Crysis 2 Retail Benchmarked

[Zanovar]

i bit the bullet and got this game,and im enjoying it so far,its obvious some lvls had a lot more love than others(graphics quality,textures etc)as some parts of the game are stunning.this is even on very high setting as on extreme i was getting too much dips in fps,60 constant on very high.not a patch on crysis 1 and warhead though.

 

[Skurge]

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.



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.

Im sorry, but BC2 couldn't have only sold 1.2million copies. How does that explain this?

Global PC Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
2 663 410
Players online:
17 059
Servers:
6 685

Global XBOX360 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
2 967 234
Players online:
11 531
Servers:
4 533

Global PS3 Statistics

Players at bfbcs:
2 379 588
Players online:
14 432
Servers:
3 983

There are 2.6million PC players registered.

BC2 has been on steam's top 10 list for like a year straight. I got my copy from the EA store.

 

[Jacky60]

I think we all feel a bit let down and rightly so. Crysis set the bar very high and the need to include console gamers meant they could get away with lowering the bar substantially. I stayed in a hotel in Rio De Janeiro and having never been to South America was amazed looking at the beautiful vegetation from my hotel room window in the morning. What did it look like? It looked like Crysis! Gameplay is THE most important factor for me in PC gaming BUT graphics and a really good looking game are a close second and what I need to justify my constant upgrading to my girlfriend.
When she sees Arma 2 on screen she stays to watch because it looks real.
I play Arma 2 and recently re-tried BF2 Project reality after 2 years of not playing it as my main rigs memory crapped out. Using a pretty crap Athlon 3800 x2 system.
I really found it hard to believe I used to enjoy it so much because compared to Arma 2 it felt like going back to the dark ages. The gameplay was great but having experienced the truth, the light and the way I could not go back to worshipping a turd.

 

[RussianSensation]

There are 2.6million PC players registered.

Ya, as I said even if BF:BC2 sold as many copies as it did on the consoles, it's still only 1/3 of the market. That's one of the top selling PC games last year too. And it happens to be a popular online game (as I mentioned games with a huge online fan following for series like Starcraft 2, WOW, BF series sell well on the PC). What about the other 95% of PC games?

My point was that for most developers PC sales are a very small portion of their total sales for a cross-platform game. Therefore, it doesn't make financial sense to invest millions of dollars into making the PC version the best looking game. If NV didn't pony up $2 million, we may not even have seen the DX11 patch for Crysis 2 at all. That's all I am saying. There are few exceptions here in there like Metro 2033, but more or less most cross-platform games are ports.

Look at Need for Speed Shift 2 Unleashed. Its graphics are not superior to Forza or Gran Turismo. Yet, they should be many times better given the PC hardware available. This is just another example of developers not investing extra $ into graphics development since the additional investment won't be spread across the 3 main platforms (PC, 360 and PS3).

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

It could of been great. Crysis 2 in the end failed miserably.


BF3 is the last hope for us.

Can't this Crysis 2 nonsense die already. It is what it is. Either you are for it or against it. In the end it's just another game among hundreds of others. Nothing special.

 

[Skurge]

Ya, as I said even if BF:BC2 sold as many copies as it did on the consoles, it's still only 1/3 of the market. That's one of the top selling PC games last year too. And it happens to be a popular online game (as I mentioned games with a huge online fan following for series like Starcraft 2, WOW, BF series sell well on the PC). What about the other 95% of PC games?

My point was that for most developers PC sales are a very small portion of their total sales for a cross-platform game. Therefore, it doesn't make financial sense to invest millions of dollars into making the PC version the best looking game. If NV didn't pony up $2 million, we may not even have seen the DX11 patch for Crysis 2 at all. That's all I am saying. There are few exceptions here in there like Metro 2033, but more or less most cross-platform games are ports.

Look at Need for Speed Shift 2 Unleashed. Its graphics are not superior to Forza or Gran Turismo. Yet, they should be many times better given the PC hardware available. This is just another example of developers not investing extra $ into graphics development since the additional investment won't be spread across the 3 main platforms (PC, 360 and PS3).

33% of all sales is a lot especially when consoles sales are PS3 and 360 combined. Im sure ANY dev would take spending a few million dollers to get 33% more sales. Obviously it worked for DICE as they are doing the same with BF3. So I don't agree that its not worth spending the extra cash to improve PC games over the console games.

