Developers of UT3 and Crysis are unhappy with PC sales of their games

L

lewchenko

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
284
See the news link here : http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/17/crysis_ut3_sales_disappoint_developers/1

Crysis sold 86K copies in November, and UT3 sold 34K.


My own take on this is that everyone bought COD4/Orange Box instead! I dont know how many units COD4 sold on the PC, but in Nov, in the US alone, they sold 1.57M on the 360 and 444K on the PS3. Those numbers make the PC versions of Crysis and UT3 look pathetic. Just bear in mind that the consoles ALSO had a good lineup of games to choose from as well, yet still sold by the bucket load for some games.

Releasing games only on the PC is no longer economically viable when compared to cross platform sales. The news link talks about people struggling with hardware requirements.. which Im sure contributed as well.. but I dont think its the sole reason.
 
Crysis and ut3 don't really have the best innovative multiplayer in the world. To me cod4 really nailed the online gameplay head on. I think epic screwed up once they started to delete our threads in their forums and all that with the same online modes as ut2k4. Nothing new practically. Crysis system requirements really did it i think for sales ;)
 
lewchenko said:
See the news link here : http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/17/crysis_ut3_sales_disappoint_developers/1

Crysis sold 86K copies in November, and UT3 sold 34K.


My own take on this is that everyone bought COD4/Orange Box instead! I dont know how many units COD4 sold on the PC, but in Nov, in the US alone, they sold 1.57M on the 360 and 444K on the PS3. Those numbers make the PC versions of Crysis and UT3 look pathetic. Just bear in mind that the consoles ALSO had a good lineup of games to choose from as well, yet still sold by the bucket load for some games.

Releasing games only on the PC is no longer economically viable when compared to cross platform sales. The news link talks about people struggling with hardware requirements.. which Im sure contributed as well.. but I dont think its the sole reason.
Click to expand...

Crysis's sales are actually not very bad, since it is a PC exclusive. 86k copies in 15 days, is really not that bad. And yes, the requirements are also an issue. I did my part already and even though my rig doesn't handle the game very well, I'm happily playing my Crysis Special Edition :)
Crysis for me is GOTY. Graphics and gameplay are top notch,. The best I've seen in years in a FPS. I hope that sales get better. PC gamers all over should support companies like Crytek, that actually respect their PC community and provide excellent games.

As for UT3, Epic made a critical mistake. They thought of consoles only and completely alienated their PC fanbase, which made them what they are today. I'm not surprised with those sales at all. They delayed the game so much, because of the console versions, that they are now paying the price, since the game was released at the same time as other very popular games. Not to mention that UT3 is a total letdown, in terms of graphics and brings nothing new in terms of gameplay.
 
lewchenko said:
See the news link here : http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/17/crysis_ut3_sales_disappoint_developers/1

Crysis sold 86K copies in November, and UT3 sold 34K.


My own take on this is that everyone bought COD4/Orange Box instead!
Click to expand...

I'm the odd man out because I bought Crysis instead of COD4. I"ll be renting COD4 for my PS3 becuase I can't justify $50 on a 6 hour game. No, the multi does not interest me in the slightest.
But those numbers are low, it seems. Didn't The Witcher sell over a million copes already?
 
*snickering*

To all those out there who state this: Keep protesting versions of games. Surely that'll keep games from going multiplatform with the console version not being priority 1 ;)
 
Crysis's requirements were too steep for me, and I have no need for yet another shooter.
 
Monkey God said:
Crysis's requirements were too steep for me, and I have no need for yet another shooter.
Click to expand...

Too steep ?

"QX6700 @ 3.5Ghz, Intel XBX2, 4GB, 8800GT-KO"

That's the rig on your sig...You can surely play Crysis smoothly on that one...
 
Silus said:
Too steep ?

"QX6700 @ 3.5Ghz, Intel XBX2, 4GB, 8800GT-KO"

That's the rig on your sig...You can surely play Crysis smoothly on that one...
Click to expand...

Not on my monitor. People are having problems running it with maximum settings even with better cards. I have no desire to spend my money on a game that is either a) poorly optimized or b) made for 2+ year in the future hardware. If things change over time I might change my mind. Lots of other games out there that look fine and play well without uber hardware requirements.

In otheer words, hype and eye candy mean very little to me anymore. (Cynical old gamer, LOL)
 
Monkey God said:
Not on my monitor. People are having problems running it with maximum settings even with better cards. I have no desire to spend my money on a game that is either a) poorly optimized or b) made for 2+ year in the future hardware. If things change over time I might change my mind. Lots of other games out there that look fine and play well without uber hardware requirements.

