Both Crysis and Unreal Tournament III on PC have experienced underwhelming sales across the pond in the US.
According to sales data released by research chaps NPD Group, Crytek's super-hyped shooter has shifted just under 87,000 units since its release on November 13.
Call of Duty 4 shifted a massive 1.57 million units on Xbox 360. Oddly enough we can't locate sales data for the PC version.
Here in UK Crysis debuted at number 11 in the all-format software chart compiled by ChartTrack, dropping down to 25 in the following week. It then disappeared off the top 40 entirely.
Epic's Unreal Tournament III on PC has fared poorly in the US too, selling just 33,995 units.
Could lacklustre sales of such high-profile titles be down to the touted system specifications needed? Could non-hardcore gamers have been turned off by hearing about how much these games were going to push systems?
It's all very well developers creating works of visual glory, but when you have to pay through the nose to run them at the level we're shown in pre-release video and screenshots, it's enough to make you want to go and buy a console instead.
Well I have a mid-range PC (Athlon64 X2 4200+, 2GB RAM and 512 MB GeForce 7900 GT graphics, running both XP and Vista) but after trying both the Crysis and UTIII demos on it decided to leave the former for when I buy a new PC next summer and buy the latter on the PS3.
Sorry, but I like to play my PC games as intended which usually means high detail at 1680x1050 (on my 22" widescreen monitor) and preferably with some AA. My PC can run UTIII OK but not as well as I'd like but Crysis only run acceptable on a mix of Low and Medium settings and looks pig ugly as a result with loads of popup, etc. On High detail, it runs like a slideshow. I'm certainly not spending Ł300+ for one game, particularly as my current systems can't really be upgraded any more. So I'll wait until later on next year when the game will be cheaper and there'll be better hardware.
People are probably doing the sensible thing and waiting a few months to pick them up at half price. Having said that the UT3 figure is really surprising as just from a gamer pov its a game that fares much better with keyboard and mouse and the fact that its not out on PS3 yet, also the fact that its one that clans would go nuts for
the fact is if you call COD4 a good first person shooter you need a slap, crysis and UT3 are both cracking games, i may one of the select few are lucky enough to play crysis on very high settings with a fps around 40.
I was speaking about the MP side of Call of Duty 4, as I think the single-player was just okay. But the MP is one of the best I've played - I own it on the 360 by the way.
Maybe when UT3 is unleashed on the 360, then sales will rise alot more?
This is what happens when you make games that require a mega pc to run!!
Please dont get that argument started!
Cant believe the sales are that low its mad! Guess its because you cant use the wii remote on them or its not a mini game crap fest BTW what the hell is wrong COD4 SP? I thought it was fantastic
ut3 got over shadowed big time. maybe i just missed all the hype but i didnt even realise it was being released until i saw reviews popping up. when your competing against orange box, halo 3, cod4, mass effect and bioshock, your gonna have a hard time getting peoples attention.
Too many good games already. I was waiting for Crysis but ignored CoD4 and UT3. I only got UT3 as part of a bargain.
Nope, all my cash is already spent - Endless Ocean for the Wii, Mass Effect for the 360, Crysis as it's a HL2 beater and 3 months of EVE-Online for the winter months.
I think that people played the Crysis demo, saw it as Farcry with better graphics (and higher system specs) and decided not to spend money on it.
Incidentally, I could run the demo with my Athlon 1600+, 1Gb ram and 9600XT at 15FPS (on low settings), so I personally don't think it is the system specs are to blame.
I just reckon that both C and UT have brought nothing exceptionally new to the genre and people decided against them....
This is what happens when you make games that require a mega pc to run!!
Please dont get that argument started!
Cant believe the sales are that low its mad! Guess its because you cant use the wii remote on them or its not a mini game crap fest BTW what the hell is wrong COD4 SP? I thought it was fantastic
I've been an avid follower of PC gaming for most of my life, and for the first time ever, I've been feeling too intimidated by the system specs of games. After not being able to play Splinter Cell: Double Agent last year (no big deal), things have only gotten worse; BioShock and Medal of Honor: Airborne were the straws that broke the, metaphorical, camel's back. I don't understand why people can't take a leaf from Valve's book and create truly scalable engines that look great on most systems?
