An interesting thought occured to me today.
I have noticed that recently, there seems to be a interesting relationship between the system requirements of a game and its sales and success.
If we have a brief look at some of the more recent, highly successful games (Team Fortress 2, Call of Duty 4, World of Warcraft, Sins of a Solar Empire and World in Conflict - games I just happen to own) we can see that there is a possible relationship between their success and their system requirements.
All games mentioned above have very reasonable system requirements and efficient game engines. If you own a system that was built 4 years ago, chances are you could still play those games reasonably well (with some small, expected sacrifices to graphics).
Of course the games mentioned above could have just had excellent designs that appealled to alot of gamers out there, but its a big coincidence that they also have low system requirements.
I think this has been mentioned by Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) in the past someplace on the internet (probably in an interview I read), in that the lower system requirements your game has - the amount of potential buyers for your title will increase. This and the game's genre are the two main factors that affect who may potentially buy your game. Hence why there was a focus with Sins of a Solar Empire to keep the game as accessible as feasibly possible in regards to required hardware. I believe that approach has worked well for Stardock and Ironclad, as we can see Sins of a Solar Empire has been a #1 seller (if you take into account digital sales + retail).
This relationship is somewhat true when viewed in the opposite sense. Crysis while being a solid, good quality title with revolutionary graphics (I happen to enjoy it alot and am fortunate enough to be able to enjoy it at high settings) - has very demanding system requirements. This may have had the effect of limiting the amount of sales the title should've really deserved, because no-one is going to buy a game they can't run at a reasonable level.
It did say on the box that reccommended meant no more than 2v2 on a 10x10 map on medium.
Hardware req's for new games have always been a point of contention. Even way back with Wing Commander.. Crysis is nothing new in this respect ( and I beg to differ with DatonKallandor, it did require a NASA supercomputer to run at max settings when released ). Eye candy is very nice. Obviously if it didn't count for something, we'd all still be using Paradise EGA video cards and 14" monitors. The "Whiz-bang" crowd will always scream for more More MORE until they have direct neural projection with interactive bio-feedback controls. And we'd all lust after a rig that would support it. Better graphics require better hardware. Stardock and Ironclad have made an excellent business choice by going mainstream with thier suggestions. I can play on my dedicated game rig, or my work laptop. My friends can play on thier less then cutting edge machines as well. Crysis ? I'm the only one who owns it in my circle.
But graphics and horsepower are not the whole story. Sure they get attention in the trade rags..
What makes a great game, and long term sales, is GAMEPLAY. The Civilization franchise is a perfect example. Graphics aren't really it's forte. But, I still fire it up to play every once in a while. And I buy new versions when they come out. SIN's is another great example. Each game is different, and a challenge. Crysis ? Not really. Same linear game every time. Warcraft I, II, III ? MechWarrior 2, 3, 4x ? Mech Commander ? NeverWinter Nights ? BioSphere ? Rogue Spear ? Linear play and no longer on my HD. Doom III ? Same thing. You know the level, and what creature is behind what door, where the secret doors are... Crysis Warhead ? UT III ? Not in my collection, although the originals are..
Will I buy Entrenchment ? You betcha. I KNOW it'll run on my rig, and I know I get more then one ( or a few more ) runs through the game before I get bored.
From a buisness standpoint, perhaps. From an artistic standpoint, no.
Id is a company of programmers. They are founded by and run by programmers. They think like programmers. And for programmers playing with hardware is one of the more interesting things to do in game development. And programmers like nothing more than interesting things to do.
They push the limits of the artform of videogames in their own way. Yes, they might have made more money on Doom3 if it had not been as ambitious. But then again, since the gameplay wasn't that great to begin with, it sold primarily on its ambition and the atmosphere that the ambition created. So maybe it would have sold even less if it hadn't been ambitious.
Id is a company of programmers, and it shows. Blizzard is a company of artists, and it shows. Programmers get in the way of artists, telling them what tools they can use and so forth. Best to choose levels of hardware that there are mature tools for and tell the programmers to go to hell.
