Crysis 2 DX11 fix in 2-3 months - report

By Fred Dutton Published 30 March, 2011

No DirectX 10 support in the future?

Crysis 2 PC users will see a DirectX 11 patch in two to three months time, so says a report from our colleagues at Eurogamer.cz.

According to an anonymous trusted source, Crytek only started to develop for DirectX 11 in November 2010 and was unable to get it ready in time for the game's launch earlier this month.

The source also claimed that DirectX 10 will not be supported in future, as it's rendered obsolete by DirectX 11.

Yesterday, a Crytek community manager posting on the game's official forum poured water on speculation that a patch was imminent.

"No patch was ever confirmed, I have no idea why this website even posted such information" he wrote, referring to a Maximum PC story claiming that an update would arrive on Monday.

A spokesperson for publisher EA then added "We have not made any official announcements about a patch yet."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (41) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • RoaringPanda #1 1 year ago

    Dat shit be crazy yo

    edit: racists!
    Edited by RoaringPanda at 30/03/11 @ 22:34

  • Lord_BeeJee #2 1 year ago

    Yay

  • Hunam #3 1 year ago

    How long till we get a proper graphics options menu?

  • Darksjeik #4 1 year ago

    imo DX11 is a case of the emperors new clothes. Sure there's a negligable difference to DX9 but it's never worth the performance hit. Don't even get me started on DX10. That's just a cumbersome slider to decrease framerates.

  • Chufty #5 1 year ago

    Agree with Darksjeik. This is the best looking game out there and runs flawlessly on my 3-year-old hardware. DirectX 11 might add tessellation and a few extra shader functions, but it's not going to make much difference to how Crysis 2 looks.

    DirectX 10 and 11 should have been called 9.1 and 9.2.

  • ISmoke #6 1 year ago

    I should be ready to play the SP again by then so that's fine by me.

  • TackyCheeba #7 1 year ago

    @Chuffy..."it's not going to make much difference to how Crysis 2 looks"...

    Did you really type that? I'm speechless (Almost).

  • kupocake #8 1 year ago

    Doesn't leap-frogging Direct X 10 mean that everyone with a Direct X 10 card will be stuck with the Direct X 9 version, or does it not work like that anymore?

  • Xabarin #9 1 year ago

    Excelent news! That means that it will be ready for the inevitable steam summer sale!

  • Iain815 #10 1 year ago

    I'm with Darksjeik and Chufty. My rig isn't that out of date, but the difference DX10 does to my framerate over DX9 is horrid.

  • darkmorgado #11 1 year ago

    What's the betting that we get a new face off when it's released just so we can all be told that it pisses all over the console versions more than it already does?

  • CaptainQuint #12 1 year ago

    Congrats to pc gamers who fork out all the cash, I suppose, but honestly; I'm happy enough with the cost effective (and lovely looking) Xbox version.

    I fully expected to be negged, of course. But I couldn't give two fucks about that.

  • orangpelupa #13 1 year ago

    Err.. DX10 DX11 is not about bringing framerate down.

    example in BFBC2 the game will get lower max fps in DX 10.1 compared to DX9,
    but the MINIMUM framerate will be higher in DX10.1 compared to DX9.

    so resulting in more stable fps in DX 10.1 mode.


    so if CryEngine 3 in DX11 can run efficiently, and take advantage that some things are faster in DX 11, then if you run DX9 quality in DX 11 it can get performance boost.

    but usually people just add more effect in DX 11, thus lowering framerate.

  • StooMonster #14 1 year ago

    Would also like to see 64-bit binaries in DX-11 patch.

    Anyone remember the 64-bit version of Far Cry?

  • Krabardaf #15 1 year ago

    "DirectX 10 and 11 should have been called 9.1 and 9.2."

    That is just plain dumb.

    Supporting DX11 actually doesn't not tell much about the changes we'll effectively see in the game.Best guess is obviously tesselation and maybe displacement mapping using it. Doubtful about any deep changes or major optimizations, even if that would probably be possible in theory.

  • sabbede #16 1 year ago

    Wait... so DX10 is obsolete but DX9 isn't?

    Oh, and an FYI to all, DX11 is supposed to be backward compatible with 10, so often times DX11 modes work on DX10 cards (just w/o tessellation or displacement mapping...). DA2 (horrible game by the way) and Civ5 are two examples of games with DX9 and DX10/11 modes.
    Edited by sabbede at 31/03/11 @ 03:23

  • Master_Ted #17 1 year ago

    Well, at least DICE is bothering to use DX11 this year.

  • orangpelupa #18 1 year ago

    @intro

    thats because you turn on a bunch of additional GFX.....

