And why they run their own authentication service, multiplayer servers, DLC servers etc. No way they'd fully embrace onlive simply because it's a matter of giving up control

Considering the vastness of the maps and the amount of physics applied objects and so on, it ran quite well, and looked amazing even medium settings.
Of course, I still can't play it on anything higher then "High" (as opposed to "Very high"), most likely due to a somewhat outdated CPU. But still looks much better, graphically, than many other games coming out these days.

Warhead worked miracles in cleaning up the code. Was much better optimised with no loss in quality or scale. Add to that what they're achieving with Cysis 2 (namely squeezing it onto consoles) it's fair to say that the Crysis engine was rather bloated, as otherwise impressive as it was.

Another question is revealed: (also, pay attention to the end of the text :p )
"Electronic Arts Plans to Make You Pay for Glorified Game Demos?"

We need concrete info from EA and less wild speculation. BF1943 was hardly a demo. As for them growing their digital distribution well thats pretty much obvious to anyone with the EA Store and all the DLC they are selling. I really don't have a problem with DLC as long as it's worth the money.

I'm not speculating anything, I just said to pay attention.
Relax, people.

I was more having a dig at Kotaku and the people posting there than you.

OK then, it's nothing against you. I don't trust afterdawn and kotaku too, but you all know what EA and the big ones are capable of and the repercussion to the other publishers, and that is annoying as a gamer.
And looks like people are a bit stressed over this forum lately, caring too much about linguistics and etc. and less about games (as a final product that we consume). Maybe it's the high anxiety for the gog's announcement...

I haven't seen anything good on Crysis 2 and said on this forum at the time that the demo videos were shit. But I have seen some very good looking things produced with CryEngine 3 itself.

Am I the only one on Earth who sees this way of working as inevitable?
With the spreading prevalence of high-speed internet and digital distribution, no matter how many games people boycott, I have a feeling this sort of thing will eventually be standard. Even if by then it isn't actually used for DRM.

But this will just strenghen piracy

*Shrugs* I could care less what effects it has on piracy. I will continue to buy games from companies I think deserve the money for the quality game they've made. If they haven't made a quality game, chances are I won't play it anyway, so they won't have to worry on my end.
What I'm saying, is that, being connected to the internet to play your games will eventually become the norm. I don't know whether this will be before or after box-retail is phased out, hell I don't know if it will ever be phased out.
All I'm saying, is the age of digital distribution is here, is well on its way, and already requires the internet. This is simply the next logical step. Whether it's used for DRM by that point or not.

I really don't see that happening. Requiring a constant connection to the internet is a loss for all parties involved (even if some don't realize it yet). It provides nothing for the customer and only offers ways that what they bought can stop working. And for the developers/publishers it will only reduce sales due to what I just mentioned, as well as incurring costs due to having to maintain servers as well as dealing with increased tech support issues. As a result of all this, in a competitive market companies that don't do this kind of thing will be at a distinct advantage (all else being equal), and the video game market is most certainly competitive and only becoming more so as the market becomes more crowded and the barriers to entry become lower. Expect to see big players dabble in the constant connection requirements for a couple of years, then either back off or go under as the realities of the market set in on them.

Yeah, one of the basic tennants of good design is never build in a single point of failure unless its absolutely necessary and in the case of games with single player components, it simply isn't