Lazy developers love to blame piracy. The reality is that piracy is meaningless. People will pirate games regardless. Quality games will still sell well. StarCraft 2 was the most pirated game on PC last year and it still sold 5 million copies.
How does that make it "meaningless"? Logically, does every torrent download equal a lost sale? No. Logically, can anyone guarantee that a percentage of torrent downloads don't equal lost sales? No. Piracy does have an effect on the percentages. Depending on the game, those percentages could be significant or insignificant. Typically the most popular torrent downloads are in line with the most popular games at retail, so it's hard to make an argument that there couldn't be some significant $$ being lost if the game is available online as a free download.
It's meaningless because nothing can be done about it, and the people who pirate never would have bought the game.
If the most popular torrent downloads didn't generally follow the most popular media at retail, I might buy into that. But since they do, there's no way you can guarantee piracy doesn't siphon off a percentage of sales. It's not movies/games from 30 years ago that are at the top of torrent lists year after year. It's always contemporary releases that are at the top, which is the time when sales to consumers are most likely to occur.
Crysis 2 looks like crap. What a huge graphical downgrade from the first game. This is what we get after waiting for more than 3 years?
I remember saying when the game was announced that although Crysis is the best looking game ever it wouldn't mean that Crytek would automatically be the best studio for console development. For Crysis they made the game they wanted to make with virtually no limits and it was upto the consumer to make sure they had a gaming rig powerful enough to run it. Now they have moved to consoles they have to curtail their ambitions and make sure the game will run on specific hardware. They had no experience with the PS3 hardware and people actually expected them to make the best looking console game ever and to be fair I don't think it will even make the top 10, not on PS3 anyway. KillZone 3 wipes the floor with Crysis 2 graphically and it should do, Guerilla are a Sony studio and have spent years making their engine just for PS3 and have also made two games now. People expected Crytek to magically have more knowledge than any other dev and they have failed.
Indeed. It's like they assumed the consoles would be easy to program for and they would automatically make a ton of money. They're going to be in for a rude awakening when this flops.
Looks like preorders are at least decent for Crysis 2. It's currently at #4 on the bestselling list for both 360 and PC on Amazon, and #5 for the PS3.
sadly from the looks of it, it looks like they didnt really spend any money and just used the original crysis engine. so they profit from whatever they sell.
I think I'm going to wait for awhile and get Crysis 2 on a Steam special. I'm looking forward to playing through it, but I have enough shooters for right now. I've gotten much more into the multiplayer of Killzone 3 than I expected, and I can play Battlefield or Valve multiplayer games on PC. I'm mostly looking forward to playing through the campaign of Crysis 2, but there's no big rush on that.
I wish they did, then the game would look tons better then it does now. But hey, they had to compromise for the other platforms.
That video made me even realize more how far the consoles are lagging behind. Its indeed, just comical, too see the differences, lol
Crysis 2 has improved it's sales positions on Amazon across the board: #1 for the 360, #2 for the PS3, and #3 for PC. It's not looking like a flop.
To that trained eye of yours it might be comical but they don't really look all that different to me. Sure the pc sections of that video are better looking than the console counterparts but a) That was always going to be the case b) I'm sure it's not just me who thinks there isn't that much difference. I'm willing to bet most people would agree with me. I'd rather spend £200 on a console with Crysis 2 than spend upwards of £500 for a pc that can put out slightly better graphics. But that's just me. One more thing. One minute you're saying how pc games have crappy graphics because of "consolization" and the next you're laughing at how much better the pc version of a game looks compared to the console versions, make up your mind!
You might have misunderstood me then. What i meand is that thanks to the transition to the consoles, Crysis 2 is looking worse then Crysis 1 from 2007, the maps are smaller, the MP is limited. Only advantage is that even mid range systems can run it pretty wel, where for Crysis you needed a NASA pc. With that, am not saying those games have crappy graphics at all, they are just not what we could have, or what we expected from a sequel to a 2007 game. Regarding Crysis 2 pc vs console, its a huge difference, this is something reviewers have stated aswel.
Are they not talking about the impact relative to the competitions' tech? I mean maybe they meant when Crysis came out it was very far ahead of the rest of the pack and now Crysis 2 has come out it's not as far ahead of the competition as the first one was when it was released? Probably not but maybe.
They arent very clear of that, but most other reviewers state that it doesnt look as good as Crysis 1, but it runs better. I think Crysis and Crysis 2 are just two completely different games.
They both look good to me. Never played either of them so not sure if I'll bother getting Crysis 2. I'm assuming Crysis 1 wasn't on ps3.