Crysis on Consoles - The Facts of the Matter

This has been a hot topic ever since Crysis was announced. This question has been asked repeatedly to a number of different Crytek employees which all seem to have their own unique, yet similar response. This article provides the facts on the matter while hopefully clearing up most of the confusion that has been generated over the past couple of months.

[MicroGamer]

cross development is easier between 360 and PC. If a console version of Crysis does come, it will likely be on 360 first.

[Rooted_Dust]

I think it's more of a possibility that they will develop a stand-alone game for consoles. In the article is say that CryEngine2 is designed to work across platforms.

[Anerythristic26]

Only slightly disagree. THe game would launch at the same time on both consoles. Though I agree the 360 would be easier to port a PC game too , see all the PC/360 games if you have any doubt. I am only guessing with the 360's architecture it's easier than with the PS3 which has a very unique CPU .

[D3acon]

That they would have two development teams, one for xbox and the other for PS3. Becasue that would be like a Port of another Port coming to the PS3. And really, and truly that the only way they are going to achieve what they are looking for on the PC.

[LuminousAphid]

They have failed to convince me that I need to play this game for any reason. All they talk about is the graphics, I have yet to hear a single thing about gameplay or anything like that (of course I haven't been looking, but even so I have heard much about the graphics, which means they are pushing that much more). I don't really see any reason to play this over any other fps out there.

[Anerythristic26]

At this point I'm tired of hearing about it. They are specifically making a game that would play at it's best on a high end gaming PC that costs thousands of dollars. WEith them only touting the graphics and really no gameplay info coming out it has fallen off my radar.

[Rooted_Dust]

There is plenty of gameplay information about this game out if you care to look. Pc game news is hardly posted here because of a lack of Pc gamers on this site.

[DJ]

The PS3 would have the clear advantage if given a Crysis port. Apparently the big limitation from consoles that the developer sees is the lack of a standard hard drive to work with, since there's a need to access large amounts of data at a very high rate, something that current disc storage doesn't offer.

Since the PS3 does come standard with a hard drive, the devs would be able to use it not just for caching, but also allow user installation (a la the other PS3 titles that have come out).

[Anerythristic26]

Give it a rest for a second , please.

[shotty]

Actually the CryEngine2 is scalable and having the harddrive on could boast draw distance or something. I'm sure not every ps3 owner wants to delete something from their harddrive just so they can play a game.

[TheMART]

They can program the game that way that with a HDD it runs the smootest. Even on a 360 core or 360 with a HDD.

Problems for PS3 HDD is that every single game will install GB's on the HDD because the BlueRay loads to slow. So the HDD will be full in no time. The HDD on the PS3 is a must have otherwise you'll be waiting too freaking long.

That's the difference with the 360. Furthermore, the 360 has the unified memory, which will deal better with the enormously texture and detailgraphics in Crysis.

360 also has DX9 as a base, with the possibility for MS to get it's own 360 API control up there which can do all the stuff as DX10 does, and might do even more. It's more flexible then DX10, no fixed rules.

AND the 360 GPU is more complex then the ATI 1900 XTX (with for example the 10 MB embedded extra fast ram/die).

It's just like it's now already. The 360 puts out better graphics, more detail, better colours then the PS3. It's because of the Wii like coverup Sony did with the RSX specs. Which is a standard Nvidia 6800 PC card

[OC_MurphysLaw]

The PS3's hard drive is used as an optional install by some devs to make loading faster. But ZERO devs will make it a mandatory install. Nobody can count on the HDD on the PS3 as a install drive just like they couldn't count on the original Xbox drive as a main install drive. You could install a peice of the game...but they couldn't install the whole game...not like a PC. The PS3 20gb isn't built for that. Sure you will have a number of people that upgrade the HDD or have the 60gb and could handle it better...but they will be the minority, and from a biz stand point you can't use the minority as your base for configuration on a console system.

[DJ]

Saying that DX 9 can not only achieve everything that DX 10 does, but even more, is pretty far-fetched. Now, the unified memory architecture of the 360 would give an advantage for texture storage, but hurts the CPU so...i dunno. It's a bit of a tradeoff.

It looks like Crysis is intensive on both areas, but I'm sure 360 and PS3 can handle it. Both consoles have roughly the same data transfer rates, despite using different formats, so your whole "Blu-ray is slow" argument is void.

BTW, what developers have been saying is that RSX is a 7800/7900 hybrid, with features that aren't existent in current nVidia GPUs. In fact, it's 128-bit HDR technology doesn't exist in any ATI cards since it was codeveloped with ILM, and won't be publicly available until the 8 series. There's some other stuff like larger texture cache and vertex processing, but I'm not go into the logistics of it all.

[Gears]

Is more powerful than the 7800/7900 series and the x1900xtx, it is more powerful than the RSX(RSX stands for Really Slow compared to XBOX). Cryengine was designed with PC's in mind not a multimedia processor like Cell. So I bet Crysis would run alot better on the 360. Also the 360 has more available RAM, since the OS doesn't hog it all like with the PS3. By the way DJ I don't know where you get your info from, but unified architecture beats last-gen architecture, nothing you say or facts you spin will change that. Unified architecture results in better lighting and effects and better framerate, that is why the PS3 is struggling while playing games the 360 doesn't even stutter in. LOL PS3 is weak last-gen technology from a GPU viewpoint and the GPU creates the visuals. Not only does unified architecture increase the visual quality it can also do physics, AI, stuff last gen GPU's couldn't. PWNED!