  • ElNino9 #19 1 year ago

    pcgaminglol

  • djed #20 1 year ago

    @sabbede

    Yes. DX9 is still the latest version available to Windows XP users after Microsoft decided to screw them over. Vista and Se7en support both DX10 and DX11, but as has been stated, DX10 is a bit of a laugh, DX10.1 a bit less of one, but still...

  • teenlonewolf #21 1 year ago

    Some guy has already made a software to completely customize the graphics settings before you launch the game so no probs without ingame advanced settings. Wish the Dx11 thing would come Sooner though, and also be worth the wait!

  • Aargh. #22 1 year ago

    "The source also claimed that DirectX 10 will not be supported in future, as it's rendered obsolete by DirectX 11."

    Heh. Is it April 1st yet?

  • Eisenstein #23 1 year ago

    "Congrats to pc gamers who fork out all the cash, I suppose, but honestly; I'm happy enough with the cost effective (and lovely looking) Xbox version. "

    To each his own, but I personally enjoy playing a better looking version with a 1920x1200 resolution and a framerate of 30-60 fps quite a bit more than a upscaled three-digit resolution with slowdowns into the teens. Not to mention that I simply can't get gamepads to work for me as well as mouse and keyboard. And since I bought my PC to play games I would never see on a console (Shogun 2, Starcraft 2, WoW, Anno 1404) anyway...
    Edited by Eisenstein at 31/03/11 @ 06:59

  • simon.1980 #24 1 year ago

    Direct X 11 is backward compatible with DX10 cards, you just don't get the fancy tessellation you do with DX11. So the DX11 release will be good for both those DX11 and 10 users :D

  • Sodding_Gamer #25 1 year ago

    God make ya mind up! Anyway good news for PC gamers!

  • Sodding_Gamer #26 1 year ago

    @captainquint

    I agree the xbox version is outstanding. But its not really cost effect surely?! You could buy the pc version at 25 quid on release. and the 360 version for 37 on release.

  • PaletteSwap #27 1 year ago

    I understand and actually like that DX9 allows for a great peformance/visuals balance on older rigs and consoles. It's smart and efficient. Legacy support should never be overlooked.

    But I can't agree with anyone complaining about DX11 diminishing returns. Having DX11 support doesn't necessarily negate the previous point, it just allows current and future rigs to push the game further and at some point in the future, some players will be glad to trade 90 fps for nicer effects. Which won't refute how great the game currently performs on older hardware.

  • Nephirion #28 1 year ago

    Crytek in rushed console port shocker!!!!!

  • uknortherner2000 #29 1 year ago

    @TruthSlayer

    No, Microsoft screwed over XP users by making DX10 Vista-only. They wanted to shift more copies of their craptacular, buggy OS and DX10 was one of the carrot sticks they employed.

    At the time, Crysis was billed as the game that showcased DX10's capabilities (god-rays and the like). In fact, All these so-called DX10 "features" that Crysis employed were actually DX9 features that Crytek deliberately disabled for DX9/XP users, although a simple ini tweak published in various PC magazines a month later brought them back.

    Good thing really - without the fancy graphics, it was easy to see that Crysis was just another run-of-the-mill shooter, with graphics that couldn't even match Oblivion's - a game that was already two years old by then.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #30 1 year ago

    I've never understood the Console vs PC thing. For me it goes in cycles. I usually buy a console in it's first few years because you get some impressive hardware for the money compared to a PC due to them making a loss.

    Fiver years later it's now it's the PCs turn. I've just built a i5 2500, 8GB, HD 5770 for £500 and can now play a bunch of games at a significantly better quality than the console versions without having to spend over a £1000.

    No doubt when the next gen consoles are offering super-duper GPUs and multicore CPUs for £200-300 I'll jump ship again.

    Many friends have done the same and I think it's reflected in the upturn in PC games sales.

  • jrb #31 1 year ago

    @darksjeik - the only other game i have that has direct x 11 support, oddly, is World of Warcraft. Putting that in to dx11 mode INCREASES framerate by 30-40%, and makes in-game reflections look better.

    The take-home message is that you don't just have to use DX11 for image-quality improvements, it can be used for performance improvements too.

  • Matchstick #32 1 year ago

    @uknortherner2000

    I'm afraid I have to respecfully disagree that Crysis (and Warhead) was "just another run-of-the-mill shooter".

    The open setting and variety of powers gave you so many different ways to play each encounter (at least until the aliens turned up) that it really did do a great job of giving the player an unprecedented freedom in this kind of game.

