counter Strike Source.
 
What exactly? It plays Mass Effect, COD4, gears of war, bioshock etc on their respective highest settings flawlessly. Crysis is a resource hog, i like high frame rates the combination of the two resulted in me having to run it at lower settings. I did try it set to high and it looked stunning, but the frame rate hovered around the 20-30 mark which was just too low for me in a FPS.



I fail to see how, i heeded the recommended specifications on the box, my system met them.

You're posting on an Overclocking forum and you're reading the back of boxes to see if your computer can run it? Get with the times and upgrade your CPU.
 
Seeing as a studio license for their engine probably costs atleast $1M, i'm sure they're doing fine. Halo 3 cost more than $60M to develop.
 
You're posting on an Overclocking forum and you're reading the back of boxes to see if your computer can run it? Get with the times and upgrade your CPU.

I'm posting on a gaming forum, the overclocking section is elsewhere, i don't see why i should have to have a top end system purely to discuss games. I also don't see why i should overhaul my system for one decidedly average, poorly optimized game when every other game i've tried runs perfectly (see above for the list). There is clearly something wrong with crysis when you see its own developers talking about how the next title will be 'fixed'.
 
I'm posting on a gaming forum, the overclocking section is elsewhere, i don't see why i should have to have a top end system purely to discuss games. I also don't see why i should overhaul my system for one decidedly average, poorly optimized game when every other game i've tried runs perfectly (see above for the list).

You're trying to play a game that's pushed the boundaries in all parts of the engine, and you're expecting it to run above medium on an ageing rig. That's the problem.

They said it would be more optimized for older rigs. Don't go pulling your Dx10 options out just yet. You'll probably get a few frames increase, but you'll still be on medium or below.
 
$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).

In comparison:

GRID cost £12 million
GTA4 was over $100 million
Tomb Raider Legend £25 million
Call of Duty 2 £4 million

not sure i know many others.. But on the sale of an average $35 game:

$5 goes to a publisher
$3 on manufacturing and distribution
$27 retail costs
 
For all the ******* and whining crytek did about pc piracy id love to find out how much in total theyve made back on crysis. If they made around double their money back thats pretty good for a pc game.

Also find it amusing they whined about piracy after releasing crysis like before its release they ever knew it existed. :rolleyes:

Id like to see the rest of the crysis trilogy but crytek crying and threatening not to stay pc exclusive doesnt help matters, last i read theyre using warhead as a benchmark to see if staying pc exclusive is worth their while.
 
In comparison:

GRID cost £12 million
GTA4 was over $100 million
Tomb Raider Legend £25 million
Call of Duty 2 £4 million

not sure i know many others.. But on the sale of an average $35 game:

$5 goes to a publisher
$3 on manufacturing and distribution
$27 retail costs

I think those costs are way off (other than GTA4). For example; GRID cost about $13 million...
 
I wonder how many more crysis would have sold without the borked engine that crytek themselves have stated needs some "fairly profound fixes".
 
For all the ******* and whining crytek did about pc piracy id love to find out how much in total theyve made back on crysis. If they made around double their money back thats pretty good for a pc game.

Also find it amusing they whined about piracy after releasing crysis like before its release they ever knew it existed. :rolleyes:

Id like to see the rest of the crysis trilogy but crytek crying and threatening not to stay pc exclusive doesnt help matters, last i read theyre using warhead as a benchmark to see if staying pc exclusive is worth their while.

Nope. Warhead is the last PC exclusive game because there's no time to port it to consoles anyway. All other projects going forward will have PC and console versions, no matter how good the Warhead sales are.
 
Back
Top Bottom