[dantesparda]

"They can program the game that way that with a HDD it runs the smootest. Even on a 360 core or 360 with a HDD. "

Yet, they have yet, to do that on a 360 game yet. Im not saying it not possible. As a matter of fact, i dont know why they havent been done it yet, as it would benefit 360 owners. But i guess that they do not want to alienate the non-HD owning owners. Heck! even the programmer from Saints Row said, that he couldnt program in airplanes because the 360 disc drive would not have been fast enough to stream the boards at the sppeds he would have like to have the jets move around at. They could have done it with the HD though. But i guess they didnt want none HD owing 360 owners to get mad cuz they wouldnt have it. Oh well, our lost.

"Problems for PS3 HDD is that every single game will install GB's on the HDD because the BlueRay loads to slow. So the HDD will be full in no time. The HDD on the PS3 is a must have otherwise you'll be waiting too freaking long. "

Wrong! show me where it says that all PS3 games have to loaded onto the HD. Its just an option to make it load faster. And i dont know about you, but i would rather have the option than not. And would most certainly welcome it on the 360 also.

"That's the difference with the 360. Furthermore, the 360 has the unified memory, which will deal better with the enormously texture and detailgraphics in Crysis."

Oh you mean that much ballyhooed by the fanboys Unified Memory Architecture that is used by all the main components in the system? you do know that the CPU, the GPU and the Northbridge all shared that measely 700mhz 128-bit bus. And yes it measely as my 9800Pro at 350mhz 256bit bus can match that bandwith.

"360 also has DX9 as a base, with the possibility for MS to get it's own 360 API control up there which can do all the stuff as DX10 does, and might do even more. It's more flexible then DX10, no fixed rules."

No fixed rules eh? Hm that tells me, you really know your stuff. Do you even know how these APIs work? Obviously not!

"AND the 360 GPU is more complex then the ATI 1900 XTX (with for example the 10 MB embedded extra fast ram/die). "

Hm, ok, lets look at this. x1900xtx 650mhz core/Xenos 500mhz core. x1900xtx memory clock is 775mhz 256-bit bus GDDR3 (non-shared)/Xenos 700mhz 128-bit bus GDDR3 (shared with the CPU, the GPU and the Northbridge and the Southbridge, so much for your much ballyhooed unified memory architecture) which by the way has been used in laptop computers for how many years now? x1900xtx 48 shader units/Xenos 48 shader units. 10Mb eDRAM on Xenos? just helps to bring up the bandwith, but still not on par with x1900xtx. And the thing cant really support 4xAA over 640by 480 anyways. And i can see proof of that the many games. I up the res to 720p, AA gets shut off, oops so much for free AA. I knew it was bull from the monet i heard it.
That's why every game that is on both platforms (the 360 & the PC) runs better on the PC than on the 360, while running at higher framerates and higher texture resolutions and detail and a higher screen resolution than on the 360!? and also with anti-aliasing times 4 and anisotropic filtering times 8 or 16 and true trilinear filtering and not that bi/brilinear crap they are using on the 360. And also at a higher refresh rate, so it doesnt have to tear so much as it does on alot of the 360 games.

"It's just like it's now already. The 360 puts out better graphics, more detail, better colours then the PS3. It's because of the Wii like coverup Sony did with the RSX specs. Which is a standard Nvidia 6800 PC card"

Hm, so now its a 6800 eh? not a 7800/7900? hm, very interesting. and you would know how?
And also i'd like to add that alot of you's are under the impression that the Xenos which is a R500 is superior to the R580 (the x1900xtx) because it is a generation ahead of the R580. To that i'd just like to say, that if you look at the Geforce 6200. It is a generation ahead of a 9800XT, but does it outperform it? Most certainly not! And the fact that the Xenos uses a 128-bit bus smells of low-end. Sorry folks but you's are going to have to start excepting the facts, as oppsed to what you's wanna believe. The 360 can barely run above 30fps on most games. 30fps is the absolute lowest acceptible framerate on the PC. And half the times the 360 is running with the highest setting that you can get on the PC. So the facts do the talking for me

[DJ]

Dante ripped you guys to shreds. =P What's funny is that Mr Gears is trying to compensate for the 360's weak CPU by stating that the GPU will do all the AI and physics functions for it. Unified GPU architecture is supposed to be more efficient, not more powerful than dedicated pipelines. In fact, ATI states that the RSX is more powerful than their Xenos chip, and since they manufactured the chip I take their word over anyone else's.

[Gears]

When I am talking about unified architecture I am not referring to the RAM. I am talking about the fully programmable pipelines on Xenos, something that the PS3 doesn't have.

Hell the PS3 is getting PWNED by Blazing Angels!!!

"Surprisingly, however, the textures of the buildings in London and other environments seem a little scaled back; they just don't look quite as detailed as the Xbox 360 version, but it's not something I really noticed during the intense dog-fights."

http://uk.ps3.gamespy.com/p...

"Having fully programmable shader architecture is the single most important advancement," says McGrath. "It has opened up a world of possibilities that just weren't possible in older hardware. Game visuals are now advancing at a rate that exceeds that of film visuals, so the gap between them is getting smaller and smaller." Hence GEARS OF WAR something that isn't possible on the PS3.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/...

"By using unified shader architecture, DirectX 10 allows developers to devote graphic card resources to whatever they want, depending on what the needs of their game are. This kind of efficiency will help make motion blur look better in racing games, and lighting look better in shooters."

http://pc.ign.com/articles/...