Racing fans aren't as strict over graphics as FPS players are, but for graphics, just look at codemasters. All their games have sold extremely well on PC. I don't know how well compared to consoles, but most sales never include DD so I guess we'll never know. Dirt 3 is looking great and will come with DX11 out of the box.

 

[RussianSensation]

33% of all sales is a lot especially when consoles sales are PS3 and 360 combined. Im sure ANY dev would take spending a few million dollers to get 33% more sales.

That's 1 game. Look at Call of Duty series for example. They outsell PC version 15-20:1. So the 33% is best case scenario. Also, BF series would have sold even if it didn't have the best graphics simply based on its gameplay. So if BF:BC2 would have sold 33% of total sales, spending $10M extra on even better graphics may only have brought another 5% boost in sales.

Look at almost any other cross-platform games. Call of Duty series, Assassin's Creed series, Dead Space and Mass Effect series, GTAIV, Dragon Age 2, Dirt 2, all NFS series. They look better on the PC but not mind-blowingly better. Sure, the textures are sharper and all (and you get to apply AA/AF), but at the end of the day all of those games are console ports (because financially it makes the most sense from a developer's point of view). And it will continue to be that way for most games until next generation of consoles elevates the available hardware horsepower. BTW, Dice has acknowledged in an interview that BF3 will look just as impressive on consoles due to the scalability of the engine. So it's more of a testament to how good Dice's development team is rather than the horsepower of PC hardware available.

If Crysis 1 was originally a cross-platform game, it would have never looked as good as it did. I am 100% certain of that. Because it was developed for the PC from the ground-up, Crytek never had to worry about making the game playable on 7950GT level of hardware. What's going to make BF3 so great are the EA sports character animation/physics. This will add significant amount of realism to the game. However, strictly speaking from a graphical point of view, I doubt it will top Crysis 1.

You probably know that GTX480 is ~ 10x faster than a 7900GTX (Xbox360). Yet, PC games don't even look twice as good as cross-platform console games. So clearly, consoles are holding PC graphics back. Crysis 2 is just another example of that. If you look at games like God of War 3 or Killzone series on the consoles, the best looking PC games are not much better. How can that be when we have 10x the graphics horsepower available?

 

[toyota]

I thought this thread was about benchmarks and performance, lol.

RussianSensation, did you even see the E8400 benches I posted that shows something is WAY off with the techspot numbers?

 

[railven]

That's 1 game. Look at Call of Duty series for example. They outsell PC version 15-20:1.

Where are you getting these numbers from? And is this before or after IW created a rift with their PC demograph by removing dedicated servers?

 

[railven]

If Crysis 1 was originally a cross-platform game, it would have never looked as good as it did. I am 100% certain of that. Because it was developed for the PC from the ground-up, Crytek never had to worry about making the game playable on 7950GT level of hardware. If you really want to push the envelope on the PC, you pretty much have to develop 2 separate sets of art for the game since the consoles simply won't be able to play the game at that level.

To your ninja edit:

Explain Metro 2033. Cross platform from day 1. Still looks amazing on PC.

 

[RussianSensation]

I thought this thread was about benchmarks and performance, lol.

RussianSensation, did you even see the E8400 benches I posted that shows something is WAY off with the techspot numbers?

Yes, I did. You were right on then when you called their numbers way off. Good to know your E8400 is still kicking some butt. I am thinking you'll be migrating to Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge though. Perhaps BF3 will be your calling card. :awe:

To your ninja edit:

Explain Metro 2033. Cross platform from day 1. Still looks amazing on PC.

Have you seen Metro 2033 on the consoles? The differences in Metro 2033 on the PC are largely related to global lighting (SSAO), higher-rez textures and greater levels of details. But all in all, Metro 2033 doesn't look much different on consoles vs. PC.

^^^^ Does this look 2 times better on the PC to you?

This is exactly the same as in Crysis 2 on the PC vs. 360. The PC version has better textures, lighting and much higher level of details, but it doesn't wow you in any way.

Consider that GTX480 is 10x faster than a 7900GTX. We should expect to see these type of difference between consoles and PCs in 2011:

vs.

OR

vs.

So why aren't we seeing these types of differences on the PC given we have 10x as powerful hardware? Because developers don't find it economically viable to spend millions of dollars on PC development when consoles won't be able to run those games. That's why at best we get games with some DOF, SSAO and higher textures, but that's it. Fundamentally it's just a slightly better looking game, but nothing to write home about.

