Dying Light 2 may be too ambitious for PS4 & Xbox One

Techland's ideas for Dying Light 2 may be too ambitious for PS4 and Xbox One, producer Tymon Smektala has revealed, telling that the studio still needs to determine whether its ideas "are even doable with the tech that the current consoles provide".

Speaking about the unannounced project at Gamescom, Smektala said that it is "too early" for Techland to go into specifics about its plans for a sequel, but that it already has "lots of very ambitious ideas".

"Of course, we're not talking about [Dying Light 2] just yet," he said, "but the reason for that is that it is too early. We have lots of very ambitious ideas so first we need to check if these ideas are even doable with the tech that the current consoles provide."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
FlexLuger1626d ago

They should focus on making they game they intend to make then. on PC. then scale it down to consoles. I really wish devs would stop doing this. If your idea is beyond current consoles just do it on pc.If you are worried about funds holla at MS and tell you want to make it a windows 10 exclusive. sounds like the game would only possible on PC anyway.

Link2DaFutcha1626d ago

While this would be nice it isn't a good business move. They'll need the console sales to make up the cost of developing what will be an extremely ambitious game, especially considering the number of copies that will be pirated on PC.

SteamPowered1626d ago

Youve got to be kidding about Pirating being a major factor in PC gaming development.

The Sales figures on Pc speak for themselves. It is a very viable platform. Lots of Pc exclusives sell millions upon millions of copies.

ColinZeal1626d ago

So, do we know how much Dying Light sold on PC vs Consoles?

PhucSeeker1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

Ikr !?! Out of 4 mil copy of the Witcher 3 sold, 1.3 mil was pc's. Making the console's ver less than the pc's ver of the game (gameplay wise) is a stupid move. And cur-gen consoles games also can't be pirated (for now), so ... go figure.

Link2DaFutcha1626d ago

@SteamPowered this is from 2008 but probably still relevant, point being it's factored in and if devs try and release a game not on consoles they know that they're missing a huge part of their potential market.

s45gr321626d ago

Games are cheaper on PC come with DRM which combined reduces piracy. Is on PC not consoles were innovative games are born in this day and age. Dont forget PC is the only platform that delivers 4k resolution......

Lordani661626d ago


Here are your "massive" PC sale records, compared to those of consoles. Every single console sells more copies of the game than PC, also consider the fact that console games are more expensive, so that's additional money for devs from consoles.

Piracy didn't affect pc gaming production? Then let me show you this diagram, it shows how many pc exclusive AAA games dissaperaed, or became multiplatformers with the rise of broadband connection:

AngelicIceDiamond1626d ago

Ok Techland hasn't proven the first one was super ambitious or doing anything to push the consoles. Its solid yet very standard zombie game.

I'm no programmer but I call ultimate BS Dying Light 2 is definitely doable on current gen considering the first pushed no boundaries at all.

Dynasty20211626d ago

Pirating has been proven numerous times to have minimal, if barely noticeable, impact on total sales.

Stop banging that drum trying to troll PC gamers.

ifistbrowni1626d ago


How many people actually game on PC though? I know the number is way higher than how many people own the next gen consoles...

So Witcher 3 selling 1.3 million copies doesn't sound that impressive to me considering the shear volume of people on Steam....

bubblebobble1626d ago

call of duty aw sold 150,000 copies on pc. it sold over 17 million over 4 consoles thats way over a 100 times as many in my book thats why no dev wants do a exclusive aaa pc game

Wickerman19721626d ago

@SteamPowered: A lot of those PC sales are after the games reach just $5 or even lower in Steam blowouts.

hiphopisdead1625d ago

wow... all these comments are based off of the first fanboy comment about... making it on PC.

Why does everyone assume that the dev's "ambition" is limited on console but not so on PC?

there's 2 possibilities here.

1) dev's ambition involves some vr / augmented reality, hologram -> physical movement controller device -> something far out that would make you feel you're really there running from zombies.

or 2) dev's ambition involves... 4k, 60fps.

if it's 1), then it makes sense, sounds awesome, hopefully we'll see it in the future, consoles AND PC is not there yet.

if it's 2), then consoles should not hold them back -> they can make their game just like other devs do -> allow their games to scale up on PCs. BTW, this would be a very sad "ambition" -> "our masterpiece game vision idea is... wait for it... 4k"

it's sad to see people assume 2), and then flame out that they should make their masterpiece on PC... wine wine wine. Other devs have done it, and they could too. But if these devs have any intelligence to them, they probably meant scenario 1) above.