Much like the fact tha Call of Duty 3 runs at 60fps on the 360 vs. 30fps on the PS3. Or the higher framerate in Tony Hawk on the 360? LOL Blinded fanboys. What about FNR3 huh? What about Gears of War huh? So far I haven't seen anything on the PC, PS3 that even comes close to Gears except for Crysis. How much will a rig cost to run Crysis at full settings? $2000? $3000? The PS3 is weak my friend, 550mhz with half the pipelines of the 360 GPU, and the less efficient architecture of the RSX, points to the PS3 GPU being of the low-end. Overclocked 7600? What about the OS that hogs more memory than Windows in the PS3? Did you account for that? That erradicates any advantage with memory the PS3 had if it even had one. The proof is right in front of your face my friends, better lighting in every cross platform game on the 360, can be attributed to the next-gen architecture in the 360. That is one of the benefits, a benefit the PS3 lacks from the looks at the side by side comparisons. That is why the greats are making games for the 360, they want to get used to NEXT-GEN architecture to aid in development of NEXT-GEN ENGINES. UE3 runs better on the 360, is it because the GPU is inferior like you state? No it is because it is superior, far superior. Double the fill-rate of the RSX, double the vertices calculations, and the 360 GPU pushes polys twice as fast as RSX. The CELL is a large bottleneck, hince the framerate troubles in every multiplatform game, it just can't handle game code as well as the triple core G5.

Now walk off crying LOSERS!

DJ show me a link where ATI openly admitted that their product is inferior to the RSX. They never did say that, all they have said that it is more powerful than all the chipsets that nvidia claims the RSX is more powerful than. NVidia said the RSX is more powerful than 2 6800 ultras in SLI, so is Xenos.

The link below is a pic of the PS3 trying to run a 360 games without being dumbed down:

http://pix.nofrag.com/fb/07...

[Gears]

Developers thought on Cell and RSX:

"There are some challenges involving the architecture of the Cell, the cell consists of PPE and SPE cores. A developer states, "It is impossible to extract the full performance of the Cell on launch titles, it will take time get familiar with it". Another developer states that they are having difficulties with the 256KB memory of each SPE core. The actual useable area of the 256KB is closer to 128KB when buffering is considered with accessing external DRAM. "It would have been much different situation if there was 1MB of local memory”<--360 has that

Till now, developers were stingy with programming and memory usage, and this will not change with the PS3, in fact, the Cell will reward developers that put more effort into programming. While that may not be a negative, it is a hurdle that will take larger developer resources and time. For the Cell it has changed from extracting performance from the hardware, but more towards multi-threaded performance and takes a different skill set then the PS2."

-problems with RSX [7600GT bandwidth]

"Developers were using 7800GTX for development, The RSX uses Nvidia’s G70 and performance programmable shader performance is very high. But the memory interface is 128-bit, in addition 8 ROP (Rasterizing Operation). It can be said that the RSX has a shader equivalent of a high-end PC with mid-range memory bandwidth. For that reason, due to the GPU high shader performance there is a bottleneck to the ROP memory and is causing a bottleneck. “For lower resolutions it is a fantastic GPU, but it gets difficult for high end HDTV resolutions”, says a developer." <--LOL Hense framerate issues in a BASKETBALL GAME LOL

PS3 has a 128 bit bus as well NOOBS

You know although an NVidia spokesperson said the RSX is a slightly more powerful than a 7800GTX (so are a few other GPUs on the market NOW)<--LOL Xenos has you PWNED!!!

That means that almost a year before launch, there’s a PC graphics chip that is more powerful than the RSX GPU found in the PlayStation 3<-PWNED. And make no mistake, this is not a crazy, speculative conclusion ; this comes straight from the company that makes both parts: the RSX and GeForce 7800 graphics processing units.<--PWNED

That’s not good news for consoles, being that the typical 4-to-5 year lifecycle a console must survive allows computers to catch up quickly with the technology found on next-generation consoles. PS3<--

Usually, game consoles ship with hardware that is not available on personal computer at the time of launch (Not the PS3), and a few months later, PC hardware manufacturers create hardware parts that surpass console technologies.

But launching with a technology that is already available on PC is not good at all for a “next-generation” console (PS3). By the time the PlayStation 3 launches, there will be already a new GPU from nVIDIA that will be more powerful that their current flagship GPU, the GeForce 7800 GTX.

So, what about the Xbox 360? In the case of the graphics processing unit designed for the Xbox 360, ATI has included technology on the Xenos GPU that won’t be available for PC graphics chip in the next twelve months, including the unified shader architecture and the embedded DRAM daughter die.

With a three-core processor and its state-of-the-art GPU, the Xbox 360 hardware won’t be matched by PC until early 2007, when quad-core processors from AMD and Intel arrive and Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPUs, featuring unified shader architecture, arrive.

Man you guys just got RIPPED TO SHREDS!!!
PWNED!!!
I never want to hear a word from you guys again!

[Gears]

Remember that the RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX. In other words, it needs that additional memory bandwidth from the Cell’s memory controller to be able to handle more texture-bound games. If a good portion of the 15GB/s downstream link from the Cell processor is used for bandwidth between the Cell’s SPEs and the RSX, the GPU will be texture bandwidth limited in some situations, especially at resolutions as high as 1080p. Hense the less detailed textures in the PS3 games such as RR7 vs. RR6 and THP8.