    It wasn't perfect, sure, with the guns lacking punch, dreadful AI and the final third, once the aliens turn up, throwing all the interesting stuff out the window but it's still a game I enjoy coming back to, just to see what new ways I can come up with to deal with those pesky North Koreans.
    Edited by Matchstick at 31/03/11 @ 11:04

  • mrblonde #33 1 year ago

    i think the PC version of crysis 2 was squarely aimed at the consoles and no amount of back tracking will change this. The first crysis in Nov 2007 was the death knell for higher end PC gaming and pc exclusives , whether this was a good thing or not is a matter of personal opinion. Myself i think the static console is the best option for any gamer, with Dev's squeezing the absolute maximum out of the hardware , who would have thought we would now have crysis2 level visuals at the 360s launch, with titles like PDZ and even COD2 looking positively last , last gen nowadays.
    Edited by mrblonde at 31/03/11 @ 11:47

  • UncleLou #34 1 year ago

    Good thing really - without the fancy graphics, it was easy to see that Crysis was just another run-of-the-mill shooter,

    I wish that was even remotely true, I'd love to play more games like Crysis. Maybe you can recommend a few? Wide, open landscapes, a continuous journey rather than setpiece levels, a high degree of freedom how you approach every situation, and an AI way above the average FPS. Not to forget a meaty, long single-player mode, not an mp afterthought. Recommendations welcome.

  • oi #35 1 year ago

    "What's the betting that we get a new face off when it's released just so we can all be told that it pisses all over the console versions more than it already does?"

    The PC version most certainly does not "piss all over" the console versions. I think that's why many PC folk are upset, and why they want DX11. Having said that patching in some DX11 features won't add much to the games visuals and will have a pretty big impact on performance.

    All I want is a proper settings menu, so I can tune the game exactly how I want.

  • Killerbee #36 1 year ago

    @UncleLou

    You probably played it already, but Far Cry 2 ticks all of those boxes. I actually think it was a far better "spiritual" successor to Crytek's older games than Crysis 2 is.

    Not that there's anything wrong with Crysis 2 - it's a great game (and I am playing the PC version which runs nicely on my old Q6600 and two 8800GTs in SLI - 3 year-old kit now - at a better-than-720p resolution on "Very High" settings) but it hasn't really made me go "wow" in the way that Far Cry and the original Crysis did.

    I miss the lush island jungle...
    Edited by Killerbee at 31/03/11 @ 13:33

  • Darren #37 1 year ago

    I really do not see the point in Crytek working on a DX11 patch if it is going to take another two months at least to arrive. By then most people will have moved onto newer games plus you have to consider that only a minority of PC owners probably have the necessary hardware and operating system (Vista or 7) to run the game fully in DX11 anyway. I suspect most will be using DX9/10 hardware. Really it's a waste of resources IMO; the game should have shipped with DX11 in place IMO not needed to be patched in months later when few people will even care about it.

    I think the game looks terrific in DX9 so I'm not really itching for a DX11 patch that will likely cut my existing performance in half anyway.

  • Darren #38 1 year ago

    @oi - Crytek 2 might look very similar visually on both the consoles and PC, which in itself is impressive without a doubt, but static screenshots do not show how much better the latter feels to play if you have the right hardware. You get the benefit of sharper HD visuals, more responsive controls (even with an Xbox 360 controller!), quicker loading times, far less pop up/LOD issues and a slicker, smoother framerate on the PC. The console versions are as good as they could be, kudos to Crytek for achieving that, but the PC version is without a shadow of a doubt the definitive version.

  • UncleLou #39 1 year ago

    You probably played it already, but Far Cry 2 ticks all of those boxes. I actually think it was a far better "spiritual" successor to Crytek's older games than Crysis 2 is."

    Thanks, killerbee - yeah, I've played it. I actually didn't like it very much, but that's a different story. :)
    Edited by UncleLou at 31/03/11 @ 16:36

  • Chufty #40 1 year ago

    My DirectX 9.1 and 9.2 comment was a deliberate exaggeration to make my point. The most prominent features of DX11 over DX9 are techniques to improve performance.

    Tessellation, as an example, is perfectly possible in Direct3D 9, but DX11-compatible cards offer hardware support.

    In order for Crytek to get the most out of DX11, they need to crank up the visual fidelity using these new features. My point is that the game already looks so nice, and runs so well, on older hardware, that DX11 should not be their priority.

    Sorting out the ropey multiplayer system would be a good place to start.

  • Darksjeik #41 1 year ago

    @ #34 jrb I can't comment on WoW since I haven't played it. It could be better optimised than the games I play. I have a factory overclocked GTX460 Hawk GPU and eventhough its a DX11 card, the performance hit in games like Metro 2033 really isn't worth the added shine. Maybe people running high end GPU's disagree but in my situation DX9 offers the best balance between visuals and performance. On a side note AvP in DX11 runs buttersmooth with a barely noticeable performance hit.