So chill out with this flaming PC vs. Console stuff. People are just haters.

This is my opinion.

FlexLuger1625d ago

"wow... all these comments are based off of the first fanboy comment about... making it on PC."

LOL, wow, this is funny. I am not the most avid PC gamer . in fact I am more known for speaking on Xbox.So what the hell are you talking about?

The fact of the matter is PC always can be more powerful, but this is not exploited for reasons others have mentioned in there replys. I never dissagreed with any of it. Simply stated the very obvious fact that they should do as they really want. You guys seem to stir that into some anti console thing. And I am mainly an xbox gamer.

It just goes to show that its impossible to have objective discussion on here. everybody either has a fanboy agenda or replies thoughtlessly off their own defensive you hiphopisdead. I have said nothing to offend anybody. I never said I was against them putting it on console either. I simply stated that the devs should go after their vision. Its funny because when we are talking console exclusives and everybody talks about how they push the platform, nobody bats an eyelid...but mention the PC and ...well..look at the comments. I didnt offend . I didnt take part in any of the mudslinging. And yet im the 'troll'?

You guys fail at comprehesion so hard, its just plain silly now. nobody wants to talk fact.They just wanna state their piece and have a bunch of yes man agree with them.

And I love how you finish it off with "people are haters"... Like I dont own an XB1 and PS4. And game on them more than PC. check yourself before you come in here name calling.

I know what I meant when I posted what I posted. It says more about you guys that you all replied..pretty much to each other. But I guess you are not smart enough to see that.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1625d ago
Palitera1626d ago

There's a reason for so little AAA games being PC exclusives.

Lordani661626d ago

Exactly. Look at the list of AAA exclusives (from 2012 - 2015, with few exceptions like RDR and StarCraft II, and those that are yet to be released in near future):

Dynasty20211626d ago

Yeah it's not like the PC has the single biggest library of EXCLUSIVE games or anything.


gatormatt801626d ago


Except you missed the part where they said "AAA" exclusive PC games...

FlexLuger1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

Im surprised more PC gamers on here are not speaking up on this to be honest. I am mostly a console gamer. for me my PC gaming revolves around a handful of games, but none of them involve zombies.

But PC gamers..surely the notion of a game that takes advantage of your platform above else would appeal no? The console gamer in me would not miss this game. Tonnes of zombie games about the place. Why not one that fully pushes the PC?

Remember I game on console and PC. I am also not really big on zombie games but the headline so I dont really have a dog in this fight.The article did get my attention, and made me ponder..would it really be so bad if was just on PC?

SteamPowered1626d ago

Flex, you're on the wrong site for PC gaming. N4G is heavily console-centric. Hardly worth pushing issues on here. I suggest Pcgamer or Twitter if you want to gather with the PC brethren.

But you're absolutely right on all points.

FlexLuger1626d ago


Its a damn shame. And I say that as a console gamer who only got into PC gaming about three years ago. When you play a game like farefall or star citizen at 1080p 60FPS with FX turned all the way up, then you know wassup ;)

Dynasty20211626d ago

Seriously dude, just stop.

Nothing but children and arrogant, ignorant console fanboys on N4G. It's pathetic.

It's just a shame that it's a decent place to get a wider variety of gaming news.

FlameBaitGod1626d ago

Most PC gamers are mature and don't waste their time replying lol

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1626d ago
medman1626d ago

I have no clue what this developer is talking about. That is all I came here to say.

_-EDMIX-_1626d ago

lol, they are just hyping up their next title. Its very much likely doable, but they want to make it sound like they are pushing boundaries.

Magicite1626d ago

I bet current consoles have too weak cpu, it cant handle too much things at once, almost all open-world games have 30fps and often dipping below.

FlexLuger1626d ago

probably. And thats why I dont think they should let it hold them back. Its not like we are short of great console games anyway. Ill be buying this on PC.