In otheer words, hype and eye candy mean very little to me anymore. (Cynical old gamer, LOL)
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I didn't mean with everything set to max, but you can run with everything set to high and still maintain a smooth gameplay experience.
 
Monkey God said:
Not on my monitor. People are having problems running it with maximum settings even with better cards. I have no desire to spend my money on a game that is either a) poorly optimized or b) made for 2+ year in the future hardware. If things change over time I might change my mind. Lots of other games out there that look fine and play well without uber hardware requirements.

In otheer words, hype and eye candy mean very little to me anymore. (Cynical old gamer, LOL)
Click to expand...

am running Crysis on 8800gts, e6600 @2.4 and 2 gig ram and at those specs Crysis still looks better than any game i have played so far.
 
Better to Play Crysis with a little Chop than to not get GoW to even play...

Hmm.. Wait a Sec.. 3 Buggy/Poorly Written Titles... Dont sell well..

CoD4.. Which doesnt have these problems are doing VERY well.. Hmm.. Maybe word of mouth among the community has something to do with it?
 
Silus said:
Fair enough, but I didn't mean with everything set to max, but you can run with everything set to high and still maintain a smooth gameplay experience.
Click to expand...

From what ive seen people post here that is not true. Either way, from my point of view its a $50 gamble im not gonna take.
 
"Hey guys, let's not release any AAA titles for 2 years. Then, in a 45 day window, we'll open the floodgates. We can't possibly lose!"

Crysis: I enjoyed Crysis, but I'm in that 5% of PC owners who have a latest-generation card (8800GTS 640, specifically). And even my system crawled, both in the alien ship, and outside, when ice was present. I work with about 12 guys who buy and play a lot of PC games. Most passed on Crysis after the demo, as it was unplayable on their machines. There are 2 of us who have 8800s. Both the 8800 owners, and one last-gen card owner bought Crysis (3 purchases out of 12 of us). I was the only one who didn't regret the purchase.

UT3: I'm the only one who bought it. And I regret the purchase. I've been looking forward to UT3 since I stopped playing UT2K4, the week WoW was released (November 2004). Game-breaking bugs galore, no community to speak of. Rushed out the door, and looks like a poorly ported console game. A few nights ago, during East-coast prime time, there were 12 Warfare servers available. Only 2 had more than a half dozen people, and playable pings. (Edit: Now that I think about it, the fact that I couldn't filter out the other 10 results makes me regret the purchase that much more. It doesn't take much to get a server browser right, but Epic couldn't be bothered. I guess they figured entering a filterable maximum ping would require a keyboard, and heaven forbid they have to support PC features on the PC version of their game!) I exited UT3, and fired up...

Orange Box: TF2 is one of the most fun multiplayer experiences I've had in years. In prime time, even with my server filters on (<100 ping, no empty/full servers listed), there's over 60 servers to choose from. I upgraded my machine in mid-October. Prior to the upgrade, TF2 was quite playable, even on my 4-year-old Radeon 9800 Pro. Screams on the 8800 I've got now. Everyone at work has Orange box. That's 12 copies. 1 for Xbox, 11 for the PC. We've got people playing it on 4-year-old cards, to the latest hardware. Everyone agreed that Episode 2 was a blast. Portal will get you a couple nights of low-impact fun.


I hope that Epic and Crytek don't think that just because they sold poorly that PC gaming is dead. Crysis released a game that was marketed on eye-candy. But that eye-candy was accessable to a tiny percentage of PC owners. Epic rushed a half-finished product out the door, and seems to have take a step backwards in every way from previous releases. They have to know what PC gamers expect in a game, But ignored it.

The thing is, neither of these problems would have been nearly as bad to their bottom line had they not waited until just before Christmas to release their titles. We've had 2 years where AAA titles on the PC were few and far between. 2 years where people would have gladly grabbed up anything offered, warts and all. But when everyone decides to release their games in a 45 day window (Oct 1st to Nov 15th) you're going to face competition.
 
Monkey God said:
From what ive seen people post here that is not true. Either way, from my point of view its a $50 gamble im not gonna take.
Click to expand...

Again, fair enough. It is your money after all. But my point was, you are far from NOT meeting the recommended specs to run Crysis :)
 
Silus said:
Again, fair enough. It is your money after all. But my point was, you are far from NOT meeting the recommended specs to run Crysis :)
Click to expand...

