PC Games Crysis and UT3 Flop

[Prime]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140623-pg,1/article.html

 

"The simExchange reports that neither Crysis or UT3 managed to sell more than 100,000 units in their debut last month.

 

Crysis, which requires an unprecedented US$1500-$2500 in PC upgrades to play, sold 86,633 copies in the U.S., while Unreal Tournament 3 sold just 33,995 copies.

 

In January 2005, Vivendi said it sold 1.7 million copies of Half-Life 2 in just two months; much more than either Crysis or Unreal 3 for a similar period..."

 

Thoughts?

[HappyMojo]

Shame really... but I think they're games which will sell over a long period. + Crytek and Unreal will properly make a lot of money on selling their engines.

[Darth InSidious]

At what kind of retail price?

[stingerhs]

it is a shame, at least with Crysis because Crysis is really one of the best games on the market today.

 

and a lot of people do want to play Crysis, but as its stated in the article: a lot of gamers just don't have the hardware to play the game on the higher settings. it is a shame, really, because the game runs fairly well on older hardware at Low and Medium settings. its once you start pushing the performance settings to High (or Very High with Vista computers) that the game struggles to keep the framerates at a playable level.

 

the release of Crysis really brings up an interesting question then: is it possible to push the boundaries of what looks good for real-time rendering beyond what the consumer can support monetarily?? for now, the answer appears to be yes. i think, though, that the hardware available now is much more suited for a game like Crysis in terms of how much performance you get for the price (Radeon 3800 series anyone??), and as such, the sales will at least remain steady for a while.

[PoiuyWired]

Crysis doing well is a good thing, and for UT3... now you are thinking portals!

 

Plus, <3 companion cube.

[mur'phon]

Seems like crysis is failing for the same reason supcom did, too bad. UT3 doing bad is a surprise though

[Negative Sun]

Shame really... but I think they're games which will sell over a long period. + Crytek and Unreal will properly make a lot of money on selling their engines.

QFT

 

Crysis is just too advanced for most PCs, plus it seems to be a general misconception that having DX10 is a must for this game...It'll sell, just give it time, I don't think it was meant to break records in the first month anyways, it's just a shame the hardware industry didn't catch up before it's release, because not even 0.01% of all players out there have seen it in its Very High settings full HD glory...I think that's ticked off a lot of gamers, we all knew Crysis was gonna be a monster, but the fact that it needs 3 8800Ultras in Sli to run at VH settings is a bit more than anyone anticipated.

[Jeff]

I agree that graphics are probably a reason why these games have failed to sell. No one is (or I should say most people aren't) going to buy or upgrade their PC that extensively for one game. But it is a good point that these games will sell well over time like previous UT games have.

[Miltiades]

I agree with everyone here that not everyone's going to upgrade their PC for these games only. I'm still a bit surprised, but hey, Christmas is coming!

[Web Rider]

Seems like crysis is failing for the same reason supcom did' date=' too bad. UT3 doing bad is a surprise though[/quote']

 

SupCom was a takeoff of a game that never did stellar to start with, Total Annihilation was always sort of an underground hit. It's a great game, but I don't recall it ever hitting it big(like Command and Conquer did).

 

But I do agree, much as I love SupCom, the requirements are HUGE, and it's expansion are apparently more. Scary thought that. I'll wait till somebody designs a 1tb graphics card before I get a new PC.

[Sabretooth]

It's sad that a gaming veteran like the UT series got such low sales. I curse consoles and their casual hypiness-thing.

[mur'phon]

and it's expansion are apparently more

 

From what I have heard they are the same because of the performance patches, looking forward to christmas

[Ztalker]

I hereby want to thank all the people who downloaded the game from the internet. You made this succes possible. If we can continue this cause, maybe there will be no games in the future at all! (note: extreme sarcasm)

 

I can see why Crysis would sell badly. I just can't understand their 'spend 1500 dollars and you can play' ideas. But UT 3 should sell good wouldn't it? I mean, it's an online game. Maybe it's system specs are too high for the avarage PC gamer as well...

[Sabretooth]

I hereby want to thank all the people who downloaded the game from the internet. You made this succes possible. If we can continue this cause, maybe there will be no games in the future at all! (note: extreme sarcasm)

 

I can see why Crysis would sell badly. I just can't understand their 'spend 1500 dollars and you can play' ideas. But UT 3 should sell good wouldn't it? I mean, it's an online game. Maybe it's system specs are too high for the avarage PC gamer as well...

Actually, UT3 is extremely scalable. It should run on a three-year old system, by my reckoning. Also, since UT3 is an online game, I don't see why it would be pirated (seeing as pirated games don't have multiplayer capability).

 

'tis sad.

[stoffe]

"The simExchange reports that neither Crysis or UT3 managed to sell more than 100,000 units in their debut last month.

 

Crysis, which requires an unprecedented US$1500-$2500 in PC upgrades to play, sold 86,633 copies in the U.S., while Unreal Tournament 3 sold just 33,995 copies.

 

Thoughts?

 

Doesn't surprise me. If you make a game (Crysis) which apparently is only targeted at the very hardcore gamers (due to the draconian system requirements) then it's not that surprising that it doesn't sell as well as games that are more accessible to a broader audience. Might sell better in the long run though when baseline computer hardware catches up with what Crysis wants in a few years.

 

As for UT3, admittedly I haven't tried it but from what I've read about it it mostly seems to be more of the same as what the older games in the series offered. People can probably only do roughly the same thing (with increasingly pretty graphics) for so long before getting bored with it. This particular cash cow may be starting to run out of milk.

