Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

No Crysis for EA or Consoles 97

Posted by Zonk
from the see-how-rumours-start dept.
There was a lot of buzz this weekend about the possibility that EA would be buying Crytek, the company currently working on the uber-shiny Crysis PC game. IGN checked in with the mammoth publisher and, at least according to EA, there are no plans for Crytek to join the EA family. Crytek did have some news to share at the Leipzig Games Convention, though: Crysis won't be on the next-gen consoles. It's just too intensive for even the likes of the 360 or PS3, apparently.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Crysis for EA or Consoles

Comments Filter:
  • No consoles? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @11:58AM (#16000738) Homepage Journal
    Crysis won't be on the next-gen consoles. It's just too intensive for even the likes of the 360 or PS3, apparently.
    If they think all gamers have overpriced Alienware monsters, they're in for a big shock. I'm on Mac and I only plan on buying a Wii, that means no "Crysis" for me either.

    Blizzard were able to make WoW run fine on my Mac mini G4/1.42GHz, 1GB RAM with Radeon 9200/32MB (except when there was too many players on-screen), programmers should learn to make scalable games which would allow them to release the game on the Xbox360, PS3 and Wii.

    Enough with the crappy programmers already!
    • Re:No consoles? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PoderOmega (677170) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:06PM (#16000801)
      Enough with people calling programmers crappy. For example, Oblivion, every says it has huge hardware demands and crashes. It is possible that they are all hack programmers, but I tend to think management is really to blame. I am a programmer, and as much as the arrogant programmers will argue, you will always have bugs in your code if it reaches a certain point of complexity. Video games are very complex and there will always be bugs. Management is in control of the QA process and they decide when to release a game with bugs. If management and technical directors decide that X is the hardware requirements of the game, then what is the programmer going to do? I am not going to be spending my hours making my code run 4% faster on hardware below the specs set by management. I'm sure most game programmers could spend a few weeks squeezing every drop of performance out but guess what, they would get fired for wasting time. "But look, it runs on a 486!!!".
      • by Yvan256 (722131)
        You may be used to crappy games on the PC, but I've never had anything from Nintendo crash on me.

        As for management, well, they're so disconnected from the real world that our only line of defense should be those who know how things work: the programmers. There's no need to put your job at risk to simply point out the obvious to the suits.
        • Went into an endless fall loop in one of the dungeons. Although it's frankly astounding how few bugs there are on console games.
          • by dorbabil (969458)
            To be honest, there are plenty of bugs in console games. One of the Prince of Persia 3D games, for example, had a save point where if you saved, but did not continue playing, the game would be unfinishable. Save points seem to be a common source of problems, with some games allowing you to save where death is unavoidable the next time you play, or something along those lines.

            I've had a few other games crash/die on me, but you're right, it's less frequent on consoles than it is on PCs. But there's a good rea
            • by Taevin (850923) *
              While it's true that having a static hardware configuration can help eliminate some bugs, it's rarely an issue. I've never had a game crash because of my hardware. If a crash is related to hardware at all, it's usually that the application was trying to use the hardware inappropriately and then it's all "Hey, you can't do that!" and "Fine, I'll just push the red button on my bomb belt then!" Crash. In that case, it's a problem with the application's code, not the hardware or the hardware's drivers (they
          • by RufusFish (253008)
            I've never found the lack of bugs on consoles to be remarkable but rather very logical -- in general, they're making the game for known hardware; every unit is the same or very similar or if they are developing for multiple platforms, the config differences are still a very small world. They don't need to account for changing drivers, an infinite number of configurations from different hardware vendors, what other software is running on the machine, what version of the OS is patched in, etc. They have one c
            • You can restrict your library and OS dependencies to APIs with a clear set of specs, but that won't make your program as reliable as a console game, because it's almost always easy for you to accidentally write code that doesn't conform to the specs but that does work on particular implementations of those specs, even if the implementations are technically correct. So you write your program, you mistakenly think it's correct, and it doesn't break on the test machines you try, so you ship it. Then some use
        • by steveo777 (183629)
          I've never had anything from Nintendo crash on me

          You can't be serious?! You must not be counting freezes. Ever plug another controller into the NES? Or run it for 8 hours straight? I don't think it could 'crash' per se. But it always sucked when you'd been playing Zelda or Dragon Warrior for some hours and hadn't saved.