Recommended specs dont mean shit. Anecdotal evidence (like the post above yours) means alot more to me.
 
I have been running Crysis fairly well (Minus some chop as I mentioned earlier) on the rig in my Sig below. I put all of the settings on High, Except for the Shadow and AA Settings, all of those on Low and it runs fairly well and looks spectacular... On a 7900gs..

The Shadows and AA just kill it.. Period.. (Running 1024x768 too..)
 
What I'm finding particularly ironic, with this topic being discussed on damn near any PC video game related forum or news site, is that: While COD4 may be the bread and butter after 4 generations of it's own IP; Both Crysis (CryEngine2) and UT3 have more interest than just single user sales.

Both UT3 and CryEngine2 are being licensed for ground-breaking new game engines. And while both, separately, may not hold the top sales figures for consumer-level sales-- both will far surpass in third-party licensing figures than the COD franchise ever will.

Where are those figures?


Face it, the titles behind those engines, while something new(in some cases)and different, were mostly to showcase the potential of their game engines.

FYI to the guy who's scared of "gambling" with Crysis on his high-end rig: I play on equipment just slightly over the recommended specs(but only because of my OC, and because of my RAM); with a 1680x1050 res. and High settings, with additional configs, I can get a smooth 25-30+ fps, on medium it goes to 35-40+. You rely on what others tell you, far, far too much. So, here's more soup to stir in your pot.
 
Well crytek can only blaim themselves, we all seen all the videos and interviews where they said a ultra gtx and core 2 duo will max this game and all beta bugs and performance will be solved in the final version blabla.. and i havent even touched this hole dx10 and that you need vista for the extra effects.. + quad core support, proper SLI etc.. lower framerates in vista etc etc..

and they wonder why this game has sold so bad... please.

:confused:
 
Monkey God said:
Not on my monitor. People are having problems running it with maximum settings even with better cards. I have no desire to spend my money on a game that is either a) poorly optimized or b) made for 2+ year in the future hardware. If things change over time I might change my mind. Lots of other games out there that look fine and play well without uber hardware requirements.

In otheer words, hype and eye candy mean very little to me anymore. (Cynical old gamer, LOL)
Click to expand...

Somebody agrees with me. Playing Crysis on high on my rig @1680x1050 is really as high as I can go. Any res above that, you bneed to really set everything to medium, or even less :(.
To me, game is poorly optimized, however, it could also be teh fact that current hardware is not up to par, hardly doubght it though.
 
Trust me.. the Game plays super smooth on even a lower end rig like mine if you put those shadows on low... Turn off AA too.. I will have to get all three settings I changed to make mine run like butter and look great.

On the Game options screen, I set the bottm Three Options on the Left Column on Low, the rest on high. Game runs VERY well now.
 
dot_Zen said:
FYI to the guy who's scared of "gambling" with Crysis on his high-end rig: I play on equipment just slightly over the recommended specs(but only because of my OC, and because of my RAM); with a 1680x1050 res. and High settings, with additional configs, I can get a smooth 25-30+ fps, on medium it goes to 35-40+. You rely on what others tell you, far, far too much. So, here's more soup to stir in your pot.
Click to expand...
I'm not relying on what others tell me. On 1280x960, at all high settings, with bloom and depth-of-field off, I get 25-35FPS, unless I'm in the alien ship, or there is ice on the screen, at which point it turns to about 15FPS. The carrier fights are even worse. For these areas, I found myself having to run at 1024x768, at medium, into order to smooth things out. And I'm on a 8800GTS 640Mb. That's a lot more GPU then you're going to find in 95% of gaming machines out there, despite what you may think from reading these forums.
 
aFive said:
To me, game is poorly optimized, however, it could also be teh fact that current hardware is not up to par, hardly doubght it though.
Click to expand...
It very well could be that current hardware isn't up to the task. And you know what? That's fine. It's perfectly OK to release a game that pushes latest-gen hardware to it's limits, and beyond. What's not OK is pushing latest-gen hardware to its limits, and then complaining because you aren't selling a ton of games. If you want to develop a game that can only be played on the latest and greatest hardware, you need to accept that you're limiting your market to a fraction of what would otherwise be available.
 
