Print 118 comment(s) - last by Armorize.. on Nov 3 at 9:59 PM

Crysis demo released; gamers lament the weakness of their PC hardware

Gamers who recently spent a considerable sum of money on a high-end video card will finally find that their piece of hardware is no longer overkill. That’s right, the Crysis single-player demo is here as promised by the developers late last month.

The demo was originally set for release on September 25, but developer Crytek decided to push the public debut date back a month in the interest of quality. The retail date of November 16 still appears to be on-track.

“We are taking some extra time to make sure you that you have an amazing experience but also we did not want to risk the release date of Crysis at this stage,” Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, explained regarding the delay. “To get the game into your hands by November the 16th, we had to make this call.”

The demo may be downloaded directly from an EA Canada web server. The 1.77GB download includes the entire first level and the CryEngine 2 - Sandbox 2 game editor, giving the community an opportunity to get familiar with the tools before the retail game ships.

As should be well known by now, Crysis is the most hardware-demanding game to ship this year. Those who are interested in diving into the demo should read the official system requirements and recommendations before downloading.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By Exodus220 on 10/28/2007 3:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you only using WinXP SP1...seems like you should have SP2 for all those updates that are necessary. I can't figure out why it is so poor on your system when it seems like a decent one.

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By darkpaw on 10/28/2007 10:00:50 AM , Rating: 4
As a security auditor, any machine without SP2 is pretty much easy prey. I love seeing those.

Not having SP2 installed is asking for it, almost as much as running NT or earlier.

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By mechBgon on 10/28/2007 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 5
Any machine with Windows is easy prey so what is your point?

I disagree :) Windows is quite securable, with my malware-hunting systems being a point in case. For those who want suggestions:

Additionally, anyone reading the Microsoft security intelligence reports ( ) can see for themselves that SP2-equipped Windows machines are far less likely to be compromised than pre-SP2, and Vista is far less likely yet.

At least 95% of the security updates can be had separately from SP2, question is, will microsoft continue to issue patches that are compatible with SP1.

No, that era has ended. SP1 support has expired. If you don't have SP2, you will not be able to get security updates that resolve serious vulnerabilities that the bad guys are exploiting right now. Also, there was a great deal of extra hardening and elimination of attack surface that went into SP2. You won't get those benefits on SP1, period, no matter what patches you install. So, given the current security climate, I would suggest getting SP2 immediately.

Here's more food for thought, just one morsel that illustrates the point:

Real Media has become the latest ad network to be outed as an unwitting ally to cyber crooks. In September, it was disclosed that Yahoo!-owned Right Media served about 12 million ads over three weeks, which silently installed a Trojan back door on unpatched Windows machines. The ads were served on MySpace, PhotoBucket and other popular web destinations.


If the relevance isn't quite apparent: normally-safe website can become unsafe . It happens all the time. And no, just using an alternative browser will not make you safe from the tactics being used :) They include exploiting unpatched Windows vulnerabilties and third-party vulnerabilities as well.

Tangentially, check your system for vulns with the Secunia Software Inspector: Not many people come up 100% patched on their third-party stuff (Adobe Reader, Java, Flash Player, WinAmp, QuickTime, etc). The bad guys are happily exploiting those vulns in the wild, so get them fixed.

MVP, Windows Shell/User

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By mechBgon on 10/28/2007 7:43:53 PM , Rating: 5
goku , the article illustrates my point: you will not necessarily avoid danger solely by what you consider smart surfing. A few weeks ago, we had reports of malware detection on an AnandTech front-page article here. The RealPlayer exploit article isn't meant to illustrate anything specifically about SP2, but simply about the fact that exploits can happen at normally-safe sites. If that were an ANI exploit, for example, you would need SP2 to be immune to it, since the necessary patch is available for SP2 only. ANI exploits are indeed found in infected banner advertisements sometimes.

And considering you find the "Security Center and Windows Firewall" a "feature" I have to call into question your sanity. Sure Windows Firewall may seem like it's better than nothing except it isn't because it gives a false sense of security which is why it's bad. Install a virus in the system and the "firewall" can easily be disabled which is why I'm against any form of "software firewalls".

I happen to be a SiteAdvisor reviewer with an 8/9 Reputation rating, who deals with live malware and exploits every day, so you can be assured that my advice has faced plenty of live-fire testing ;) and continues to face it practically every day. If you can find me a piece of malware that can disable the Windows Firewall from within a Limited account, which is the approach I suggest to my readers, then I'm definitely interested in hearing about that. The garish Security Center may seem awful to a DailyTech reader, but think about the average un-geeky homeowner who thinks their 4-year-old Norton software is providing protection when it's not. They need a bit of hand-holding ;)

Anyhow, given what I see every day when doing malware research, I would strongly advise using Service Pack 2 on WinXP, and all the other security updates for your software, Microsoft and otherwise, in addition to risk avoidance. The reduction in attack surface, addition of DEP, elimination of known network-worm vulnerabilities and availability of the most recent security updates are plenty of reason. If you feel there is a performance hit involved... then overclock that puppy! ;)

MVP, Windows Shell/User

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/29/2007 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 1
Well considering that microsoft has provided GDI Vulnerability patches and the like for Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, I'd say that microsoft not allowing the installation of said patch on Pre SP2 systems is their way of forcing the installation of SP2 on systems that haven't had done so. I believe this is what you're referring to: I'll be searching and or working for a way to fool patches/programs and the like into thinking a SP1 equipped system has SP2 and then will see if the benefits can be seen and also if there are dependencies created by SP2 though I doubt this is always the case.

Service Pack 2, excusing all the unnecessary "requirements" that microsoft and others have imposed for the sake of having it installed, is the worst thing to happen to Windows XP since well Windows XP. Personally if I could use all the programs I wanted with Windows 2000 I would, but because developers create arbitrary barriers preventing the installation and use of certain programs, I'm forced to use Windows XP.

Also like I said, if you block the ads that are coming to your computer in the first place, in this specific circumstance you wouldn't have been infected by the malware implanted into those ad serving companies.

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By SavagePotato on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
By BitJunkie on 10/29/2007 4:27:20 AM , Rating: 4
This post was brought to you by Flames r' Us™. 10/10.

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By SiliconAddict on 10/29/2007 12:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
That's a load of bullshit. SP2 has been out for over 3 years now. There is ZERO reason to be on it and if some developer has not updated their wares to be compatible with it at this point you should be dropping their ass like a load of bullshit which oddly enough is what this argument boils down to. Seriously most of the reasons an app does not work with SP2 can be mitigated with minor tweaks. At this point in time there are DOZENS of patches that CAN NOT be installed without SP2 and many of those are worm based that can sneak by AV software and even MS's built in firewall.
Again its beyond insane not to be on SP2 at this point and any argument to the contrary is a loosing battle as anyone who deals with IT security will tell you. Year one yes. There were bugs to be worked out. Applications to be fixed. Year two fine. OK. There were still internal apps at many companies that needed to be updated. But at this point? Hell no.

RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/29/2007 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong, if you're running legacy applications that aren't being supported anymore then your only choice is to NOT use Service Pack 2, period. Not to mention the additional system resource consumption is reason enough to avoid it.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov
Related Articles
Crysis System Requirements Revealed
October 9, 2007, 3:43 PM
Crysis Demo Delayed Until Oct. 26
September 22, 2007, 12:17 PM
Crysis Demo Set for Release on 9/25
August 28, 2007, 9:46 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki