Monday, December 17th 2007
Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 Sales 'Tank'
Some of the most anticipated titles of the year, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis, have failed to sell very well. In contrast to the overly hyped Halo 3, which boosted actual Xbox 360 sales, Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 sales were, in short, abysmal. Since last month, neither game has managed to sell even 100,000 units. To be precise, EA sold 86,633 copies of Crysis, and Epic Games sold 33,995 copies of UT3. The Inquirer claims that Crysis, despite having a beautiful graphics engine that will have benchmarkers twiddling their thumbs for years, failed to impress anyone without a very expensive gaming machine. And Unreal Tournament, despite being absolutely breathtaking, had gameplay that was uncannily similar to the previous two versions of Unreal Tournament. Hopefully, as systems get better and gamers get more money to spend on games, these sales figures will increase.
Source:
The Inquirer
83 Comments on Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 Sales 'Tank'
Personally I almost think not only is it due to the hardware requirements , but it may have a lot to do with previously unsatisfied customers!
Crysis: Awesome Game
Halo 3: Less than average in my book.
My 2 cents. :cool:
I have 2 2900xt 1GB cards.....with a quad.
I will wait for a patch/driver(Painless driver)before I buy the game.
I would agree that people are prob. worried about having crappy game play on the newest games that deserve/are worthy of a decent video card, like CoD4, Crysis, imo.
Well there is always The Orange Box. It will run on a DX8 system. That is a great choice :toast: for people without tomorrows hardware in their rigs. I bet sales on it are crushing the other titles.
EDIT: I remember that when Doom3 was released lots of people said the same about that game and the engine. And how much better HL2 and Source were. Time has told another story.
PIRATES!
Well, crysis and UT3 look and handle like shit on anything short of a *really* good machine. my 3800x2 and 8600GTS chug playing both of them with modest settings. Gosh, i wonder why nobody buys them.
Oh, yeah, and the part that actually matters... like... good gameplay... i didn't happen to notice it, but maybe that was the lag.
And so far as the game uber leet onhexz noez u dittnt grlfrndz!!!!!
Object one of my court case against game,
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=video_games
and object two,
www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
Only a marginal percentage of gamers have hard hardware, the rest are crap. But still crap enough to play other games.
So for the 75% of gamers that don't have the newest shit, these games suck.
Maybe this will finally wake up some of the PC game developers/studios. Its not only the graphics that sell, you actually need a good game. For example, many have touted that the old classic RPG genre is dead and buried and there is no way a RPG can sell these days? Fortunately we have games like The Witcher which has shipped (not sold yet) over 1 million copies to stores already and still going strong.
And when you said that an older machine can run Crysis easily, you should have said "easily without any of it's technological glory", and that technology is not to be seen as if it didn't add anything to the game, on the contrary, it adds a lot. Of course a game it's not only it's technology, but it's an important part of it. for example, I loved doom3 although I think it's a terrible game, but it was technologicaly so amazing that I couldn't help loving it. It can happen the other way around too, an amazing game with terrible graphics. But the truth is technology and the other aspects of games go hand by hand, and this should not be dismissed.