It pains me to be one of those who jumped ship but, for now, I'll stick with my Wii. No doubt I'll be back to the good ship PC when my disposable cash level are high enough again.
I don't think this means anything at all. I haven't bought either games yet but when I get my new PC in the new year then I'll pick them both up.
Chart positions mean jack s**t in the PC world. Look at The Sims franchise for proof of that - utter s**te and yet constantly riding high in the chart. I'd place my left nadger on the fact the UT3 will eventually become one of the biggest online PC games, first week/month sales mean nothing.
I got sick of UT a long time ago, and although i was initially excited about crysis, i own lots of other great games that need completing before i can justify buying it.
I used to play many games on the PC but in the last few years I have given up trying to keep my PC upgraded enough to play the latest games. I have a 360 and a Wii which are guaranteed to play the games for the next few years without the need to upgrade them every couple of months. PC Developers should all learn a little from DOOM3 as this ran on my old PC fine and looked great too! I just can't afford to upgrade my PC all the time so Crysis would not even attempt to run on my PC.
I used to play many games on the PC but in the last few years I have given up trying to keep my PC upgraded enough to play the latest games. I have a 360 and a Wii which are guaranteed to play the games for the next few years without the need to upgrade them every couple of months. PC Developers should all learn a little from DOOM3 as this ran on my old PC fine and looked great too! I just can't afford to upgrade my PC all the time so Crysis would not even attempt to run on my PC.
i own lots of other great games that need completing before i can justify buying .
Same here. Stacks of games to get through first before I can think about buying Crysis.
Even though I'm lucky enough to have a system that runs it in full DX10 mode (everything maxed) at a good framerate (based on the demo). It'll keep in the meantime.
I'm with Darren 1967. I used to be a heavy PC gamer but I'll be buying UT3 on PS3 instead (especially as it will have mod support eventually) rather than spending hundreds of pounds to upgrade my PC then play it which is madness.
I used to play many games on the PC but in the last few years I have given up trying to keep my PC upgraded enough to play the latest games. I have a 360 and a Wii which are guaranteed to play the games for the next few years without the need to upgrade them every couple of months. PC Developers should all learn a little from DOOM3 as this ran on my old PC fine and looked great too! I just can't afford to upgrade my PC all the time so Crysis would not even attempt to run on my PC.
*awaits pc owner backlash*
Indeed...
The problem lies with the Chip companies changing the sockets and bus so often. Years ago I could just get a newer faster chip as they came down in price or upgrade the memory, but now I would have to replace my motherboard, ram and cpu!
Crysis - high system requirements? It is a myth! I've installed the game on my family PC for my brother. An ancient P4 3.0GHz, 1GB RAM, 9800XT system and it runs the game smooth as silk at 1024x768 - and still looks better than Far Cry! I haven't updated the graphics drivers for at least a year either.
I've had more fun with Crysis than any other shooters this year (although STALKER is very close). No one should miss out on this game, it's too much fun!
This is what happens when you make games that require a mega pc to run!!
Please dont get that argument started!
Cant believe the sales are that low its mad! Guess its because you cant use the wii remote on them or its not a mini game crap fest BTW what the hell is wrong COD4 SP? I thought it was fantastic
I agree 110% dude, CoD SP is fantastic
I bought Call of Duty 4 primarily for the MP. If the MP wasn't as god-damn superb as it is, then I would have probably sold the game after doing it. Plus I don't like spending Ł40 on a 5/6 hour game. I would usually wait til the game came down to sub Ł20 if it's really short.
But seeing as the MP can got on for months, then cool.
I'm almost 100% sure that it's because they are both fps, of which we have had hundreds released in the year and because of the insane min & recommended specs
Well UIII could take up to an hour to install, no wonder people are being put off (especially those like me that waited an hour for the install just to find the game wont run) not my idea of fun gaming.
Personally, and I know lots and lots of people will disagree with me here, but I think its because the PC is starting to be sidetracked by a lot of gamers.
some years ago, I was one of the first in the queue for UT2k3 and UT2k4. They were awesome, and even though my PC struggled to handle them, I just had to play them- there was no other way.
