Crysis 2 Retail Benchmarked

[Lonbjerg]

I haven't tried looking for Crysis 1 / Warhead vs. Crysis 2 sales #s, but take a look at this instead:

PC Sales of Crysis 2 - Week 1
Americas = 46,057
EMEAA = 57,316
Worldwide Total = 103,373

PC Sales of Crysis 2 - Week 2
Americas = 12,131
EMEAA = 18,556
Worldwide Total = 30,687

Now after 2 weeks of Sales, Crysis 2 has only sold 134,060 units on the PC.

Let's look at all platforms after 2 weeks.

PC = 134,060 (13.3% of Total)
Xbox360 = 537,066
PS3 = 339,600
Total = 1,010,726

Ya, that's even worse than my rough 20% estimate. Clearly, this only highlights why most developers could care less about the PC. If the Wii was a more powerful system, they'd net more sales on the Wii than the PC. From a business point of view, it just doesn't make any sense to put extra effort into a PC game (unless it has a massive online following such as Battlefield, WOW, Starcraft series, or has a mass appeal factor such as the Sims, etc.).

Crytek could have invested $10 million into making the game better looking, but look at the amount of risk vs. reward given the unpredictable nature of PC gamers' purchasing decisions. Crysis 2 may not be as good as the first game, but looking at the sales #s, it looks like a game that got a review of 5/10.

There are only 3 PC games in the top 50 best selling videogames. These are The Sims (#22), World of Warcraft (#30) and Starcraft 1 (#35). We should be happy as it is that Microsoft or Sony didn't make Crysis a console exclusive, yet. It is no surprise then that developers spend less and less time on catering specifically to PC hardware.

You are forgetting one important factor here:

Serve a console port DX9 I.Q. game to PC gamers, when you promised a "love-to-PC-Game" = PC people don't buy it.

In short...your analyze is way to simplified.

 

[Silverforce11]

BF:BC2 was available for consoles as well. Guess what? It sold very well for the PC version (top of steam for a few weeks at release) and the players online is just as many or more than the console.

Spend a bit of extra effort to make the game better on the PC and consumers will reward your effort.

When BF3 hits i have no doubts its going to be a huge PC hit as well as doing great on consoles.

 

[-Slacker-]

So how many copies of crysis1 were sold in the first 2 weeks world wide?

 

[RussianSensation]

BF:BC2 was available for consoles as well. Guess what? It sold very well for the PC version (top of steam for a few weeks at release) and the players online is just as many or more than the console.

Ok, but do you know how many copies of BF:BC2 sold on consoles? It still did extremely well on consoles.

Total PC retail sales (not including digital): 606,839
Grossing up for ~50% digital sales: 1.2 million

PS3 = 2.2 million
Xbox360 = 2.9 million

Even if we assume that BF:BC2 sold 5 million copies on the PC, it sold at least that much on consoles. The point is, console gaming sales are far more important to most developers than PC gaming sales. For each Halo or Black Ops, you'd need to make 10 top PC games to equal the revenue. It is very expensive to create top exclusive PC games.

The point is, outside of massively online multiplayer games, and 2-3 key shooters like Team Fortress 2, L4D2 or BF:BC2, some real time strategy games like Starcraft 2, PC gaming sales pale in comparison to console sales when comparing sales of the same game across multiple platforms.

You are forgetting one important factor here:

Serve a console port DX9 I.Q. game to PC gamers, when you promised a "love-to-PC-Game" = PC people don't buy it.

In short...your analyze is way to simplified.

That's exactly my point. It's DX9 because Crytek is concerned about making $, not making sure you are maxing out your GTX580. Perhaps they actually decided to make the game more catered towards console gamers on purpose to make more $ from console sales at the expense of PC game sales. Still, look at the state of PC gaming at the moment. Sure we have the developers of BF3 who are willing to spend a lot of $$$ to cater the game for the PC. Outside of that, most of the games are cross-platform (Dirt 3, Deus Ex, Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood). Until next generation of consoles is released, I don't see how it would be financially viable for anyone but the very top publishers+developers to spend a lot of $ on creating PC exclusives (esp. with the best graphics). It's simply too expensive since the sales are not shared across multiple platforms to justify the additional artistic / development costs.

It's just a shame that new gen of consoles is so far away still.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ok, but do you know how many copies of BF:BC2 sold on consoles? It still did extremely well on consoles.

Total PC retail sales (not including digital): 606,839
Grossing up for ~50% digital sales: 1.2 million

PS3 = 2.2 million
Xbox360 = 2.9 million

The point is, outside of massively online multiplayer games, and 2-3 key shooters like Team Fortress 2, L4D2 or BF:BC2, some real time strategy games like Starcraft 2, PC gaming sales pale in comparison to console sales when comparing the same cross-platform game.