The only reason it is more powerful than the 7800gtx is because it is clocked at 550mhz instead of the 7800gtx's 500mhz. <--LOL

XENOX HAS THE PS3 PWNED!!!

Quote from ATi spokesperson: I’d love to say that Nvidia are going to be stuck when it comes to Vista. But actually I do think they will have a unified shader architecture by the time WGF2 comes around. This time around, they don’t have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isn’t worthwhile. But in the future, they’ll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they’ve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn’t unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful.

And guess what NVidia is releasing a UNIFIED ARCHITECTURE GPU the 8800, BECAUSE IT IS MORE EFFICIENT RESULTING IN BETTER PERFORMANCE OVERALL

PS3 GOT PWNED and SO DID NVIDIA!!! LOL

[dantesparda]

Sorry to break to you Gears, but you're right, a 128-bit bus is weak, its very weak! And thats what I've been trying to say all along about both the 360 and the PS3. They both use a 128-bit bus.
Now that may be fine for CPU to RAM, but from the GPU to RAM? that's weak! very weak! low-end in the PC gfx card world. Also you mention how a programmer stated that he would have preferred "local" memory to what the SPE's have. I agree, see the problem is that the 256KB of memory that SPEs have are not L2 cache or L3 (yuck!) or even worst l4! but its the actual DRAM an that is about as bad as it could get. But dont think for a second that the design of the Xenon is any better. The Xenon uses half-core speed L2 cache (which runs at 1.6ghz), which is just as bad. Itll cause all sort of latencies, wait states, ands asymmetries. Plus 1MB L2 cache for 6 threads is simply not enough! And people with every new generation comes a host of low-end cards that are always lower performance than the last generations mid to high-end cards where. So stop thinking that Xenos/R500/C1 (which btw is the Ati internal core name) being closer in generation to the R600 means that its got R600 performance. I doesnt even have x1800 or 7800 performance. I can almost match 360 performance with my 2002 PC with a Barton and 9800pro with a R360 core. I can definitely beat its visual quality, but sometimes i'll lose on the frames while other times beat it by double! and thats with a 4 yr old machine.
BTW, Nvidia has twice the Makret cap/money of Ati. And Ati got bought out by AMD, so how did Nvidia get owned? And Nvidia got payed very well from MS for the 1st Xbox and from Sony this time around, whereas Ati pratically gave it away to MS.

[D3acon]

I believe the PS3 could access the memory faster because that is how it was designed. I just wonder how much Space that game would take up on your hardrive.

I don't believe they would be able to incorporate everything from the PC to the consoles, they would get a A++ if they do. Some elements of detail would be left out, more likely the less noticable.

[ronscrote]

"I can almost match 360 performance with my 2002 PC with a Barton and 9800pro with a R360 core."

I'm sorry but that is absolute crap. A friend of mine is still using an old Barton 3200+ with a radeon 9800pro and Oblivion looks like total arse compared to the 360 version. To make it look anything like the 360 version reduces the framerate to about 5fps.

And this is game who's development was rushed on the 360 to meet deadlines. As opposed to the PC version, which was in development for about 4 years.

[DixieNormS]

Since ps3 owners don't buy games, I don't see Crytec wasting time and money on this port.

[frostbite06]

Thats the first valid point ive heard

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Crysis in its current form will not come to the consoles. What we will probably see is something similar to what we saw with FarCry. Regardless this pretty much sums up gaming on a whole. PC's will always have higher end potential as the developers wont' be constrained to use a set standard performance level.

However, even though there will always be certain PC games that really outshine the consoles...I will always prefer my console for gaming. I like the fact that I don't have to do any tweaking to my system to make the games run better, I like the fact that my system will auto patch should a download be needed...and that I don't have to go find it and update the game, etc. I like the fact that I really don't have to do anything except play the game. This is the clear upside to console gaming. It's about gaming and not about what you need to do to your system to run the latest and greatest games. Some tech heads love that, and to them I say great, enjoy tinkering. Me, I like the simplicity of quality games, my couch, a beer or two and some chips.

[dantesparda]

I hear your point and i clearly understand what you're saying, but do know this. Little by little we are getting closer and closer to what the PC is. They are just baby stepping you towards it. You speak of auto patch. Most PC game do that now. So like you said, you dont have to go looking for it. Players already know now that the 360 is runnning a OS, whereas i bet many didnt know that the same was true since the nes days

[gnothe1]

I really want to kow why you KNOW!! the Ps3 is better,is it because of the cell!! because RIGHT NOW, not in a year but RIGHT NOW!!there is no advantage for the cell. actually RIGHT NOW the advantage goes to the xbox because game look alittle better on x360, not much but still better. is it Blue Ray storage of 25-50 gigs!! because RIGHT NOW out of all the PS3 launch games an I think theres 13, theres only 1 games that supposedly uses alot of dics space an thats RFOM, with that being said all of the other 12 games either can be done on a dvd9 or should have been done on a dvd9.so there again theres no clear advantage yet!!they both have wireless controllers, yet again no advantage for PS3!!now the Ps3 does have a HDD as standard an the x360 doesnt, but lets go back to last gen for a sec. the xbox1 had a HDD an the PS2 didnt, all cross platform games were built with the Ps2 in mind, because it had the bigger fan base for one, an no developer was going to build a game that had to have an HDD in order for the game to work, fast forward to this gen.what do you think is gonna be differnt this time, if a developer want to maximize its money doing cross pltform games, its gonna build it games based off 1 thing! (how can i get the best out of this game an make it work on both systems), so with the x360 in mind with no standard HDD, games will be built NOT NEEDING an hdd.so here we are again no advantage for the PS3.what about sonys FREE online, well its great thats its free, they give you the sony store for game demo's so does xbox,sony gGAMES has to support voice chat,weres xbox support voice without even being in a game.1 friends list,Ps3 does have keyboard support!! well it better because not all games support voice an you got to be able to communicate somehow.but at the same time you MUST PAY for xbox live!! a WHOLE 50 dollars a year!! so for me I'll give the xbox the advantage with it online.so whats next, I'm not even going to mention Blue Ray movies because it has nothing to do with GAMING, so I want to know why you insist that the PS3 is so much better right now!!