But this time around, much as I love UT3 and want to own it- my PC just isn't up to the job. And I'm not going to bother to upgrade it. Why? Because, quite simply, I can play it elsewhere. And it will look and run a lot better than my PC can make it. I'm finding I'm enjoying gaming on my consoles a LOT more than I'm enjoying my PC lately, and not just because it doesn't carry its graphical weight, but simply because a console is now the focus of my home entertainment suite.
Since I have a decent sized TV with a great surround sound system and a digital output from my 360, it actually doesn't make sense for me to head over to the PC and play on a 19" monitor with some average speakers over an average sound system with graphics that won't look as good. Of course I can spend more on upgrading my PC, but I don't use it for enough to warrant doing that. I'd rather buy a bigger, better TV and enjoy life in my living room a lot more, because its a damn sight more comfortable and a damn sight more fun.
Of course, looking at the games in question, Crysis doesn't really come across as anything more than Far Cry but prettier, and UT3, whilst great fun, just doesnt seem to pack the entertainment punch that some of its rivals are offering. I'd rather be playing Quake Wars for team-based play, or I'll just stick with Halo 3 and Gears for fun. Or one of several other games which are, quite frankly, better than both Crysis and UT3. Though I'm sure I'll pick the latter up at some point, just because I'm an FPS nut.
I'm not surprised really. Crysis was always going to be a slow burner with the power required to run it (the 'Very High' graphical setting is locked out at the moment) and UT3 has been released at a time when people are happy playing TF2 or even sticking with UT2k4. I intend to get UT3 sometime next year, but I'm in no rush. I imagine a lot of people feel the same way about Crysis, particularly when there's FarCry 2 and several other big PC games coming next year.
even if u bought a brand new high performance pc, theres no guarantee that all games will run on it. some plain just dont install, or any number of random f**kups which can happen mid-game or mid install. ive never had a pc game that was trouble free. because every pc is different there is sooo much variables at work. basically it means a lot of hastle/problem solving etc for nothing. to prove my point the only game i actually paid cash for (HL2) i couldnt get working. makes u want to put your f**king boot right through the pc.
the people who have high end pc's usually download games for nothing. and the rest dont have enough power to run the newest games = s**te sales of high performance games.
consoles everyone is working off the same page. theres no real varibles, so its much more stable platform. and now ps3 can match a single GFX card at the same price. the combo of unreliability/extortionate price means why bother
Sounds like you've been using a bodged PC . I've been playing PC games for years on all different configs and have never had a game I couldn't play.
Sure, there's been a couple that've had hiccups or whatever, but usually a driver update or a patch has fixed that.
I know that's the console owners argument, you've got to update drivers all the time etc etc, but in all honesty that's not really a big deal. Particularly when your PC game costs about Ł10 less than the console equivalent (not to mention that it often looks better and is far more customisable).
Apart from the fact that it's too easy and too short...
Turn up the difficulty, it's what it's there for.
Exactly, ive got 10 hours out of it on SP so far and im still not ready with it( got side tracked with oblivion )
I dont get the whole havign to upgrade argument as its the same in the console world( actually worse now ), except its every 5 years as opposed to every 2 years. Thing is an 8800GT will play any game beyond what consoles are capible of, thats not going to change over the next few years so if youre willing to just have slightly better than the current batch of consoles and not improve beyond that, then get one of those cards and keep it for the next 4 years. The way things are at the moment theres little incentive for games developers to push the PC beyond the capibilities of a console so i can see the dynamic changing in that cards that can play games at max now will be good for a long long time
PC has done 2 genres for a decade and a half. FPS and RTS. At one point home consoles always came off a distant second in this field. The new machines are better tailored to handle the former and seem to be adapting the latter. I also think piracy is a greater issue on PC than anywhere else. Really the PC needs to start pushing out something new making a FPS the figurehead of a new era may of been a mistake. Consoles in their turn need to stop catering to the lowest common level of understanding in every title. How many dumbed down ports have we seen which remove the very core of the game experience? Sims was rendered pointless by the 'front room' changes. On the flipside I think the PC has a huge potential in the 'casual and indie game market' I don't think either console network can compete with the ease of PC development or distribution. PC gaming has a lot of potential...they just need to make the most of it. As for Crysis I think it was designed to be a slow burner. High Specs futureproof software. Also they have also developed a powerful engine than I am sure will produce more revenue later on.