 

[Skurge]

That's 1 game. Look at Call of Duty series for example. They outsell PC version 15-20:1. So the 33% is best case scenario. Also, BF series would have sold even if it didn't have the best graphics simply based on its gameplay. So if BF:BC2 would have sold 33% of total sales, spending $10M extra on even better graphics may only have brought another 5% boost in sales.

Look at almost any other cross-platform games. Call of Duty series, Assassin's Creed series, Dead Space and Mass Effect series, GTAIV, Dragon Age 2, Dirt 2, all NFS series. They look better on the PC but not mind-blowingly better. Sure, the textures are sharper and all (and you get to apply AA/AF), but at the end of the day all of those games are console ports (because financially it makes the most sense from a developer's point of view). And it will continue to be that way for most games until next generation of consoles elevates the available hardware horsepower. BTW, Dice has acknowledged in an interview that BF3 will look just as impressive on consoles due to the scalability of the engine. So it's more of a testament to how good Dice's development team is rather than the horsepower of PC hardware available.

If Crysis 1 was originally a cross-platform game, it would have never looked as good as it did. I am 100% certain of that. Because it was developed for the PC from the ground-up, Crytek never had to worry about making the game playable on 7950GT level of hardware. If you really want to push the envelope on the PC, you pretty much have to develop 2 separate sets of art for the game since the consoles simply won't be able to play the game at that level.

You probably know that GTX480 is ~ 10x faster than a 7900GTX (Xbox360). Yet, PC games don't even look twice as good as cross-platform console games. So clearly, consoles are holding PC graphics back. Crysis 2 is just another example of that. If you look at games like God of War 3 or Killzone series on the consoles, the best looking PC games are not much better. How can that be when we have 10x the graphics horsepower available?

CryTEK said the same thing about Cryngine3 we all know how that ended up. DICE are probably saying that so that console players don't feel left out.

Crysis was playable on 7900gt level hardware. I played it on a 9600XT! cards like X1900s and 7900 easily played crysis on medium level settings.

Also, where are you getting the 20:1 ratio from? Is that retail only? remember CODBLOPS and MW2 were steam works games. I can bet you most of games sold were bought on steam and not retail.

As for 10X the horsepower. Those games run at 30fps, 720p or less, no AA and lower res textures. Add all that together and I'm fairly sure that the 10x extra power is being well utilized. Also, console games are far better optimized.

Just plug your PS3 into your monitor (Not TV) fire up GT5 and watch how bad those shadows look, how low the res is, how poor the AI cars look. How fake the rims look in motion. Then Fire up Dirt 2 at max setting on PC and see the massive difference.

 

[Skurge]

Yes, I did. You were right on then when you called their numbers way off. Good to know your E8400 is still kicking some butt. I am thinking you'll be migrating to Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge though. :awe:



The differences in Metro 2033 on the PC are largely related to global lighting (SSAO), higher-rez textures and greater levels of details. But all in all, Metro 2033 doesn't look much different on consoles vs. PC.

This is exactly the same as in Crysis 2 on the PC vs. 360.

But given that GTX480 is 10x faster than a 7900GTX, we should expect to see this type of difference imho:

vs.

A youtube video is not a great example of the differences.

In anycase, I don't think we have enough GPU power. Until I can run crysis with mods like this and have playable framrates, They are still too weak.

Or give me the power to make an average looking game like crysis 2 looks this good. http://deadendthrills.com/collections/crysis-2/

That is the same game, just with the resolution upscaled. Now all crytek need to do is release a high res texture pack.

 

[toyota]

Yes, I did. You were right on then when you called their numbers way off. Good to know your E8400 is still kicking some butt. I am thinking you'll be migrating to Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge though. :awe:

The differences in Metro 2033 on the PC are largely related to global lighting (SSAO), higher-rez textures and greater levels of details. But all in all, Metro 2033 doesn't look much different on consoles vs. PC.


This is exactly the same as in Crysis 2 on the PC vs. 360.

But given that GTX480 is 10x faster than a 7900GTX, we should expect to see these type of difference between consoles and PC today:

(snip on the pics)

So why aren't we seeing these types of differences on the PC given we have 10x as powerful hardware? Because developers don't find it economically viable to spend millions of dollars on PC development. That's why.

well that was a guy from Hardforum using a stock 3.0 E8400 so I will certainly be okay with my E8500 @ 3.8. I still cant figure out how techspot got such terrible unplayable performance on all the dual core cpus though. but yeah a 2500k is likely for me this summer if finances allow it.

its funny thinking how good a game looks until a new graphical leap comes out. except for Crysis, the last several years have been at almost a standstill in that respect. heck UT 3 is still one of the best looking games using UE 3 engine, lol.

