Crysis: No More Patches, Linux Server on Hold

Crysis: No More Patches, Linux Server on Hold
[Jun 01, 2008, 4:48 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments

Crysis Monthly Update #1 is online, the first of these regular updates from Crytek about their shooter since they shifted from a weekly schedule. The update elaborates on recent indications that console development is in Crytek's future (story), describes efforts at fixing multiplayer disconnect issues, and promotes an upcoming community Q&A session. They also offer the bad news that they have put development of a dedicated Crysis Linux server on hold because they are not happy with the state of the project, and that for reasons they are unable to disclose at this time, "there almost certainly will not be a patch 1.3 delivered for Crysis," in spite of the knowledge that this will disappoint a good number of users:

So, What About Patch 1.3?
At this time, there almost certainly will not be a patch 1.3 delivered for Crysis. We are aware that this news will disappoint many of you, and we would like to apologize profusely. There is a good reason for this and we hope you understand when you hear more about the reasons why in the very, very near future. Please realize this was an extremely difficult decision, but please do know that we are listening to your comments and are making more consistent community support a high priority.

We are confident that the things we are working on will be appreciated by the community, and we hope for your continued support. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact us.

View : : :

Post Comment

Search Log In

Search Log In Post Comment

49.

Re: No subject
Jun 2, 2008, 00:14

Jerykk

49.

Re: No subject Jun 2, 2008, 00:14

Jun 2, 2008, 00:14

Jerykk

You're "honoring the developers" when it's convenient for you, screwing the rest of the developers when you feel like it, and we're supposed to respect you because you're an honorable pirate? Whatever.

When is it ever convenient for someone to buy something they already have? From a purely logical standpoint, it's a complete and utter waste of money.

You ignore the dozens (hundreds) of games that you've played and never paid for, but found lacking in some way. Most of these probably weren't bad games, but maybe somthing like "there really isn't much replay value here" or "it was good, just not very innovative" or "I liked what they were going for, but this other game pulled this off better" would probably be enough for the game to not meet your standards.

So what you're saying is that I should buy games that don't meet my standards? That doesn't seem like a good way to get developers to make better games.

I'm betting you pay for far fewer games than you would if you didn't pirate at all.

I'm not sure why you'd bet on something based on pure conjecture. If piracy were non-existent, I'd just buy fewer games because I don't buy any game unless I've played it first. This means all the games without demos would automatically be out. It also means that the games with really bad and misrepresentative demos would be out too.

What if you have a good month and the 3 or 4 games you pirate that month are all great.

In the unlikely event that that many great games came out in a month, I'd buy them all. Unfortunately, with games getting increasingly dumber and generic by the minute, we're lucky to have even one great game a year.