[USMChardcharger]

some good points. i think the biggest deal is, will blue ray really mean much to games.

in other words, most games will be made for both systems...that is just a fact...and all of those games will not even need blue ray.

which ever system you go with you will enjoy advantages of one or the other. but so many games will be the same.

i think 360 has a few more advantages...just my opinion. online"LIVE", most PC games appear on xbox, and some killer 1st party titles.

blue ray will help PS3...when ever it is actually used. and used correctly...not some bounus mini-game or other disk filler trick.

[kingboy]

well, why we all not sh*t the f@ck up and let crytek do the talking huh!

[Rooted_Dust]

It is not involved in a never ending fanboy flamewar, and it has the best games. No matter what type of news it is, it will always degernerate into my console is better than yours.

[calderra]

Yeah, because 9,000 "here's my new rig" and "can my system handle..?" topics would be so much better.

:lollerskates:

NVIDIA vs. ATI
AMD vs. Intel
Custom-built vs. From-scratch
KB/M vs. Controllers
(monitor x) vs. (monitor y)

...etc.

[Tut]

lol how could anyone disagree with his comment? Was it just out of spite? haha!

Seriously, I never hear a PC gamer say, "UT2004 looks better on my computer because my graphics card is not a 64mb piece of crap!" because someone else will be like, "I don't give a sh!t, I am too busy mopping up Tokara Forest with your face!"

Calderra made a nice comment about the worries of being outdated and unable to play games because of hardware and that is a huge issue in PC gaming in my opinion, but even still the ATI vs. NVIDIA and other battles are usually just preferences people pass on as advice. I have yet to see a PC gaming site go down the same road as console gaming sites with the XBox360 and PS3.

As for Crysis I could care less about it until it is out and I read some reviews.

[Ravenator529]

A FPS that won't make it to consoles. Who cares? If Crytek wants to alienate themselves to PC's then that is their decision.

It says right in the article that they don't want to lose their reputation in the PC market, even if it means screwing themselves out of millions! Idiots!

Even Epic and Valve make console ports with pretty big success.

Oh yeah, I am sure Epic is really wishing they stuck to PC's after GOW hit the shelves. lol! How much money do you think Epic made on that one?

Not to mention what they will make on Unreal Tournament when its released for the PS3.

[Tut]

"even if it means screwing themselves out of millions! Idiots!" - Ravenator529

Loyalty is not always idiocy. There is a very bold line between greed and success.

[dantesparda]

what they are really saying is that the 360 and the PS3 cant do it (or least good justice without busting their ass to do it). Hm and as for how much Epic made on GoW, hm lets look at that for a second. They sold 1 million at lets say $60 (though im sure you could get it for less than that at many places. so I am really hooking it up by giving the times 60 number). Thats $60 million dollars. Now the retailers usually make between 10 to 15% profit on it so thats anyway where from $6 to 9 million off right there. So now we are down to 54 to 51 million dollars. And lets not forget the distributors, they make there cut to probably between 5 and 10 percent, so another 2.5 to 5 million off. So now we are down to around 51.5 to 46 million. Then how much did the game cost to make? 10 mil? 20 mil? so you're left with about 41.5 to 26 million. And dont forget MS is the distributor, so they take the lions share. I'd say more than half. so that leaves us with anywhere between 20.75 mil to less than 13 mil. And htne good ole' Uncle Sam, oh you know our favorite uncle. Comes in and takes basically 40% on anything over a 120 thousand dollars and you're left with anywhere with anywhere between 7 mil to 11 million. And thats not even counting how many millions more was wasted on marketing (and you know that is subtracted from the grand total, right?). So i'd say probably like 5 to 10 million dollars they made. Not to shabby. But dont expect them to go burning money just yet

[richie007bond]

DJ plz stop ur melting my brain

[Ravenator529]

No reason to try! He will defend the PS3 to the bitter end.

But its understandable. Why wouldn't you try to defend something you liked?

[Scrumptious]

I saw a gameplay video a couple months ago, and it deffinately looks fun and introduces some new elements like instant weapon customization and different ammo types.

PC port wise, the 360 will have the edge. Unified memory and a more efficient GPU as well as double the transfer rate for disk reads will make things easier. The 360 version will end up looking like the high end version, with the PS3 version looking like the mid range version.
This is due to the 360 GPU being dynamic and way more efficient than dsktop versions, with the pielines being dymanically balanced for a 90% or greater efficiency, and free 4xAA and HDR. The PS3 GPU is basically a 7800 with an extra feature or 2.

The real limitation is CPU's. They both will get spanked by the desktop CPU performance, and balancing the tasks on the asymmetric cell will be a nightmare.