Lordani661626d ago

Bullshit. PS2 had single core 300MHz CPU in 2000, while PCs had 3.0GHz, and dual cores were on the rise, in 2005, PS2 still had it's 300MHz, PCs had quad cores already, and still, PS2 games like Black and many more looked just like PC exclusives like FEAR.

Now, PS4s have 8 core, the latest valve data ( tells us, that only 0,3%(!!!) of pc players have 8 cores xD. This just proves how wrong you are.

Dasteru1625d ago (Edited 1625d ago )


BLACK didn't look anywhere near as good as F.E.A.R.

There is far more to a CPU than just number of cores. Each core of even a mid range PC CPU is several times more powerful than the Jaguar cores in the PS4.

PS4 Jaguar CPU = 102 Gflops
AMD Athlon 5350 (Quad core APU, $48) = 96 Gflops

That is only 6 Gflops lower total performance and it is a $48 quad core. For around $120 you can get a quad core with well over 500 gflops performance.

Eidolon1625d ago (Edited 1625d ago )

Doesn't matter how weak the CPU and GPU are, the fact is that these consoles' architectures are designed for gaming and will usually beat an equivalently or even better spec'd PC, especially when they really hone the power.

Lordani661624d ago


Please tell me you believe that Gflops are the indicators of how fast a CPU is. In PC maybe, when you compare PC CPUs, but it has nothing to do in console - PC comparison, it's like GPUs Terraflops, here is the best example that higher terraflops and gflops on PC don't mean this buld will "destroy" or anything a console:

It's not in english but you will get teh idea, when you see the comparison of PS3 vs this particular (nowadays a low end) PC, you can see that this PC has over 2x as many gflops, and overally it's a "Much better" Pc, yeah, but only on a card. If you scroll down you will see how "well" it handled GTA V. It's like heaven and hell when comparin with PS3. PS3 that works this game in 30 fps with ocasional dips, and no bugs, this pC works about 20 fps, and this guy said it felt like 3 fps due to unlimited stuttering, there are bugs, half the game is not loaded, and finally it crashed. Now you get it? People shod get it in their empty brains, that they can not just compare PCs and consoles just like that.

Dasteru1624d ago (Edited 1624d ago )


It all has to do with optimisation. Gflops/Tflops represent the overall power of a piece of hardware. It factors in every aspect of the hardware and how it functions, and is actually the only spec that is an accurate indicator of speed. GTAV was much better optimised on PC than GTAIV, but it was still not great. The console versions were very well optimised. A CPU or GPU with double the Gflops of another, regardless of console vs PC, will be twice the power. Whether it actually shows in games or not will depend on optimisation. Number of cores means almost nothing.

Lordani661624d ago

@Dasteru Shit, I unfortunately hit "Report" on your last comment because I thought it said "reply" -.-

Anyway... I agree. And you basically agree with what i said, that cosnoles don't need to be uber-powerfull to be comparable to PCs, and to play nice looking games with stable framerates (only bad optimisation console game this generation is Witcher 3 but that's because it was developed by console games amateurs, Horizon looks 100x better, and is said to work in perfect 30fps). It's due to many reasons, like low level access to GPU, closed specifications, simplier architecture, no "slim throat" that PCs have, that has to be served by GPU drivers, etc etc. That's basically what I meant and I have that knowledge, I'm close to making a engineer degree in IT. But I have to disagree with the "number of cores doesnt mean anything". You see... games nowadays put basically everything on GPUs, that's no wonder, because it's graphics that keep wanting more and more and more power nowadays. CPUs are used for events, they handle all the procedures, physics, etc. and these things are so to speak "small tasks". But there are a LOT of such tasks. It's faster to run these tasks on multiple cores/threads, than on less cores, but that are more powerfull, if you add what you said to it, optimisation, 1,6GHz 8 cores is MORE than enough for today, because even PC CPUs from 2011 work perfectly still (the top onest like 2500K), so this is a dead giveaway that CPUs don't get old that quick, because GPUs from 2011 are now extinct (in comparison).

So tl;dr - it's better to have more cores for a console, because this way all the small tasks can be ran at the same time.