          Okay, I'm nit-picking. I'll stop.

        • by PFI_Optix (936301)
          Either you're fairly new to console gaming, or you're lucky to not remember the NES/SNES/N64 lockups. I can't comment on the Gamecube, I abandoned consoles before it hit the market.

          And I for one and not accustomed to crappy games on the PC. If the game is crap, I don't play it. I know, I know...you're wondering how I know it's crap if I haven't played it. It's because I actually wait a month or two from release and see how the game is reviewed by my peers before I touch it (I do make exceptions to this rule
        • by ZakuSage (874456)
          Apparently you've never ran through walls in SMB1.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by KDR_11k (778916)
          I've had Metroid Prime crash on me once, sounded like the drive was given conflicting orders as it kept moving the head around and clacked all the time before the BSOD came up. Granted, that was only once but have a look at the bugs [tasvideos.org] in [tasvideos.org] console [tasvideos.org] games [tasvideos.org].
        • My N64 has crashed in-game more times than any other gaming system I've owned. The two big-name games, Goldeneye and Mario 64, were the worst offenders. Perfect Dark tended to get a bit unstable with a gameshark, but that can't be blamed on the game. The only console I've crashed more is my Xbox, but this is while testing code I just compiled rather than playing commercially available games.
        • by smash (1351)
          I've never had anything from nintendo crash on me either. Then again, i've never owned any of their hardware :D

          However, my PC gaming experience has been pretty good as of late. About the only game in the past 5 years I've had lock-up or crash on me is the original Falcon 4.0.

          Now, if you can find a more complex game than that on any platform, you get a cookie :D

          Allied Force has been trouble free for me though :)

        • by gravyface (592485)

          You may be used to crappy games on the PC, but I've never had anything from Nintendo crash on me.

          Two reasons:

          1. The hardware platform is always the same: every layer of hardware/OS/sub-system abstraction needed on the PC to ensure that Bob's Alienware box works equally as well as Billy's homebrew machine adds code and complexity and complexity == bugs.
          2. Can't patch a console game: Console manufacturers realise that issuing patches for console games is just not possible/feasible so these games are more than
          • by Yvan256 (722131)
            Can't patch a console game: Console manufacturers realise that issuing patches for console games is just not possible/feasible so these games are more than likely in the Q/A cycle for longer periods of time than a PC game, which can be patched frequently.
            Which is the real problem, I guess. Releasing buggy PC software is somehow seen as "ok" when it really shouldn't. PC software companies seem to view their paying customers as free beta-testers.
      • Sure coders aren't always to blame, but coders aren't always shiny either. I've hired consultants that kept promising they were the "shit", that they knew *exactly* what they were talking about so you hire them and next thing you know, their work is exactly just that : shit. Because they wanna do it *their* way, or because they didn't have time, because the way its designed is incorrect....yada yada yada. For every failure there's an excuse. I know deadlines are tough and that sometimes you have to round co
      • There are very large, very complex programs (operating systems, databases, etc) that do not have serious problems. There are games that exist that have almost no problems.

        Yes, you will always have bugs. That does not mean you can always use the "programming is hard" cop-out. When your competitors make games that run twice as fast on half the hardware -- when your game crashes twice a day and theirs never does -- something is seriously wrong.

        It could be the programmers, it could be the management, but it
        • by smash (1351)
          I don't think the GP was saying that the "programming is hard" is a good cop out - simply that any code that complex WILL start out with a large number of bugs no matter how good your programmers are, and that the problem is management releasing before they get time to fix it - not that the programmers are crap.
          • I'd disagree with that, also -- the trick is good unit testing (to keep bugs from getting in), don't reinvent the wheel (use existing, already-debugged middleware where possible), and other known techniques like pair programming. You can spend 2x the time getting it right the first time, instead of 3x the time fixing it later.