I am excited to see what developers will do original on the consoles with the crytech 2 engine. I wonder how it will compare performance and business wise with the Unreal 3 and source engines, which also have all components included (AI, physics, network, ect)

[Rooted_Dust]

The engine was designed to work across platforms, but thats not the point. The point is that Crytec want to make the best game possible and the only platform that gives them the freedom to do that is the PC. The developers simply stated that it would be difficult running Crysis on a console because accessing data on a disk is much slower than accessing it on a hard drive. The majority of Crytec's fans are PC gamers. The only reason FarCry came to Xbox was because Ubisoft bought the rights to the game. It's good to see a developer not motivated by greed, but by the desire to make a truly great game, and loyalty to their fans.

*Sorry wanted to reply to 14

[dantesparda]

"PC port wise, the 360 will have the edge. Unified memory and a more efficient GPU as well as double the transfer rate for disk reads will make things easier. The 360 version will end up looking like the high end version, with the PS3 version looking like the mid range version."

OK, since you seem to think that the efficiency of the C1/R500 is such a great thing. Then explain to me how it compares to a traditional specialized pipe? Cuz i bet you dont know. More efficient in this case does not necessarily translate into better performance. A 48 shader unit architecture is equivalent to a 20 to 24pipe traditional separate/specialized architecture, with 8 vertex shaders. So that puts them either at par with, if not the 360 at a disadvantage with the RSX. Now if it compares closer to a 24-pipe architecture (or heck even a 20-pipe architecture for that matter) than that puts them at equal footing. But this is where the efficiency of the USA (unified shader architecture) kicks in, because say you dont need 24 pipes but only say 16 for pixel shading, but you need 16 for the vertices, than the USA is more efficient in this scenario, becuase it wouldnt waste as many cycles. As say on a RSX where you would end up wasting 8 pixel-pipes, because they would not be used and the vertex shader would not have enough pipes to fill in the 16 needed vertices in one cycle. So you would end up wasting at least one more cycle on the RSX than on the C1/R500/Xenos, but even then each single pipe on a RSX is faster than a pipe/shader on the Xenos. So all that has to be weighed out and right now its not that clear, but its as many have said before on this site and many programmer s have said that Xenos ends up being just a little bit better than the RSX, which sounds about right to me.

"This is due to the 360 GPU being dynamic and way more efficient than dsktop versions, with the pielines being dymanically balanced for a 90% or greater efficiency, and free 4xAA and HDR. The PS3 GPU is basically a 7800 with an extra feature or 2. "

Ha! if you really knew your technology then you would know that while they may be feeding you this bullsh!t, the truth is that it is not true. You would have already noticed it for yourself just by looking at many of the games, this is simply not true. Look at CoD2 when running at 640x480 (480p), AA x 4 is turned on, but when you run the game at 1024 by 768, no AA at all. Why? I thought that it was free? same thing with most of the games. Heck just look at R6V. So its not free. Besides if you really undertsood anything about technology than you would know that the 10MB framebuffer is simply not big enough for anything above 640 x480 (which explains exactly why most games have AA x 4 turned on at 640 but not at higher res'es). For it to have been free at 1280 x 720 than they should have made the buffer at least 32MBs big, but then that chip would have cost them a arm and a leg. Sorry jack, simply not true.

"The real limitation is CPU's. They both will get spanked by the desktop CPU performance, and balancing the tasks on the asymmetric cell will be a nightmare. "

You are so right that these platform's CPU suck in comparison to the PCs CPUS

[silent ninja]

who cares if one game does not come to consoles

[FKN Unbelievable]

They can keep this sh1t on PS3. Farcry is bullsh1t and this will be also.

[BURLY]

The engine supports Direct X9 (and therefore shader model 3.0, etc) and therefore both consoles should have little problem running the engine. To various degrees of success (no doubt) and my conviction (as a techie) is that the 360 is superior than the PS3 in the Direct X9 environment.

Regardless though, ...the bottom line is: Duh!

I mean, all that I get from this story is that this developer is completely oblivious to the fact that the 360's GPU is of a unified shader architecture and has a shader model that is well beyond 3.0 and almost meets the strict criteria of Direct X10 (shader model 4.0, Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0, etc)!

By them saying that both consoles can run the engine and then in the same sentance mention Direct X9 compatibility -- well that's just lame to techies like myself!

What we have here is a developer tooting their own horn because they are excited about a new engine that they have developed. I mean the game isn't coming to consoles because they simply haven't decided to devote development time to it -- well whoop-di-doo; wake me up when you do and get a better understanding of the real issue involved in porting this game to the two next-gen consoles!

I would say that you can expect Microsoft to approach these guys and say "WAKE UP!"; ...the 360 can support most of the Direct X10 features that are used to make the game look "oh so good" in it's top form, ...but I believe that they are already strongly involved with John Carmack and Epic in making an Xbox 360 Direct X10 dirivative of the next Unreal Engine 4.0 and Doom 4 engine.

Why do you think John Carmack stated that the 360 was his primary development platform about a year ago? Well in (simple terms) it is because (up to the launch of Windows Vista) there have been no unified shader architectured / Direct X10 / Shader Model 4.0 GPU's out in the PC market. Essentially the 360 has given ID Software a head start in the development of the new Doom 4 engine.

Why do you think we haven't seen any pictures of the Xbox 360 exclusive of the next Castle Wolfenstien? ...Oh yeh, I just answered it for you!

At any rate I just wanted to point out that if you actually think the PS3 will outperform the 360 in the future (due to Sony's buy-in startegy of arrogance and lies) then you are ignorant about the technical facts because the 360 will completely obliderate the PS3 in the new Direct X10 environment!