That's exactly my point. It's DX9 because Crytek is concerned about making $, not making sure you are maxing out your GTX580. Perhaps they actually decided to make the game more catered towards console gamers on purpose to make more $ from console sales at the expense of PC game sales. Still, look at the state of PC gaming at the moment. Sure we have the developers of BF3 who are willing to spend a lot of $$$ to cater the game for the PC. Outside of that, most of the games are cross-platform (Dirt 3, Deus Ex, Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood). Until next generation of consoles is released, I don't see how it would be financially viable for anyone but the very top publishers+developers to spent a lot of $ on creating PC exclusives with the best graphics. It's simply too expensive since the sales are not shared across multiple platforms to justify the additional artistic / development costs.

You sound surprised that when you make a crappy port, PC gamers don't buy it?

 

[RussianSensation]

You sound surprised that when you make a crappy port, PC gamers don't buy it?

BF:BC2 is a crappy port? I think you missed my point entirely. I am not discussing whether or not Crysis 2 is a great game. I am discussing that only 3 of the top 50 best selling games of all time are PC games. Hence, it's not financially viable for most developers to spend millions of dollars to make sure a cross-platform game has the best graphics on the PC. If they were to make a game so graphically intensive today, the consoles won't be able to run it. Therefore, they would have only realized the benefit of that additional investment on the PC. Unfortunately, PC gaming sales are not large enough for most games to warrant such an investment. This is why when the next generation of consoles arrives, we should see a significant increase in the level of graphics on the PC. From a profitability perspective, it made perfect sense for Crytek to make a DX9/10 game and then take NV's $2 million dollars to add DX11, without having to use their own budget. This is why we are getting the patch.

 

[Lonbjerg]

BF:BC2 is a crappy port?

I know I am biased here (being an avid Arma/ArmaII player here)...but yes.

It's a shooter-on-rails with dumb spawnpoints...nothing "unique" about...except it's the "FOTM".

But people know what to expect there...CryTek took a dumb on PC gamers with Crysis 2.

But nice fallacy.

 

[Grooveriding]

What if when you use this DX11 Patch Crysis 2 runs at 30fps or less. I bet you would be kicking yourself for waiting lol especially if the visual quality doesn't improve much.

What kind of performance are you expecting to see with DX11 with Extreme Quality?

It depends. If they release a tiny patch that opens up the DX11 pathway and enables some useless extreme tesselation, not much improvement.

If they release a large patch with, most importantly, improved textures and make use of the lighting, displacement and multi threaded abilities of dx11m I expect a major improvement.

With the $2 million nvidia threw at Crytek I'm sure I'll get a decent framerate. In the state the game is in now I get as high as 150fps in the game so there is a lot of performance to get eaten up.

I would also like to get some in game destructible physics like the amazing physics engine seen in the first Crysis. Not physx mind you, but physics.

 

[-Slacker-]

So how many copies of crysis1 were sold in the first 2 weeks world wide?

 

[Aristotelian]

So how many copies of crysis1 were sold in the first 2 weeks world wide?

"According to The simExchange, the NPD Group reported that Crysis moved 86,633 retail units in the first two weeks of its release in North America[32], but while it beat their expectations, the sales were considered overall disappointing.[33] Two months later, on Electronic Arts earnings conference of the quarter, it was reported that Crysis has reached the 1 million units mark, and that it has exceeded their expectations.[34]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis

There is further information there related to your question, but it's tough to find the total sales figures by location.

 

[-Slacker-]

There is further information there related to your question, but it's tough to find the total sales figures by location.

Yeah, I couldn't find any either except the us sales from the first 2 weeks and world wide after a month.

I'm asking because, if the first crysis sold significantly better for PC than crysis2, that could confirm lonjberg's hypothesis that pc gamers felt insulted and that they've been pissed on, which is why a lot fewer people bought the game for pc.

 

[Grooveriding]

Yeah, I couldn't find any either except the us sales from the first 2 weeks and world wide after a month.

I'm asking because, if the first crysis sold significantly better for PC than crysis2, that could confirm lonjberg's hypothesis that pc gamers felt insulted and that they've been pissed on, which is why a lot fewer people bought the game for pc.

Crysis cost $22 million to develop. But it still turned a profit.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/899/899976p1.html?RSSwhen2008-08-19_031400&RSSid=899976

I wonder how much Crysis 2 cost to develop.

 

[badb0y]

I was going to by Crysis 2 but then I didn't because I was disappointed in the way it looked, I may buy it down the road just to play it but I am not supporting CryTek for going backwards in visuals. I didn't buy a 6950 so I can have similar graphics to my PS3.

 

[nemesismk2]

It depends. If they release a tiny patch that opens up the DX11 pathway and enables some useless extreme tesselation, not much improvement.

If they release a large patch with, most importantly, improved textures and make use of the lighting, displacement and multi threaded abilities of dx11m I expect a major improvement.