SlimyTadpole said:
It very well could be that current hardware isn't up to the task. And you know what? That's fine. It's perfectly OK to release a game that pushes latest-gen hardware to it's limits, and beyond. What's not OK is pushing latest-gen hardware to its limits, and then complaining because you aren't selling a ton of games. If you want to develop a game that can only be played on the latest and greatest hardware, you need to accept that you're limiting your market to a fraction of what would otherwise be available.
Click to expand...

+11ty billion
 
The problem lies with their "Auto Detection' for system setting scheme. 95% of players that buy the game will use this for their initial config, most will keep it without ever tweeking it.

As ti stands, the Auto Detection sets the game up with too high of a setting for the system it is running on, causing a lot of jerky or unacceptable gameplay.
 
SlimyTadpole said:
It very well could be that current hardware isn't up to the task. And you know what? That's fine. It's perfectly OK to release a game that pushes latest-gen hardware to it's limits, and beyond. What's not OK is pushing latest-gen hardware to its limits, and then complaining because you aren't selling a ton of games. If you want to develop a game that can only be played on the latest and greatest hardware, you need to accept that you're limiting your market to a fraction of what would otherwise be available.
Click to expand...

Heh, exactly. I seem to be in the minority; I'm running at 8x6 (on a Dell 2405) with medium settings and happy with it. I'm also happy that I'm not playing some dumbed down console hack with a GUI designed for a D-pad.
 
eggrock said:
Heh, exactly. I seem to be in the minority; I'm running at 8x6 (on a Dell 2405) with medium settings and happy with it. I'm also happy that I'm not playing some dumbed down console hack with a GUI designed for a D-pad.
Click to expand...

8X6?

:eek:
 
Unfortunately that's what I have to play at. No big deal since no rig can run 19x12 at high settings. When hardware comes out that can handle it I'll upgrade.
 
game runs fine for me with my Very high tweak and 8800GT. plays like its on med/high

Even so having the eye candy the game still is a lackluster feeling to it. Once I beat it I really had no desire to go back and play any of the levels. Even when I do start it up I play for a few mins get bored and quit. This game only has its graphics going for it and thats about it. Ohh and the Editor because thats where I have fun is playing the MP people make with my friends. they are better looking and 10x better then any of the MP maps shipped with the game. Crytek flopped on this game not delivering the hype it made.
 
Conker said:
Crysis system requirements really did it i think for sales ;)
Click to expand...

Which is a sad look into what the next generation of gamers are going to be more interested in... graphics. Gameplay and replayability is going to become secondary in the future. Mark my words.
 
"Hey guys, let's not release any AAA titles for 2 years. Then, in a 45 day window, we'll open the floodgates. We can't possible lose!"
Click to expand...

Here's the right answer. A lot of PC gamers are also console gamers. They were competing against too many other games, including their own. Had these games come out in September or even October, I guarantee this wouldn't be the case. As it stands, they played the "holiday rush" card and they lost.
 
If a developer wants to stand up and brag that "Crysis cant be played at max for 18 months" then what do you expect?..How about,I give you $20 for the game now,and in 18 months,when I can play it Ill give you the balance.. Asinine thinking on the developers part IMO..If you have a top of the line rig,you should be able to play a game maxed out..

UT3..Im sorry I sold UT2k4 in anticipation of getting UT3..Nothing new to see here for $50..

I dont think these 2 games should be used in the"PC gaming is dying BS"..Check the sales of games that did it right

Bioshock,Orange Box and COD4(played at max on my rig like butter) and you will see you will be rewarded when you do shit right on the PC..
 
zamardii said:
Which is a sad look into what the next generation of gamers are going to be more interested in... graphics. Gameplay and replayability is going to become secondary in the future. Mark my words.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree- this may have been true a year and a half ago, but with the success of the wii and smaller, quick games like Geometry Wars, LocoRoco, Desktop Tower Defense, and (arguably) Portal, I think we're seeing exactly the opposite. XBL, PSN, and eventually nintendo's service are a great avenue for smaller development house to showcase gameplay over graphics. That having been said, if we're gonna drop $50-60, we should be expecting both- gameplay is nice and all but its not where the insane development costs come from, and we shouldn't be paying $60 for something just because its fun if it also costs nothing to make.
 
Frag0Lution said:
It is very sad. Less people buying the game = less developer support/patches/map packs :(
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? How many bonus packs and developer support did UT2k4 get?

Epic has been leaving it up to the "community" to make their games good for the last 3-4 years now... and now its to the point where the "community" is getting tired of doing all their work for them while they are not keeping up their end of the deal. UT3 can barely be called a complete game, and Epic censored, banned, and deleted posts from the "community" when we left feedback concerning their half-assed demo. Thats the thanks we got.
 