            There was some kind of paper on this, but I can't remember where I last saw it. Basically, it was a small group that could program significantly more reliable systems than most other
        • Yup. No amount of management or QA is going to save a product which has incompetent programmers working on it. Most likely, it's those same programmers that are going to fix the bugs that QA finds. If they do a crappy job of coding the product, their bug fix is likely going to be crappy. Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time before a badly written bug fix gets through QA (everyone is human), but still impacts real-world customers.

          The whole team has to be confident. Your programmers have to work well wit
    • by justkarl (775856)
      Agreed. You shouldn't have to buy a $500 dollar video card for your $350 PC so you can play a $60 game. Personally, that's why I stick to the PS2. No extra hardware, just stick in the CD and know it will work every time. PC gaming depends on too much to worry about.
      • by PFI_Optix (936301)
        I've never paid $500 for a video. My current spending limit is $250 every two years, which is more than sufficient for running the newest games, albeit not at the highest resolutions or detail settings (they'll still look better than anything the PS2 can deliver).

        I play games on the PC because the PS2,or any other console, doesn't deliver as well on the genres I like: RTS, FPS, and RPG. I spend roughly the price of a new console every year keeping my system current enough to run the games I want to play.

        And
        • by und0 (928711)
          I play games on the PC because the PS2,or any other console, doesn't deliver as well on the genres I like: RTS, FPS, and RPG.

          Dunno, but IMHO, i think if you like RPG games you should use the PS2... (=
          • Dunno, but IMHO, i think if you like RPG games you should use the PS2...

            Personally, I've found that console RPG are lacking in depth. Compare them even to Ultima and Bard's Tale (back in the olden times of C=64s and Apple IIs), and they still fall just a little short. Now, compare them to Baldur's Gate I or II on the PC, and consoles ain't go nothing.
          • by PFI_Optix (936301)
            Console RPGs tend to be more adventure games than real RPGs. Just look at that shining flagship example called Final Fantasy: it barely qualifies as an RPG to those of us who have played true RPGs.

            Some PC RPGs:
            Fallout
            Baldur's Gate
            Neverwinter Nights
            Ultima

            And of course there's that annoying lack of a mouse, which I've come to be quite fond of in RPGs.
            • by und0 (928711)
              I think i've never played RPGs on PC (at least none of the above) if you don't consider Dungeon Master for the Amiga. So lately only japanese RPGs, but loved Shadow Hearts and Shadow Hearts: Covenant...
            • Why do PC gamers get to define what is or is not a "real RPG".

              • by orcrist (16312)
                Why do PC gamers get to define what is or is not a "real RPG".

                It's not that we "get to define" it. It's that the definition predates both PC and Console RPGs. Fact is, RPGs have always been characterized by 2 things:
                1. The actual 'role-playing', which has no real equivalent in video games (yet?)
                2. Character development. This is characterized (ha!) by e.g. things like skills which can be gained/improved, and attributes (strength, intelligence, etc.) which set your character apart from other characters with t
                • You have to define what you mean by rudimentary, because the console RPG's I have played have tons of stat/skill development.

                  I'm not saying that they don't implement their stat/skill systems in a different manner.

    • Re:No consoles? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Piata (927858) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:10PM (#16000826)
      I'd hardly call them crappy programmers. They're pushing the absolute barriers of PC gaming and they're not compromising their vision just so they can push more units on a console (i.e. Oblivion). It's actually refreshing to see a company going straight to the limit instead of trying to cater to their pocket book. Besides, if you bought a Mac, you weren't really interested in gaming anyways.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Agreed Crysis is about pushing the limits. About "not being like everyone else". Anyone who's played FarCry would understand this. Instead of weeping and wailing that the world doesn't stand still just for them. If the OP wants games that don't push the limits, I'm certain EA can cater to him.
        • by ivan256 (17499)
          Personally I'd prefer that the game push the limits of fun, and not push the limits of my electric bill when I need a 200 watt GPU to play it. I don't care what the graphics look like (and if you ask me, Crysis looks like shit. Plastic shit to be more specific.).