Ill also throw in the fact that a lot of PC gamers NEVER buy games when theyre first released and wait until the major problems are sorted( e.g. Gears Of War crashing issues and its problems with Live ). I myself check every official forum on release day to see what the issues are before i decide to pick it up then or wait and see if they'll fix the problems
The key to whether this will be significant or not is how well did EA anticipate it (Crysis) would perform in the first month and will they be able to recover their costs?
90,000 x Ł25 = Ł2,250,000(ish) revenue so far in the US alone
No doubt it cost a lot more than that to make though.
PC has done 2 genres for a decade and a half. FPS and RTS. At one point home consoles always came off a distant second in this field. The new machines are better tailored to handle the former and seem to be adapting the latter.
Are you saying that's the only game type the PC has done ?
I'll tell you what the problem is... Crysis was sold covered in glitter and gloss.
I bought Crysis as soon as it came out, expecting my PC could run it fairly ok and expecting to be walking through beautiful photographic worlds. But on installing, I discovered my PC ran Crysis with EVERY setting on LOW. The result, the game looked just like any other PC FPS. Not wanting to spoil the fun of playing the game in all its glory, I've taken it off my hard drive and place it on the shelf to await the day when I get a new PC that can handle the beastly system specs it needs to play as it was advertised.
And that's my issue. From the very first screenshots I saw of Crysis with its photographic fully immersive environments, the game was to drool over. But not once, NOT ONCE, did I see coverage of what the game would look like on low settings. If I had, I wouldn't have bought it till I had the system specs to run it.
Folks saw the beauty of Crysis, downloaded the demo (something I didn't do), and were shocked when what they got looked nothing like what they were expecting.
PC gaming is dying. Laregly due to WoW's complete dominance, piracy and cheaper consoles that look 90% as good as the PC versions on HDTVs. First Bioshock, now Assasin's Creed AND CoD4 PC sales get pwned by 360 sales.
The fact that the 360 version of CoD4 sold over 1.5 million copies in it's first month is going to get developer's attention. That's a ton of money with no piracy concernes (if they want to play online, anyways).
Being a lover of games, and owner of alot of new and old consoles, the PC has stayed constant (in one form or another). Being one of the many techno freaks who like to keep with the times, I did a substantial upgrade summer gone. This included xfire x1950xtx cards coupled with vista, FX60 chip and WD raptor hard drives. Now, here we are 6 months later and being honest (unlike some above!) I run my crysis between med-high and still get a lower FR than I am used to. UTIII is coming this xmas, and I hope it is not the same.
The problem with PC IS the consoles - as someone stated earlier. Online play has really only recently become big with the consoles. At one point this was a PC selling point *closes eyes and remembers battlefield 1942* Today, online play is less exlusive, and PC bugs are becoming less tolerable - why buy UTIII on PC with no doubt bugs galore and patches, when you can play the ps3 version bug free and instant play! Yes I know the PC is equiped to do much more, but hey, I am talking about games, not Microsoft bloody office!
For the last few years, the PC has had far better bang-for-buck than the consoles. Then the new generation came out and for a couple of years the PC wanes. Now it has nearly caught the consoles and, in a year to 18 months time, it will have surpassed them. Then, XBOX 360 and PS3 games will look weak by comparison and everyone will want a PC again. A few years later, the new consoles come out and... well, and so on.
The PC, however, has a handful of cast iron advantages.
- Cheaper games - User operated servers - User modding
I say, get practicing now for the flood of noobies that the budget releases will bring to these games.
This is just a funny time to buy hardware. I'm not only talking about computer hardware, but home entertainment hardware too. Everything is right in the middle of a transitional period.
Digital broadcast TV is slowly becoming the norm. LCD tv's are becoming the norm too, but now they have to be HDTV as that's the new standard that all the media is pitched at. I'm sure that there are a lot of very, very confused consumers out there, who are wary of buying new equiptment since they have no idea what makes it future-proof. And circling like a vulture above is the credit crunch.