I think UT3 will hit the $20 bargain bin pretty quick, at which point I probably won't be picking it up.

I still do enjoy UT2004 (and UT99 on occasion) Although I can't quite place my finger on it, something (or a whole lotta things) is just wrong with UT3.
 
Monkey God said:
Not on my monitor. People are having problems running it with maximum settings even with better cards. I have no desire to spend my money on a game that is either a) poorly optimized or b) made for 2+ year in the future hardware. If things change over time I might change my mind. Lots of other games out there that look fine and play well without uber hardware requirements.

In otheer words, hype and eye candy mean very little to me anymore. (Cynical old gamer, LOL)
Click to expand...

Hey I'm an cynical old gamer too (35.. thats kinda old right? lol) but i love eye candy.. I am glad things dont look like combat on the 2600, or like the n64, eye candy rocks! BUT.. as long as gameplay is not sacrificed in the process, as for crysis, it runs decently well at high'ish settings on my rig, i just stopped playing it cause i have too many games to play and not enough time for them all :)
 
VanEck said:
Are you kidding me? How many bonus packs and developer support did UT2k4 get?

Epic has been leaving it up to the "community" to make their games good for the last 3-4 years now... and now its to the point where the "community" is getting tired of doing all their work for them while they are not keeping up their end of the deal. UT3 can barely be called a complete game, and Epic censored, banned, and deleted posts from the "community" when we left feedback concerning their half-assed demo. Thats the thanks we got.
Click to expand...

wasn't UT2004 editor's choice edition created and distributed by Epic? that was a damn fine bonus pack.... many new levels, characters, and vehicles...

seriously, the biggest reason why UT3 hasn't sold well is because it's target audience.... the interface, while bad, isn't *unusable*, just think of the interface for the best online shooter ever, quake 3... that thing's menu system looked like an old school Nintendo game, yet it was a great success.

UT3s problem is that UT2004 is just so *damn* good! There are tons of content, it runs well on a wide range of systems, and the gameplay is ultra refined. Most of the people playing it will continue to until another game comes along that is AS ACCESSIBLE in terms of system requirements (relatively of course), and it has the content and gameplay to match.

Couple that with the decline in skilled FPS players ever since UT2004's release (most online FPSs arent twitch/skill based now, they are "tactical" with random aiming crap... because that is what is popular these days), and it is easy to see why UT3 doesn't have much in the way of sales momentum....

And it really is sad....because while it may not measure up to UT2004 in the gameplay department, it is still a fresh experience, and all its failure says to the developers is "We dont care about online FPSs that require pure skill, we want another "Realistic random aiming warfighter!"

Sad
 
g1xx3r said:
I dont think these 2 games should be used in the"PC gaming is dying BS"..Check the sales of games that did it right

Bioshock,Orange Box and COD4(played at max on my rig like butter) and you will see you will be rewarded when you do shit right on the PC..
Click to expand...

Heh. Bioshock did it right?! All the complaining on the forums and the lower sales vs xbox sales say different. Orange Box might have and CoD4 doesn't top PC sales either.

No one is saying PC gaming is dying. I think it could be changed to PC exclusive games are dying however.
 
ZenOps said:
I think UT3 will hit the $20 bargain bin pretty quick, at which point I probably won't be picking it up.

I still do enjoy UT2004 (and UT99 on occasion) Although I can't quite place my finger on it, something (or a whole lotta things) is just wrong with UT3.
Click to expand...

for me, the way you can't double jump after dashing forward, the horrible weapon effects, useless/low jumping, and overly busy graphics are the biggest problems


edit: and about crysis: ultra high system requirements + the only way you'd really know about it was if u were a very advanced PC gamer anyway + the fact that it is primarily a single player game means that most stayed clear, and of those that wanted to play it anyway in spite of their crappy computers, many, many of them just pirated it.

Yea, I know the P word is a dirty word around here, but its true. It came out on torrent sites 1 day before its retail release, and many people (yes, me included) figured "what the hell, i'll just test this out on my current hardware now, and when I upgrade, i'll buy it later"..... and so a huge number of people just end up pirating it. Obviously not everyone, but considering you have to be a certain level of computer savvy to play Crysis, and that many computer savvy people pirate games, on top of the fact that Crysis was easily pirated and available online before release spells doom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top