Infact, the canning of Kenny boy was a pre-emptive P.R. move (by Sony) because that strategy only works when your console is actually more powerful (i.e. PS2 versus Dreamcast, etc.) -- LOL! In some ways though I feel sorry for Sony because Microsoft essentially had advanced knowledge of what the requirments for Direct X10 were going to be when both campanies were getting their GPU's developed.

Personally, ...I am just going to continue to sit back and watch Sony fanboys eat their words because unfourtunately developer statements like this are oblivious to the real issue at hand and only fuel whatever convictions you already have.

I pitty the fools and I wish these developers would get off of their high horse and get to the real issues at hand. That being said; most developer statements are based on simple benchmarking of the two consoles in the current Direct X9 environment and are not based on the over-all technical attributes (or potential) of two systems! Furthermore, there are many developers that are aligned more with one camp over the other and even developers can state biased and ignorant comments! As a techie; this makes me frustrated to no end because so many drones follow developer statements as a final conviction of the two consoles :(

Good luck filtering through the garbage!

[MySwordIsHeavenly]

It SUCKS to be a PC gamer! You have to freakin' PAY to play Warcraft, you have to PAY to get the latest graphics card EVERY time a better game comes out. You have to PAY for a better resolution monitor every 3 years. Yeah, there's no flamewars...because PC gaming is dying out. Never thought you'd hear that did you? I am betting now that Unreal 07' will be the last great PC game...and it's on PS3 anyway.

PC gaming has FPS's and...that's about it!
No Gears of War, no good action/adventure, no MGS, no GOOD final fantasy, just fps's...

why do you choose pc gaming over consoles???

[Rooted_Dust]

I choose it because of the quality. The price doesn't hurt me much. My job pays me well enough. The games I enjoy are on the PC (FPS, MMO,RTS). The only reason I buy a console is to expand my game library, in which case a PS3 sounds good to me, which settles the whole FF and MGS argument, and as far as GOW is concerned, it will come to PC eventually. You don't need a perfect setup to play PC games, you can get a decent gaming computer for under $1000 and still play games on par with the consoles. Another good thing about paying for subscription games is I get to avoid all the noob 12 year old who's parents bought them an Xbox360. Better is better even if it costs more.

[MySwordIsHeavenly]

Whoa...only on the PS3 do developers have complete freedom...LAME KIDS!!!

They can even create their own servers...

[Bullseye]

First off guys, forget about p.c ports for consoles. even modest p.c's are far more powerful than any next gen console, both in terms of C.P.U and G.P.U,memory and storage space, thats just the facts.However i gave up P.C gaming after many years and got a console and here's why. I was fed up of constantly having to upgrade not just my graphics card, but memory type, c.p.u and evens motherboards just to be able to run latest games( al la PCI express graphics from AGP etc)It wasn't just about money , but you just knew the chip makers and games devs where in cahoots to get you to buy the latest. Then there's the social aspect of gaming, it's much easier and more enjoyable to get a group of pals around a console designed for the lounge, than try and seat everyone round a p.c. However, one of the main reasons i gave it up was the cheating. Yep thats right,cheating. The problem with most online p.c gaming is it relies on publishing companies to provide on line servers (unfortunately like ps3 will do), most of these servers offer relatively limited security and therefore gaming was spoilt by cheaters using mods and crackers using D.O.S type attacks to spoil your game! This happens on almost all pc games on line (excepting subscription services maybe) I like the fact that microsoft have the control and expertise to secure servers and prevent this type of thing,it really is worth the money.Sony would do well to re-think their online policy with regarts to this.One big advantage for p.c gamers though, is cost of games. We console gamers get ripped off big time.Anyway,one time p.c gamer,much happier console gamer! CRYSIS, what CRYSIS ?

[HaKeRsCanRotINHEL]

E-machines!

[Scrumptious]

The RSX is pretty much a 7800GTX class GPU in some cases its worse in some cases better.

I think you also have some incorrect facts on the 360 side, as you tried to compare the 360 chip to a desktop cand. The 360 GPU is the R600 chip. This chip will appear for PC in early 2007 with more pipeleins, but minus the 10mb edram. The sole purpose of the edram is free 4xAA and HDR. That's it's job, and something the PS3 will take a perfomance hit on when implemented in their GPU.

Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.

Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example.

The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work. Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don’t help out the pixel pipes (because they aren’t able to), but with the 360’s unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P)

In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360’s GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times.

Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat.

In conclusion, the 360 GPU is a generation ahead of the RSX, and that leap brought some amazing technology with it. The RSX is simply outclassed. If there was any performance edge with the CELL, it will be sucked up trying to aid the GPU in a bandwith sucking nightmare.

[UrbanJabroni]

If you don't mind sharing, Scrumptious, where do you work? You've really managed to articulate the issues incredibly well, and I'm wondering if you work for a development studio?

[DJ]

then explain the high visual quality of titles like Resistance, Lair, Heavenly Sword, F1 Championship, Motorstorm, FFXIII, and GT:HD (a demo of all things).

I know it's easy to tout specs all the time (I fall into that trap a lot), but the games speak for themselves. Yeah, the 360 has a really cool feature, which is the ED-RAM. But it's important to understand the ED-RAM's drawback, which is that it can't process frames larger than 620p without chopping them up(and thus negating its main purpose).