With the $2 million nvidia threw at Crytek I'm sure I'll get a decent framerate. In the state the game is in now I get as high as 150fps in the game so there is a lot of performance to get eaten up.

I would also like to get some in game destructible physics like the amazing physics engine seen in the first Crysis. Not physx mind you, but physics.

I don't get 150fps with Crysis 2 with my 5770 and if this DX 11 patch uses extreme tesselation then I will be @{£$%. Hopefully the DX11 patch will give you everything you want though.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I was going to by Crysis 2 but then I didn't because I was disappointed in the way it looked, I may buy it down the road just to play it but I am not supporting CryTek for going backwards in visuals. I didn't buy a 6950 so I can have similar graphics to my PS3.

This is very much the same feelings as myself and & others I know in RL who have good setups.

 

[railven]

BF:BC2 is a crappy port? I think you missed my point entirely. I am not discussing whether or not Crysis 2 is a great game. I am discussing that only 3 of the top 50 best selling games of all time are PC games. Hence, it's not financially viable for most developers to spend millions of dollars to make sure a cross-platform game has the best graphics on the PC. If they were to make a game so graphically intensive today, the consoles won't be able to run it. Therefore, they would have only realized the benefit of that additional investment on the PC. Unfortunately, PC gaming sales are not large enough for most games to warrant such an investment. This is why when the next generation of consoles arrives, we should see a significant increase in the level of graphics on the PC. From a profitability perspective, it made perfect sense for Crytek to make a DX9/10 game and then take NV's $2 million dollars to add DX11, without having to use their own budget. This is why we are getting the patch.

And I refute this with Metro 2033.

Console version (Xbox360) runs fine and looks great for a console game.
PC version devours your hardware and looks batshizz amazing if you have the hardware.

I believe the guys that made Metro 2033 (forgot their name, spawn from Stalker dudes) is way smaller than Crytek yet, they managed to pull it off. Crytek guys - couldn't? Gah!?

 

[railven]

Why don't you just play through it like you did with Dragon Age II before the in-game driver performance fix was released?

I'd argue the difference is no one would buy Dragon Age 2 for its graphics, but everyone was expecting to buy Crysis 2 for its graphics.

I don't recall Crysis having an engrossing story that deemed multiple play throughs. Frankly, I found it awful and just eye candy. Seems part 2 is better in story and lacks the tech that one did.

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwaCQHZV41A&feature=BF&list=WLEF6864282728DA67&index=2

Here is a cool comparison of Crysis 2 to Crysis & Warhead.

Even in this brief youtube vid you can see how far the Crysis 2 apple fell from the Crysis 1 tree

 

[badb0y]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwaCQHZV41A&feature=BF&list=WLEF6864282728DA67&index=2

Here is a cool comparison of Crysis 2 to Crysis & Warhead.

Even in this brief youtube vid you can see how far the Crysis 2 apple fell from the Crysis 1 tree

After watching the video I fired up Crysis 1 again, good times.

 

[toyota]

there is something terribly wrong with with the cpu numbers at techspot. like I mentioned earlier if an 8500 could only average 23fps then people would be complaining all over the place about that. heck the majority of people playing that game probably don't even have a cpu that fast.

well a guy on another forum did some benchmarks with his stock E8400 and sure enough it blows those pitiful 23 fps numbers out of the water. even with a 6950 unlocked to 6970 his results are much better than they showed with the E8500 and gtx590.

these were on extreme settings and 1920x1200 just like at techspot. he also lowered the res to show even at 3.0 he was not fully cpu limited either.



Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1280x960"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 32.589600
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 61.369270
MemoryWorkingSet = 1186
MemoryPageFile = 1302
MemoryPageFaults = 941684
Benchmark ended

Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1920x1200"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 39.299587
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 50.891117
MemoryWorkingSet = 1209
MemoryPageFile = 1318
MemoryPageFaults = 1349707
Benchmark ended

 

[WMD]

there is something terribly wrong with with the cpu numbers at techspot. like I mentioned earlier if an 8500 could only average 23fps then people would be complaining all over the place about that. heck the majority of people playing that game probably don't even have a cpu that fast.

well a guy on another forum did some benchmarks with his stock E8400 and sure enough it blows those pitiful 23 fps numbers out of the water. even with a 6950 unlocked to 6970 his results are much better than they showed with the E8500 and gtx590.

these were on extreme settings and 1920x1200 just like at techspot. he also lowered the res to show even at 3.0 he was not fully cpu limited either.



Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1280x960"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 32.589600
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 61.369270
MemoryWorkingSet = 1186
MemoryPageFile = 1302
MemoryPageFaults = 941684
Benchmark ended

Setting "User/Graphic Options/resolution" => "1920x1200"
****************************************************
Benchmark started: benchmark.cfg
****************************************************
PlayTime = 39.299587
FrameCount = 2000
AverageFps = 50.891117
MemoryWorkingSet = 1209
MemoryPageFile = 1318
MemoryPageFaults = 1349707
Benchmark ended

Same findings here. No problems running the crysis2 above 60fps on my secondary rig with a E8400 at 4.2ghz. In fact I was surprised how well it held up compared to my main rig with a sandybridge i5 2500k. Most games I play still doing fine on the core2 duo.

This is not the first time that review site produced results vastly different from what I tested at home. Their Black ops cpu and gpu benchmarks were way off as well.

Btw I can never understand the logic of some hardware enthusiasts. When a game can run at max fps on a dual core cpu, they call it old and unoptimized. When another game runs ok on a quad and unplayable on dual core, they call the engine advanced and optimized. In fact most of the time it is simply bad coding porting over from console. Example Bad company 2.

 

[Aristotelian]

It depends. If they release a tiny patch that opens up the DX11 pathway and enables some useless extreme tesselation, not much improvement.

If they release a large patch with, most importantly, improved textures and make use of the lighting, displacement and multi threaded abilities of dx11m I expect a major improvement.

With the $2 million nvidia threw at Crytek I'm sure I'll get a decent framerate. In the state the game is in now I get as high as 150fps in the game so there is a lot of performance to get eaten up.

I would also like to get some in game destructible physics like the amazing physics engine seen in the first Crysis. Not physx mind you, but physics.

Do you play at 2560x1600, extreme settings, 4x SSAA in NV control panel? If not, could you try those settings, and let me know what your min fps is like in intense parts (such as the rooftop escape/descent bits, with the grow houses, lots of calamari flying around, sun sets/explosions and all that). I mean in the action bits, not crouching in a corner waiting for stealth to recharge. Armor up and get in there, f grab one of them and let me know how your fps does, please. At 2560x1440 I have some very noticeable fps dips (for an FPS), probably into the low 30s or high 20s, with the settings that I suggested for you to use in the first line of this post. I'm using 580s (overclocked) on air in SLI, and an overclocked 2600K.

 

[Silverforce11]

And I refute this with Metro 2033.

Console version (Xbox360) runs fine and looks great for a console game.
PC version devours your hardware and looks batshizz amazing if you have the hardware.

I believe the guys that made Metro 2033 (forgot their name, spawn from Stalker dudes) is way smaller than Crytek yet, they managed to pull it off. Crytek guys - couldn't? Gah!?

I agree with this. BC2 was also a "console port" but the devs made an effort to make the PC version superior and use the most advanced graphic features available for the time. Their extra effort was rewarded in good PC sales.

Crytek obviously thought to themselves, we can still do fine without PC sales so stuff it.

Edit: BC2 PC sold near 50-50 retail/online. Figures taken a month after release had ~600k retail copies sold. It top steam for several months and continue to sell well for months after that. In the end i would guess its near 2M+ copies. The point is yes, consoles combined outsold the PC version. But PS3 and xbox360 are entirely different platform whereas xbox360 and PC are very similar. If they put effort to make a PS3 version, they could put even less of that effort to make the PC version beefed up xbox360 graphics. That's what DICE did and not what crytek did. So crytek miss out on PC sales for being lazy.

 

[DrBoss]

I am not supporting CryTek for going backwards in visuals. I didn't buy a 6950 so I can have similar graphics to my PS3.

Owning Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and Crysis 2 i can without a doubt agree that Crysis 2 is a step backwards. Draw distance is garbage next to the original, as is texture quality, physics... sigh.

Recently i've been playing through Crysis again... great game, still the best visuals hands down.

Here's to hoping BF3's PC hype doesn't turn out to be bull$hit as well. My optimism for ID Tech 5 (Rage) is also fairly high.

 

[Grooveriding]

Do you play at 2560x1600, extreme settings, 4x SSAA in NV control panel? If not, could you try those settings, and let me know what your min fps is like in intense parts (such as the rooftop escape/descent bits, with the grow houses, lots of calamari flying around, sun sets/explosions and all that). I mean in the action bits, not crouching in a corner waiting for stealth to recharge. Armor up and get in there, f grab one of them and let me know how your fps does, please. At 2560x1440 I have some very noticeable fps dips (for an FPS), probably into the low 30s or high 20s, with the settings that I suggested for you to use in the first line of this post. I'm using 580s (overclocked) on air in SLI, and an overclocked 2600K.

Are you sure your control panel AA settings are actually applying in game ? From my reading and testing because of the way Crytek implemented the blur type console port AA in this game, custom AA settings do not apply. But I will test out SSAA.

I didn't say I get 150fps throughout, but I never see framerates like that in the original Crysis ever.

I would assume my fps would be about 30%-35% higher than what you are getting give or take.