Then there's the HD format wars...Which, I believe, are going to be won based upon the number of PS3 and xbox HD unit sales. Even I, as an entusiast, am wary of buying dvds these days because I know by this time next christmas I'll want to fork out even more cash for a higher resolution version of my favourite movies.
Then, in the pc realm, things are totally screwed up for consumers. For the first time in a decade AMD/ATI are providing absolutely no competition to Intel and Nvidia - And while there's only one choice you now have to pay a major premium to get the bleeding edge hardware. That leaves you with two options 1. Wait to see if AMD can pull something out of their bag of tricks, or 2. Wait until Intel get down to the smallest manufacturing process they can with their high-K gate tech before you fork out your hard-earned cash. Either way it's best to wait. wait. wait.
The thing about these two games is that their backbone is the enthusiast market, which as I think I've established is totally screwed at the moment. And as I fall in to the enthusiast demographic I can tell you I'm waiting until I can easily afford an PC-based livingroom entertainment system which plays videogames, HDTV and movies on a 50-in LCD with THX certified surround sound...and even allows me to write up word documents from the comfort of my living room sofa - Then and only then will I be buying UT3 and Crysis, because I want the best experience possible for these vanguards of next-gen gaming.
For the last few years, the PC has had far better bang-for-buck than the consoles. Then the new generation came out and for a couple of years the PC wanes. Now it has nearly caught the consoles and, in a year to 18 months time, it will have surpassed them. Then, XBOX 360 and PS3 games will look weak by comparison and everyone will want a PC again. A few years later, the new consoles come out and... well, and so on.
The sad thing is, you may never see games released on the PC that make the consoles appear "weak in comparison," simply because it is not economical for publishers and developers to do so. Crysis, along with UT3, are case in point... where pushing the graphics envelope so far to the edge that people need ridiculous upgrades to their computers to run them on med-to-high... the sales suffer as a consequence as we see here.
After Crysis, we may indeed see even less and less games that push the PC envelope. As someone else stated, there's not much incentive right now for developers to make games past the level of graphical fidelity of current-generation consoles.
dont people realise that these games can run on lower end machines too? you just have to sacrafice some graphical quality.
And if you think getting them on a console will be cheaper I dont really see how since if you want to get the best graphics possible out of the console version youre gonna need a heafty plasma telly which will set you back a lot of money. Always go for FPS on PC, even if you have to tone down the graphics, if youre that obsessed with high end graphics that you wont even lower the settings is it any wonder some games companies always want to push graphics as far as possible, so far that you have to tone it down but you dont want to because youre obsessed with high end graphics, Catch 22.
I don't mind running graphics on medium, id rather have a fast running game with low graphics than a high graphical game running slow.
Not specs ruined the sales of this game, but piracy. Crysis was already cracked pre release, because of the lack of being able to play multiplayer (yes, it is included but it needs a nuclear power reactor to run it), people dont buy this game just for the single player experience. You can finish this game in less then six hours, its a great experience yes, but not worth $60. Better buy something like the witcher if you want you're singleplayers money's worth.
Yes PC games are cheaper (although a lot of console games including CoD4 are reduced to Ł30 soon after release), but you may find yourself having to buy a new graphics card or investing in more RAM etc to play the game you want at the quality you demand. Console games are for the most part optimised - if you have an HD screen you get what you pay for.
I love crysis prob one of the best games of the year saying that i just started playing mass effect last night and that rocks, pcs are alot of money the box i put together last march nearly cleaned me out but if you are sendable unlike me you can build a good gaming pc and still get value for money i still love pc games.
I had no problem in upgrading my graphics card to play Crysis. I needed to anyway. I could afford to, as well. Anyone whinging about it simply can't afford to. Console FPS's are simply s**t.
Meh. They released games into a ferociously competitive market. There were more FPS games worth buying this Christmas that there have been for the last few years put together.
That and the high specs these games demanded were always going to put a roof on sales.
