Cryengine 3 PS3 & Xbox360's olive branch for Crysis

[Yew-Yevon]

Crytek GmbH: Crytek Announces CryENGINE® 3 (http://www.crytek.com/news/news/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=143&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=85ad36bfd0)

Now Those moding junkies are gana have happy hour naking user-created content for thier system

Discus

[Rostum]

Very cool. I'm also excited about the uprades to UE3.

[Yew-Yevon]

heres the demo video. http://www.mycrysis.com/filebase_redirect.php?fid=10076
I recomend converting it to a smaller size after downloading it since it's very choppy due to its large file size.

[Dreddz]

I guess thats impressive for consoles. But Cryengine 2 still looked better on a PC two years ago.

[Bolivar]

Word was Crytek had an entire team dedicated to researching the potential of the PS3, I was interested in that but still no word.

I don't think Crysis will make an appearance on consoles, although I remember you talking about that some months back, Yu-Yevon, so you'd probably know more about it than me.

This will be interesting though since Unreal Tournament III has had a lot of success getting mods onto the PS3, even before the Titan Pack (which is awesome). I would like Crytek to allow something similar. Actually, what I would like most is the Goldeneye: Source mod to make it onto a console somehow. Valve should step their game up on the PS3 since it's not that hard to do what Epic did for UTIII.

[Slothy]

I guess thats impressive for consoles. But Cryengine 2 still looked better on a PC two years ago.

Not for most people it didn't. The majority of gamers still don't have PC's that can run Crysis full spec in anything resembling a playable form. Making a great looking engine optimized for consoles is a much better move on their part from the stand point of actually selling their games and convincing other developers to license it.

And I will bet money Bolivar that we'll never see Valve make a big push on the PS3. Aside from them still having a great deal of faith in the PC market, Gabe Newell hates the PS3.

[Bolivar]

^ That's true - I actually heard people who had top gaming rigs at the time couldn't even get it to play at a satisfactory rate.

Also, that sucks about Gabe Newell, but I think he's behind the times on that one. Many third party developers have stated that once they learned to develop on the PS3 they loved it (Ubisoft Montreal w/ Far Cry 2, EA, Lucas Arts), some even starting developing for multiplatforms on it. Guerilla Games stated about Killzone 2 that the architecture is just different than other consoles, but not hard to develop for, going as far as saying that it's easier to develop on the PS3 due to SPU's and a bunch of other things I know nothing about.

[Shoeberto]

Making a great looking engine optimized for consoles is a much better move on their part from the stand point of actually selling their games and convincing other developers to license it.
If they would've gone with that from the very beginning, though - a great looking engine that's actually optimized for current hardware, period - they wouldn't have gotten into the position they did. Crytek said that rampant piracy is leading them to never making PC exclusives again, but seriously, you can't blame people. Who wants to blow $50 on a game they won't be able to play well for three years? Not to mention the gameplay itself isn't that great.

I have a lot of beef with Crytek. I wish them well with this new endeavor, but for as much as they try to futureproof their software, they aren't very forward-thinking with regard to their customer base.

[Slothy]

Making a great looking engine optimized for consoles is a much better move on their part from the stand point of actually selling their games and convincing other developers to license it.
If they would've gone with that from the very beginning, though - a great looking engine that's actually optimized for current hardware, period - they wouldn't have gotten into the position they did. Crytek said that rampant piracy is leading them to never making PC exclusives again, but seriously, you can't blame people. Who wants to blow $50 on a game they won't be able to play well for three years? Not to mention the gameplay itself isn't that great.

I have a lot of beef with Crytek. I wish them well with this new endeavor, but for as much as they try to futureproof their software, they aren't very forward-thinking with regard to their customer base.

Too true. I think the worst part about the whole Crysis debacle is that it's still sometimes difficult to run it at the highest settings and get more than about 45 frames per second on average at a decent resolution. It's certainly playable like that, but it still costs more than most gamers want to pay and there's no guarantee. I've seen all sorts of weird things happen to that game in bench marks like performance dropping to nothing on multiple systems. It seems more prone than any game I know of to being ruined by a bad driver update, which shouldn't be surprising given those kind of low margins for a frame rate drop.

I'm all for pushing gaming technology forward, but the better approach probably would have been to implement some of the engines features at the time, then add on to it as time went on the way most companies do to take advantage of new graphics technology. Making a game that's main selling point was looks and ensuring no one can play it at it's best was just plain bad business. Hopefully they see success with this new engine because they certainly push the technological envelope and I like seeing what they bring to the table there.