Again, it's lazy coding more than any issues with the hardware. Just look at how a well coded PC game can run on low end machines as opposed to poorly coded (Crysis) that still can't run at full speed even on todays $10K machines.
And that has as more to do with the coding than it does with the wiz bang graphics that aren't much better (if at all) than other current games that DO run properly.
But, then again, you don't really need 1080P in animation anyway unless you're running it on a 100" + screen.
Crysis wasnt that poorly coded. I think it just had engine features that were so way ahead of its time that it didnt run well at max settings on the best cards available then. It runs at more than full speed on todays $200 cards, and I remember running it just fine on a 7600GT back in the day. Obviously I didnt have everything nearly turned all the way up, but it still ran at a decent clip at moderate settings.
Crysis is actually a very good example of a lot of what I'm talking about. Especially on today's graphics cards, but even back then, almost 3 full years, it simply blows away on a visual level what this gen of consoles is capable of. Theyre putting Crysis 2 in the city because consoles simply dont have the memory and power to handle the level of detail in the foilage and surroundings.
Its also an example of a very, very good game where the graphics and sense of realism added to the overall experience. It wouldnt have been as good if you didnt feel so immersed in the island with the level of freedom to run around the jungle like you had.
3 years ago, they were able to make a game that clearly surpassed the consoles on a visual level. According to the Crytek CEO, it cost $22 million to make. Huge number to be sure, but it was still profitable, he claims. And I see no reason to deny that. And this was on a platform plagued by piracy, for a game targeted at hardware most people didnt have at the time. They even had to develop their own engine. Compared to the 20-30 mil console installbase, their PC installbase of people with hardware that could run the game was surely a fraction of that, and an even smaller fraction of those actually paid for it, and it was STILL profitable.
If Crysis could do it 3 years ago and make money, on the PC even, why is budget now this sort of impenetrable barrier to making games with visual quality surpassing that on a 360/PS3? MW2 supposedly had an even bigger budget, but I doubt many would argue that it beats crysis on a visual level. It still turned a hefty profit. Who are these struggling companies that cant turn a profit on their games due to insane budgets? Surely it isnt Activision (Profits doubled yty in Q1) or EA (96 mil profit in Q1).
I'm genuinely interested in specific examples of games that failed to make a profit because of budget. Of GOOD games. Mediocre or poor games shouldnt be expected to do well.