Did anyone really expect Crysis to sell millions of copies? I mean really? Are there actually that many computers out there that can run it, let alone on high? I can only speak for myself when I say this, but I didn't buy Crysis because my PC's specs aren't up to scratch. I also don't feel grabbed by the story-line, which I thought had Far Cry written all over it (a game I really didn't enjoy due to it's difficulty choke-points). And UT has always seemed to me to be little more than a glorified tech-demo. Great to license out the game engine, not so great to play (although they did do a SP campaign this time).
The Orange Box didn't have to cr@p all over my computer to build an immersive world full of believable characters, and it has specs which are less than games that were bought out in Xmas 2006.
The PC is still in the phase where out-doing the current consoles (Wii aside) is possible, but costs too much for the vast majority. Next year, or more probably the year after, the majority of PCs will be able to outdo the consoles, and that is when you will see console-beating games with big sales behind them. But not before.
The consoles are only one year into a games cycle that could take between 8-10 years, if you listen to the console company execs, so the PC still has plenty of catch-up time. And catch-up they will, and build up a serious lead in the 5+ years after that. Who else is going to figure out what tech will go into the XBox 480* or PS4?
J
* No, I don't know if that will be the name, sorry. If Microsoft do like it, and would like to use it, I'd prefer payment in Euros. Cheers.
I had no problem in upgrading my graphics card to play Crysis. I needed to anyway. I could afford to, as well. Anyone whinging about it simply can't afford to. Console FPS's are simply s**t.
Unless that graphics card is helping you do some kind of CG course at uni/college,or making money for you you dont need it .ive touched on this subject before.My sound card cost more than your graphics card (motu hd 192 .go look it up.im a producer so needed[i]a good sound card.see the difference?).i guess it depends on how badly you want them fancy game effects.personally i dont care enough.but calling cosole fps s**t is stupid,halo ,goldeneye,timesplitters and many others prove your words empty,and just because people would rather spend that money on games/clothes /friday nights down in picadilly with some friends (NYT is an amazing club,you should get out of your house and try it...).does not make them broke whiners..just makes them sensible.see the difference.
Well, UT3 got f**k all advertising, and seemed to be trying to wing it by word of mouth, which, amid the rest of the pre-Xmas hyped games, was a poor move. Plus it seems to have lost the spark somewhere along the way. I don't find it as fun to play as UT2004, and I'm not keen on the darker tone of the graphics in general, but that's just me.
And then Crysis, well, I think the system specs did put people off a bit. It isn't FarCry in flashier graphics though. I play it on a Core 2 Duo E6300, 2Gig DDR2 RAM and a Sapphire Radeon X1950 256Mb graphics card (pretty much a sub Ł500 gaming rig when I built it in February 2007), and it runs Crysis nice and smoothly with all settings on Medium, and I'm happy with it like that.
I am surprised by the low figures though. I know UT3 doesn't seem to have many players on whenever I go to get my bottom handed to me by l33t German teenagers, but I'd have thought Crysis might have done better than it did.
CoD 4 seems okay to me, completed the stupidly short but gloriously intense single player game. I just don't think it's worth all the adoration it gets. I have more fun in Crysis, faffing about Predator style until I decide to uncloak in the centre of a group of N.Korean soldiers and punch the snot out of them through their ears, or run them over whilst cackling manically.
Gamers are looking for something different now. And as I have said many times, if retro gaming is growing (which it is!) isn't that an obvious sign that gamers are now looking for gameplay first and foremost and will go back to older games to get it!? Is it really rocket science?!
I hope developers/publishers are watching/listening!
Yep retro gaming is bigger than ever now, part of the reason is the variety. I said it in the PC forum for games of 2007 and got flamed for it.
Oh well, still stand by my opinion. People are tired of the constant upgrades. Make games for what your average joe has and not what some guy that puts a fridge in his PC to cool it down when he overclocks it so he can get 2fps more in a game has.
I read the news item, and simply had to respond. The article is absolute bulls**t, and a typical example of the media wanting Crysis to fail. It is also misleading, and the writer would do well to edit what he wrote.
According to sales data released by research chaps NPD Group, Crytek's super-hyped shooter has shifted just under 87,000 units since its release on November 13.
