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 goku on 10/28/2007 5:25:40 PM , Rating: -1
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."

Too bad you missed this point illustrated in the article:
...The malware exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in Real Player that was patched on Friday.....Windows users who used Internet Explorer to visit certain sites hosted by and were silently infected if they also had RealPlayer installed, according to a report issued on Symantec's DeepSight Threat Management System....

So even if you did patch your system completely with SP2, it wouldn't have mattered anyways because they exploited a vulnerability in real media player which sucks anyways.

Three things, one I block ads, and two I use the alternative real media player and three I rarely use internet explorer.

Oh and I found this little gem from your site:
The bottom line is that unlike WinXP SP1 or SP0, a WinXP SP2-equipped computer is not likely to get immediately subverted if you happen to plug it into your modem directly. We're talking the difference between a sloth and a panther here.

It's accurate and inaccurate at the same time. The only time I've had my computer near "instantly subverted" was when I was using Windows XP without any patches. This was the first time I'd ever seen a computer merely connect to the internet and bam get infected despite not downloading anything, this was due to a serious vulnerability in the RPC service and numerous other holes in the operating system. Infected machines would go out and start probing specific ports at random IP addresses until it got in. However if the system is patched, this subversion doesn't happen regardless of the Service Pack.

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". Antivirus and firewalls are very resource intensive, having both running simultaneously can make a system more painfully slow than being infected in the first place, lol.. Why would you want Security center anyways? It's just a bunch of nagging crap with UAC in vista further extending this nagging nonsense... Personally because I haven't had my system "subverted" or infected or whatever in a long while, I've opted to disabling my realtime antivirus scanning due to the large performance penalty, full system scans never yeild any results and everytime I download a file I do a manual scan anyways.

I think the worst part about SP2 which definately should be a consideration for gamers is the performance penalty it imposes, few people want to admit to this for what ever reasons but it does exist and since I see no reason to install SP2 I can see why others would opt to forgo the installation of it.

With all that said, my antivirus (kaspersky) used to notify me of attempted "network attacks" on a regular basis until I installed a real hardware firewall. Since the notifications have disappeared with the introduction of the firewall, that alone was enough for me to entirely disable realtime scanning.

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.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes
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

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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