From an engineering perspective, it was a patch to help the low system bandwidth and a very well designed one. However, it's simply not big enough for 720p~1080p games to have a significant performance advantage. =/ I do hope to see ATI take that idea and improve upon it. In fact, I'm hoping that Nvidia takes a nod to this idea. Unified Shading Architecture is brand new and thus has a lot of kinks to get worked out. Nvidia stuck with the tried and true method of dedicated pipelines, and I honestly don't see anything wrong with that decision either.

ATI says that Nvidia made a stronger, but less efficient GPU. While this does give more flexibility on the 360 GPU side, the RSX has the power advantage IF both pipeline types are used to their full potential.

To sum it all up, it's just up to the ability of developers. While I do expect PS3 to have the technological upper hand, it doesn't make 360 titles any less fun.

[Scrumptious]

I'm in the military and work with electronics. In the past I've been a comuter tech and currently work on avionics electronics. Electronics are my life, and I've been an avid reader of technology and a video game fan for many years, starting with the Atari 2600. So while I'm not a developer, I do read as many sources as possible on the technology of products, including game systems.

In response to DJ, I do feel you've read some incorrect information on the edram issue. The 360 was designed from the get go for high-definition displays, and the sole purpose of the edram was 4xAA and HDR with out using the GPU. Your statements are incorrect, as this goes against the entire idea of the edram. The only negative comments on this subject were from Sony aho claimed the 360 could never do 1080i becasue of the size limitations of the edram. They were proven false as well.

As for your graphically great PS3 games, of course there will be some. Even the PS2, technically inferior to the xbox, had some stunning games such as god of war and shadow of the colossus. But notice the multi-platform games always looked better on the more powerful xbox.

PS3's original games will look great as well, as do the 360's original titles. There's more to graphics than just technology, such as art direction and design. I agree the games you've mentioned look good, but still not as impressive as Gears of War.

The technology of the sytems has to be put in perspective. While the PS3 MAY have higher overal potential performance, the 360 can achive a higher overall performance due to the efficiency of the design, and is easier to harness by the developers. As I've said, I am not anti-Sony, just anti-BS. I've had a PS1 and PS2, but do not feel the PS3 is worth the hype or money right now. After a significant price drop and some good 1st party games, I'll pick one up.

But for multiplayer, I'll deffinately stick with xbox live! I do not feel Sony will ever match the 360 in the online department.

[DJ]

which is that the 360's ED-RAM is only 10 MB, and that at least 30MB is needed to process 1080p frames. Even 720p frames can't fit into the chip without being chopped up, which developers have stated can lead to problems once post-processing effects are thrown into the mix (i.e. artifacting).

I do have to clarify though. The 720p frames don't fit once you have to do 2x anti-aliasing, due to multi-sampling. BTW, your statement felt a bit contradictory.

"While the PS3 MAY have higher overal potential performance, the 360 can achive a higher overall performance due to the efficiency of the design, and is easier to harness by the developers."

So you're agreeing that the PS3 has greater performance, but then you state that the 360 will show greater performance than the PS3? Wait a second. Or maybe you're trying to say that while PS3 has obviously more power, that power will never get tapped and thus 360 titles will be superior?

Explain.

I've seen Gears of War, and what it has is great art, not great technology. It looks pretty, but the low number of enemies, lack of impressive physics, etc, leads me to believe that while Epic tried their hardest, they didn't have much to work with on the CPU side of things.

[highps3]

Ps3 has the hard drive with installation feature.

Not to mention keyboard and mouse support.

Also not to mention huge amount of disc space.

Not to mention The Cell.

And an equally impressive GPU compared to the 360. 360 GPU might be better due to unified shaders but it wont be by much in the long run. Neither will the slight boost in bandwidth.

Also they have freedom to do whatever they like with online.

Should be on the Ps3. We will see though 360 has a much larger install base as of now, but how long will that last? Already out sold in Japan!

[timmyp53]

my time to slip away.....

[Grown Folks Talk]

it is quite obvious that the only system capable of running this game in all of its true glory is the colecovision. maybe the sega master system, slim chance on the stand alone pong system. 360 or ps3. please don't waste your time.

[zornik]

I'm also no hardware geek but i know my basics.Some people talk about the unified shaders and 10MB ambedded ram on the X360 graka like it's nothing.(dantesparda you'r killing me with you'r comments)Don't tell me Microsoft put all this technologie in the X360 when it's useless?????Another one stated all X360 games are doomed to run with 30fps.
All console developers need to work with this new technologie and learn how to achieve all this new stuff.
Like they know with a good night of sleep how to program a triple core CPU with US graka.
Take a look at FORZA 2....they lockt the game engine at 60 fps with the standard 720p res.+ 4xFSAA and HDR and this is an official statement frome the developers (and FORZA 2 looks STUNNING btw)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So put only 30fps and 4xfsaa only with 480p res.in the trashcan.
I'm also a multiplatform gamer and i like consoles and PC's but i like my hardware to do the talking and official words from the developers.

[BoneMagnus]

First of all, the game SEEMS promising, but you never know until it actually comes out.

Second of all, its not like there are not tons of great console games to play right now and scheduled to come later - whatever your console of choice.

Its just one of those facts of life - most people cannot play EVERY great game on EVERY system/format. Most of us gamers have to pick and choose and prioritize.

Case in point, I recently decided to pick up a PS2 to go with my 360, 'cube, DS Lite and Xbox and wait to get a PS3. It was an economical way to play some great games - God of War, FFXII, MGS: Subsistence etc.

Bottom line - as much as I hope this game eventually comes to the 360/PS3, I won't cry if it doesn't.