He posted this in the middle of December. This suggests that Crysis sold 87,000 units from Nov 13 to the middle of December, when the survey was carried out till November 28.
Here in UK Crysis debuted at number 11 in the all-format software chart compiled by ChartTrack, dropping down to 25 in the following week. It then disappeared off the top 40 entirely.
That is just deliberately misleading, and enough for me not to visit this site again. The writer should be let go, or should issue an apology.
From his quote it seems like Crysis has faded from the UK sales charts.
Crysis has been selling at no3 in the UK according to the very source he quoted. It is right behind COD4 on the PC, so I don't know what the writer was smoking, but he was deliberately quoting an irrelevant piece of data to push his agenda fueled point across.
Epic's Unreal Tournament III on PC has fared poorly in the US too, selling just 33,995 units.
Right, but it was released on the 19th of November giving it 10 days on the survey.
Could lacklustre sales of such high-profile titles be down to the touted system specifications needed? Could non-hardcore gamers have been turned off by hearing about how much these games were going to push systems?
Or could it be that you have no idea as to what you are talking about, and lack any journalistic integrity?
Crysis IS selling well. Outside of the USA it is still in the top 3 games.
UT3 scales really well across systems. The reason it is falling below expectations is because it is just more of the same.
It's all very well developers creating works of visual glory, but when you have to pay through the nose to run them at the level we're shown in pre-release video and screenshots, it's enough to make you want to go and buy a console instead.
There you go, there's his agenda. He is obviously a console gamer, and from his article, he seems to lack the intelligence and taste to game with a keyboard.
I read the news item, and simply had to respond. The article is absolute bulls**t, and a typical example of the media wanting Crysis to fail. It is also misleading, and the writer would do well to edit what he wrote.
According to sales data released by research chaps NPD Group, Crytek's super-hyped shooter has shifted just under 87,000 units since its release on November 13.
He posted this in the middle of December. This suggests that Crysis sold 87,000 units from Nov 13 to the middle of December, when the survey was carried out till November 28.
Here in UK Crysis debuted at number 11 in the all-format software chart compiled by ChartTrack, dropping down to 25 in the following week. It then disappeared off the top 40 entirely.
That is just deliberately misleading, and enough for me not to visit this site again. The writer should be let go, or should issue an apology.
From his quote it seems like Crysis has faded from the UK sales charts.
Crysis has been selling at no3 in the UK according to the very source he quoted. It is right behind COD4 on the PC, so I don't know what the writer was smoking, but he was deliberately quoting an irrelevant piece of data to push his agenda fueled point across.
Epic's Unreal Tournament III on PC has fared poorly in the US too, selling just 33,995 units.
Right, but it was released on the 19th of November giving it 10 days on the survey.
Could lacklustre sales of such high-profile titles be down to the touted system specifications needed? Could non-hardcore gamers have been turned off by hearing about how much these games were going to push systems?
Or could it be that you have no idea as to what you are talking about, and lack any journalistic integrity?
Crysis IS selling well. Outside of the USA it is still in the top 3 games.
UT3 scales really well across systems. The reason it is falling below expectations is because it is just more of the same.
It's all very well developers creating works of visual glory, but when you have to pay through the nose to run them at the level we're shown in pre-release video and screenshots, it's enough to make you want to go and buy a console instead.
There you go, there's his agenda. He is obviously a console gamer, and from his article, he seems to lack the intelligence and taste to game with a keyboard.
F*ck off you industry whore c**t. Crysis should fail and you should go homeless.
It's all very well developers creating works of visual glory, but when you have to pay through the nose to run them at the level we're shown in pre-release video and screenshots, it's enough to make you want to go and buy a console instead.
There you go, there's his agenda. He is obviously a console gamer, and from his article, he seems to lack the intelligence and taste to game with a keyboard.
Speaking of lacking intelligence ... you don't seem to understand future tenses you k**b ... if he was a console gamer why would he be wanting to go and buy one? His "agenda" is obviously that he (like 90% of the rest of PC gamers) are sick to f**k of moronic game producers making games that run on 10% of fanboy's systems ... as Gman says ... you shoud f**k off and die.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Please dont get that argument started! 