 

[RussianSensation]

its funny thinking how good a game looks until a new graphical leap comes out. except for Crysis, the last several years have been at almost a standstill in that respect. heck UT 3 is still one of the best looking games using UE 3 engine, lol.

Did you try emailing the guys at TechSpot to clarify?

I love the UE3 engine. Amazing engine even today. Great graphics and runs at 100+ fps. Look at Bulletstorm based on UE3.5. Also FC2 is a great engine (don't remember the name for that one). :thumbsup:

 

[Skurge]

well that was a guy from Hardforum using a stock 3.0 E8400 so I will certainly be okay with my E8500 @ 3.8. I still cant figure out how techspot got such terrible unplayable performance on all the dual core cpus though. but yeah a 2500k is likely for me this summer if finances allow it.

its funny thinking how good a game looks until a new graphical leap comes out. except for Crysis, the last several years have been at almost a standstill in that respect. heck UT 3 is still one of the best looking games using UE 3 engine, lol.

Yeah, its strange they wouldn't double check their results, if they did, im sure they looked at other benchmarks. I know websites shouldn't try and get their results to lineup with other, but if the the difference is that huge, they shouldn't go about acting like nothing is wrong.

 

[Skurge]

Did you try emailing the guys at TechSpot to clarify?

I love the UE3 engine. Amazing engine even today. Great graphics and runs at 100+ fps. Look at Bulletstorm based on UE3.5. Also FC2 is a great engine (don't remember the name for that one). :thumbsup:

Dunia I believe. Its just sad that the game was so average. I would've loved to see more games use it.

A game that ran faster in DX10 than DX9 with the same graphics. Thats progress.

 

[finbarqs]

i still remember that crysis 1 during the development stages (and was shown at E3 back in... 2006?) looked flippin' awesome. The leaves, foliage all had reflective lighting on it! When I got Crysis, expecting to see the same thing, i realized I'm missing all of that! What the heck happened?

Where are my super shiny leaves? and my ambient mood fog? I thought that was completely strange... anyways, I finished Crysis 2 finally, and it's super annoying. Definitely not worth the 50 bucks I paid for!!! but oh well.. Beggars can't be choosers I guess.....

 

[Grooveriding]

Looks like you can use SGSSAA in Crysis 2 and disable the horrible blur AA the game uses. Here is a tutorial (only for nvidia users)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fbjr72VYepo

Screenshot

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...arte/Test/bildergalerie/?iid=1503569&vollbild

edit: major performance hit, but it looks a lot better.

 

[Grooveriding]

Also AMD has updated Crossfire profiles for Crysis 2:

http://www.rage3d.com/cap/profiles/AMD_Catalyst_11.3_CAP3.exe

Post some CF benches.

 

[toyota]

Did you try emailing the guys at TechSpot to clarify?

I love the UE3 engine. Amazing engine even today. Great graphics and runs at 100+ fps. Look at Bulletstorm based on UE3.5. Also FC2 is a great engine (don't remember the name for that one). :thumbsup:

well maybe one crazy theory would be that the dual cores were crapping themselves trying to deal with the additional cpu overhead associated with sli since they were using a 590.

and yeah the UE3 has served its purpose pretty good but I wish some game makers would utilize more of its potential on the pc.

 

[OCGuy]

Who cares what the ratio is between platforms? Total profit matters. If you can make more proft from the PC game by catering to PC gamers, then you should do it. Console drones will buy any crap you give them, PC gamers are a tad more picky.

 

[MrK6]

Who cares what the ratio is between platforms? Total profit matters. If you can make more proft from the PC game by catering to PC gamers, then you should do it. Console drones will buy any crap you give them, PC gamers are a tad more picky.

Except that they can't, that's the point of the discussion. It's a ROI problem at a basal level, simple as that.

 

[finbarqs]

where's my dx11 patch!!!

 

[OCGuy]

Except that they can't, that's the point of the discussion. It's a ROI problem at a basal level, simple as that.

BF:BC2 did, and they said BF3 is being built around the PC as well.

It goes to show if you give PC gamers quality content, you will make money.