 

In general I think PC games have a tendency of getting stuck in the Graphics Trap. Since most reviewers nowadays place such heavy emphasis on the graphics when reviewing games developers may feel compelled to be on the cutting edge, which severely limits the size of their customer base. Most PC users don't sit with high-end gaming rigs that they replace every few months.

[Jae Onasi]

Crysis is getting great reviews in the gaming magazines (integrity of any game reviews being in question notwithstanding). I think sales were hurt a bit by Halo's release--people are going nuts playing that game and weren't ready to pick up another game right then. It should be interesting to see how sales do over the Christmas holidays.

[Ztalker]

Jae Onasi wrote:

Crysis is getting great reviews in the gaming magazines (integrity of any game reviews being in question notwithstanding). I think sales were hurt a bit by Halo's release--people are going nuts playing that game and weren't ready to pick up another game right then. It should be interesting to see how sales do over the Christmas holidays.

 

Well...about the Reviews. 'My' magazine awarded it with 89 points out of a possible 100. 90 Points means a great game, or a 'Gold Award.' The author of the article was so angry about the system specs he gave it a lower rating.

I personally think Crysis has made the gap between the consoles and the PC visible again. If you have to pay (let's face it) 500 Dollars alone on a new Ati or Nvidia card (let alone have a duel core system) who wants to buy the game?

 

An X-Box 360 or a PS3 WITH a game (like Jae's aformentioned Halo 3) costs less then a single card for the PC.

[Mr Roboto]

Farcry was similar to Crysis in the fact that it couldn't be played on the highest settings when it came out. I think when the next gen video cards come out, Crysis will sell well just like Farcry did.

[Prime]

But it is possible that it will be out of the gamer public consciousness by then...

[stingerhs]

I personally think Crysis has made the gap between the consoles and the PC visible again. If you have to pay (let's face it) 500 Dollars alone on a new Ati or Nvidia card (let alone have a duel core system) who wants to buy the game?

 

An X-Box 360 or a PS3 WITH a game (like Jae's aformentioned Halo 3) costs less then a single card for the PC.

that's where things get really hazy. see, on one hand, you're paying a lot of money for good PC hardware. the upside, though, is that a PC can do so much more than a console, and what it can do is almost unlimited.

 

and the costs really aren't that incredibly bad for a system that will run Crysis reasonably well. put an Intel Core 2 with a Radeon 3850, and you have a system that will run Crysis on High settings in either XP or Vista, and a system like that shouldn't cost you more than $1000.

 

why people are putting the game down is that it does cost a small fortune to play the game on Very High settings. the problem is that you can enjoy the game on Medium to High settings just fine. why the final judgement for the game seems to hinge on the hardware requirements is beyond my reasoning, and besides, the on Medium to High settings, the game is still incredibly impressive both visually and with the physics emulation.

 

i look at it this way: if you can play Bioshock on your system, you can play Crysis on your system. then, you can judge the game based on what it should be judged by: the gameplay.

[Miltiades]

But it is possible that it will be out of the gamer public consciousness by then...

 

Maybe, maybe not. Many people who would buy such a videocard are doing so because of Crysis. Others may have Crysis on their wishlist, but wait a few months before buying it. Since I practically don't buy shooters, and most of the time, the vast improvements in graphics happen with shooters, I've never really been in such a situation, so I wouldn't know for sure.

[stoffe]

i look at it this way: if you can play Bioshock on your system, you can play Crysis on your system. then, you can judge the game based on what it should be judged by: the gameplay.

 

For some games the visuals are a pretty big part of the game play though. Farcry was a very generic shooter of the kind that has been made hundreds of times before. What made it special and worth playing in my opinion was the huge awesome-looking outdoor environments to explore and the immersive atmosphere of the game world. Games where the visuals are such a big part of the experience do suffer if you have to turn off all the bells and whistles in the graphics options.

[Negative Sun]

But it is possible that it will be out of the gamer public consciousness by then...

I don't think so Prime, and I'll tell you why:

 

Crysis is gonna be the ultimate PC/GPU benchmarking game for a long time to come, I'd say at least one or two more GPU cycles (or one more cycle with some refreshes)

 

People will buy it not solely for the gameplay, however good it may be, but to see if they can achieve those pwnage graphics at VH settings...Like FarCry (which is sometimes still used in benchies I might add) it'll be the cornerstone of PC/GPU enthusiast benchmarking for a long time coming.

[stingerhs]

For some games the visuals are a pretty big part of the game play though. Farcry was a very generic shooter of the kind that has been made hundreds of times before. What made it special and worth playing in my opinion was the huge awesome-looking outdoor environments to explore and the immersive atmosphere of the game world. Games where the visuals are such a big part of the experience do suffer if you have to turn off all the bells and whistles in the graphics options.

the problem is that you don't have to have all the features turned on in order to enjoy how good the graphics are. if there's one thing Crytek did right, they made the graphics scale quite well based on the settings. just check some of the screenshot comparisons from Tweak Guides. believe me, its not some huge sacrifice to run Crysis at Medium settings instead of High settings.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I actually can see why both didn't sell too well. Crysis was marketed on the idea that it required a monster to run. Every preview mentions how it will need a beefy machine.

 

 

On the case of UT3, it's a bit more surprising, but not that much. Consider this: UT2k4 is still a great game. It has hundreds of mods, runs easily on older machines and gameplay that's very similar. It even has additional game modes (bombing run, double domination and the fan favorite assault).

 

At the moment, why would someone in his right mind buy UT3 instead? It costs more, requires a beefier machine (even though it scales really well) and is too new to have serious mods already out. UT3 will probably sell over time, when the reasons to make the switch are more evident.