Dasteru1623d ago (Edited 1623d ago )


I said number of cores means almost nothing, not that they don't mean anything. Obviously they have their benefits. I just mean that 8 weaker cores such as the ones used in the PS4s Jaguar chip are not necessarily going to be better than 4 or even 2 stronger cores. They may offload small tasks better but that doesn't automatically translate to faster performance. Compared to flops which is an overall representation of a chips capabilities, number of cores is much less meaningful.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1623d ago
ATi_Elite1626d ago

PC GAMER right here!!

1. No info was given to as why the game may not fit on the PS4/xb1

2. I'm no console lover but those consoles are very capable

3. StarCitizen and a few MMO's are currently the only games too ambitious for consoles.

StarCitizen is running an advanced version of the Cryengine with so much detail on a ginormous scale with so much physics that current consoles would have to give up a lot to make the game work which is why its currently a PC exclusive with NO PLANS for a console version as Chris Roberts currently does NOT want to water down anything on his ambitious project.

4. Now if their game is truly indeed too big for consoles then just make it on the PC to get your dream game out there and then port it down to consoles.

5. there is this thing called STEAM. Devs tend to quietly make a nice load of money selling PC games on it.

Persistantthug1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

ATi_Elite.......Star Citizen doesn't seem to be too ambitious for the users with lower spec'd PC's.
"The Minimum system requirements for Star Citizen right now are: ( Source: "Windows 7 or 8 64-bit, Dual Core CPU (Intel: Core2 Duo 2.4Ghz, AMD: Phenom X2) 8GB of RAM, NVidia Geforce 460GTX, AMD Radeon HD5850 (DirectX 11 only)"

_-EDMIX-_1626d ago

" StarCitizen and a few MMO's are currently the only games too ambitious for consoles"????

SC is running off of a modded Cry3 engine. By no means is it "too ambitious consoles".

The concept is amazing, but its not impossible, I'm playing parts of SC right now on a HD 5770.

I don't know where you heard that SC was this technical marvel lol, my PC is not really that beast bud and SC specs are not even near current gen PC titles, they are actually near last gen PC titles in terms of specs.

Star Citizen is very much easily doable on PS4 and XONE, I mean...did PC gamers not say the same BS about Elite Dangerous? Yet...its on XONE and coming to PS4 and I don't see it struggling on XONE or anything lol.

Being on PC, doesn't by default make it some monster game that only requires 4 way SLI lolz.

" why its currently a PC exclusive with NO PLANS for a console version as Chris Roberts currently does NOT want to water down anything on his ambitious project."

Nope, he never stated anything like that, I've backed this game since 2012 and still read the updates and watch many, many Youtubers on the game and that was never stated.
"it will never be dumbed down for a lesser platform" never that it wasn't coming to PS4 or XONE, merely that it would note be made with console in mind, but could be ported after the fact.

"said Roberts. “But my stance remains open and is consistent with the many interviews I’ve given — if the platform holders allow our community to openly interact with each other across platforms, then I would consider supporting them.”

Many, many games on PS4 currently have cross play and I think a few XONE games have it for PC.

Its likely going to go to one of the consoles if not both. I can't see why not, they are still a business.

@Persitantthug- well thank you, I don't get why many keep trying to make SC seem like this extremely demanding game ONLY to be done on PC...its not.

The concept no doubt is amazing, but its not a demanding title, it can be done on PS4 and XONE in a technical sense. (publishing deals and money aside)

D3TH_D33LR1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

It's a matter of money and profits. Why would a dev spend more time making the best PC game ever then spend more money and time downgrading it for the audience that generates them the most revenue? The demands and expectations of PC players is amusing. For all your tech know how it seems there's not much room left for understanding business and expectations.

tee_bag2421626d ago

Multiplatform games sales aren't that far behind PS4 you do know. Ubisoft sales on PC were only 5% behind PS4 and infront of X1.
I think you underestimate the PC platfrom. It brings in more money than all the consoles put together.