Valve is a company of game designers. Everything feeds back into that, programming and art alike. Again, they want to do cool stuff, but they're going to push things in a direction that feeds into gameplay. The physics in the Source engine/HL2. The Apeture Science Hand-Held Portal Device in, well, Portal. The Director AI in Left 4 Dead. And so on.
Yes, but you bought them. That's all they care about, from a business perspective.
As far as business is concerned, infinite replay value is a bad thing. Because if you're still playing game X, you don't have the time to put into playing the new game Y that they just put out. It's the WoW problem: WoW itself depresses PC game sales because time spent playing WoW is time not spent playing other games. And money spent playing WoW is money not spent playing other games. WoW is a bargain at $15 a month if it can replace all of your gaming, and your normal gaming habit is one $50 game every month. Of course, that's money that other developers don't get.
it's not rocket science folks.
1. Good Game+(Larger number of people capable of playing it=a)=x
2. Good Game+(a-number of people who have older machines)=x-y
with any number greater than 1
x-y<x
Any decent businessman would prefer x to x-y
period.
Sadly it doesn't work like that, because "Good Game" is not a seperate entity from hardware need.
Err, there is no begging to differ. It wasn't an opinion - it was fact. I have (repeatedly) put together PC's for under 800$ that could run Crysis on more-than-max settings (file-edited for extra oomph). And that was the cost of that PC at the time of Crysis' release - those costs will have gone down dramatically by now.
derenek, your math seems to be missing a term. You claim the number of people capable of running a game is the total market base. You need to include a factor z, for the percentage of players capable of running it who actually purchase it. Then you need to consider how the visual effects will change that z factor, and if that will generate more customers than the y number you lost by increasing the requirements.
If I recall correctly Daton a graphic card of 512 megs back early 2007 was very expensive. So if you were able to buy all new parts including a monitor and the tower all for less then 800$ I want to know how. Frankly it,s hard to believe.
Crysis was a pc hog and still is today. Danm it's recommended specs are asking for a core 2 duo. That's becoming main stream now. I don't think most computers had core 2 duo back a year ago and this was Jan 2007. Lets not forget we are talking about the average gamer here. Not mr hard core gamer that buys a new pc every 15 months or so.
I'm sorry but I have to dissagree with you.
The positive correlation between Advertising and Sales is much stronger though!
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=8800+GT&x=0&y=0
an 8800 GT, easily capable of running Crysis on more than max, was 200$ at the time. And that's brand new. You could and still can easily get it cheaper than that.
Add to that
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-inspiron-518?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs
Any one of these (overpriced, but we're looking for something that is accessable to joe-average) has more than enough power to run Crysis on max - the only thing that needs to be changed is the GFX Card, which we've bought above.
Keep in mind all those prices are from a 5 second search, from retailers that are not price-perfect.
So no, Crysis is not and never was a pc hog. You just need to get hardware that has good power for money. The 8800GT excells in that, because they utterly underpriced it for some reason (to the point where they had to improve the performance of their 500$ card because their 200$ card nearly outperformed it)
Price is of today which is 13 months later.
Daton both Inspiron destop that you link to don't have the recommended graphic card of 512. And those are based on todays prices and not the price of a pc back november 2007. The quad core prioce was outrageous back then
Moreover if you try to look at the prices of then just ram, monitor and processor would of brought your pc at over 800$ back then. Core 2 duo was new 512 meg cards are not even standard today and ram is ram it cost what it cost.
All this to say that if you wanted to play crysis in November of 2007 you needed a very very top of the line pc (playing as you stated with max setting). That is not the majority of the gamers out there. I'm sorry that's a fact. I don't know anybody even today that as a quad core. I'ma gamer and I did not even bought a 512 card 3 months ago when I bought my new pc.
July of 07, Q6600 dropped to $266 (MSRP). That's hardly ridiculous for a quad.
8800GT is more than sufficient to actually run Crysis-on high might be another argument altogether, but having 512MB of VRAM is largely irrelevant, if and only if the card is worthwhile. For instance, a 512MB x1650pro is still going to run Crysis just as shittily as a 256MB x1650pro.
Precisely Sole Soul. And I can confirm the power of the 8800GT. I'm using it myself (and have seen it used by others), and it runs Crysis on more than max flawlessly.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