D3TH_D33LR1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

I can't stop laughing at that ridiculous comment about PC sales topping consoles combined. Absolutely gold.... Especially after you just said ubi only sold 5% less than ps4 OR xb1

s45gr321626d ago

Yet its on PC that generated more revenue for game developers lol

FlameBaitGod1626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

"Sales generated by PC games are poised to overtake those for video game consoles, a monumental shift that is many years in the making, according to data from industry researcher PwC. By the end of 2016, PC game sales are expected to reach $29 billion around the world, compared with $28 billion in sales for the console market"

Google "Playing games on the PC is making a comeback", "PC Gaming Makes More Money than Consoles" and have fun laughing.

"By the end of this year, the PC market will have notched $21.8 billion in such sales, according to PwC. The console market, by comparison, will rack up only a fraction as much, at $2.4 billion"

Mmmmm yes laugh more

D3TH_D33LR1625d ago (Edited 1625d ago )

Lmfao actually Im still laughing because you don't know the difference between predictions and facts. And be dumber about the fact that those are PC hardware stats as well. It's what happens when peoe drop 2gs on a rig. Smh.

FlameBaitGod1625d ago

Uhhh just because it has another part on hardware sales doesn't make the "PC game sales are expected to reach $29 billion around the world, compared with $28 billion in sales for the console market." any less true, see how silly you are, its k... fanboys tend to react differently. Oh and I forgot predictions made on sales growth didn't mean anything, need 2 go back to college sorry.

D3TH_D33LR1625d ago

Kinda like how your jimmies got rustled by my first comment and you started googling predictions, right? Lol fanboys.

FlameBaitGod1625d ago

I see there's no hope, I'm sorry.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1625d ago
Testfire1626d ago

Remember Flex, a lot of PC gamers had trouble running Dying Light on their rigs, so a sequel that takes the game up a notch would also alienate many PC gamers as well. So to not only cut out consoles, but a large percentage of PC users as well is financial suicide. No dev or publisher would take that risk.

ONESHOTV21626d ago

that's not how it works bud. if i knew that a game was coming out what do you think i would do. i would check my hardware to see if it can run it at a stable frame and at a good graphics settings. if it cant push a good frames i would upgrade as needed. i don't think you can do that right

DevilOgreFish1626d ago

I agree that they should expand their vision through pc, of course they can still release current gen versions for sales as well. But asking for all versions to start from scratch identical is contributing to parity.

deadpoolio3161626d ago

Get over it....Consoles are where the money is at for developers and that isn't going to change, ever unless consoles somehow magically go away....

quaneylfc1626d ago


christian hour1626d ago

I find this hard to believe going off techlands previous games.

The underlying architecture of their engines has always felt like it was a few years outdated. Not to say I didn't enjoy their games, just that they felt a bit, blocky and clunky and not very organic or fluid.

wsoutlaw871626d ago (Edited 1626d ago )

hes not talking about it being to ambitious because of a few pixels or fps. He is saying their ideas might require some very high end stuff to run the game. Therefor not even most pc gamers would be able to play it. That would just be a waste of time.
Plus you guys, this is just hype bs that weve all heard before.

Gwiz1626d ago


They might be 8 cores yet not very powerful ones.
In comparison the PS2 for that time had decent hardware although the Xbox was more powerful.
The 8 core argument is not accurate,the 360 and the PS3 were cutting edge at release but certainly not the jaguar chips compared to PC tech now.It's not always a matter of physical cores especially when you compare mobile VS desktop hardware.

alabtrosMyster1625d ago

Oh great! As someone part of the studio I can report we never though of this!!! might as well advised them to use the infinite power of thwe cloud while you are at it....

My guess is they will make a scaled back version fo their game that runs on all their target platforms and offer the usual frame rate/resolution, etc. variations... we will never know which compromises were done during the development phase.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 1623d ago
Genuine-User1626d ago

Build a scalable engine. Problem solved.

deadpoolio3161626d ago

The problem with that is that it generally takes years to develop a scalable engine. Way more time then publishers usually give, especially for a little rinky dink developer who doesn't really have a name....

Techland isn't Kojima productions or some major name publisher, they made mediocre meh games at best with their best working being Dying Light.

SolidGear31626d ago

I'm looking forward to Hellraid next. I hope it gets a retail release.

1626d ago Replies(5)
gamesismylife091626d ago ShowReplies(3)