          Just another shooter + killer new shooter feature = Just another shooter

          for sufficiently large values of shooter. We reached that value years ago.

          EA doesn't seem to be stepping up to the plate in that category either though.

      • People must understand that Crysis is in the "Top Fuel" genre of games. Sure, one can make reasonable arguments for Volvos and Pintos which everyone can buy, but there are people who are into the extreme high-end, and not everyone gets to drive.

        (Speaking of Crysis, I'm intrigued by the apparent difference (even disconnect) in fidelity between the 'Carrier' section seen in one trailer and the 'Jungle' section shown in the tech-demo. The 'Carrier' section looks like Just Another Boring Shooter, while the 'J

    • by PFI_Optix (936301)
      Valve made Half-Life 2 run quite well on an aging PC. When I upgraded and played through the game a second time, I realized just how much different it looked with the better system. Here's hoping Crytek is willing to do the same thing. It doesn't have to be shiny for it to be fun.
      • Half Life 2's graphics look pretty crap on any setup below the recommended though.

        I, for one, would not enjoy playing through a boring game like HL2 on those graphics. It would just make it even worse. @_@
      • Valve has always done great with their engines. Even the original HL could run on a 133Mhz computer. Granted it looked horrible but it was playable. Same with HL2, you can run it on dated systems where most games that came out the same time frame is unplayable even in low settings.

        All that said, with what's in the Xbox360 and PS3, i don't see how it couldn't handle Crysis. I mean they bumped Doom 3 so it was playable on the Xbox, that pushed the envelope of PCs. Why can't they do that with Crysis and a
        • by PFI_Optix (936301)
          They're probably making the arguement that the 360 and PS3 will never be able to show the game as they intend it to look (kind of like Doom 3 on the XBOX will never have the quality of a good PC) and they don't want to release to a medium that would force them to compromise.

          As in my example of HL2, the game would work on lower-end systems by stepping down the graphics until it performed as desired, but when run on a good system it could open its graphics engine up and look quite stunning. Crysis could do th
    • If they think all gamers have overpriced Alienware monsters, they're in for a big shock. I'm on Mac and I only plan on buying a Wii, that means no "Crysis" for me either.

      Well, first, you're on a Mac. To many publishers, that means you're part of a small demographic that isn't cost-effective to reach until your game is a blockbuster, or the revenue is higher per user... with your WoW example, they're getting the subscription fees off you as well as the game purchase.

      Second, did you forget that Vista is com

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        Well, first, you're on a Mac. To many publishers, that means you're part of a small demographic that isn't cost-effective to reach until your game is a blockbuster, or the revenue is higher per user... with your WoW example, they're getting the subscription fees off you as well as the game purchase.

        Oh, but I didn't switch to Mac to play games. Besides, I'm still playing Diablo 2 LOD and Starcraft on my Mac, along with Gameboy Advance, Gamecube and Nintendo DS games on the consoles side.

        My WoW exemple was on

        • Sure, gameplay is what most of us want. I tend to mix up my gameplay between strategy and casual games, and I'll tell you that a fast processor is very necessary for good one-player strategy games -- most good AI is very processor intensive. Even turn-based games are subject to this, as I cannot stand waiting 5 minutes for the AI competition to complete their turns.
    • While I'm sure Mac gamers see yourselves as a huge segment, you really aren't at this point. Some companies feel it's worth spending the money for a port, some don't. MMORPGs are more worth while since there's a recurring revenue stream.

      At any rate the point of Crysis, like Far Cry before it, is to be an extremely high end engine. With some of the modifications they've made, like HDR, Far Cry is still a fairly modern, high end engine. Their target for Crysis is doubtless the best-of-the-best kind of thing.
    • Most PC games are scalable. Thats why they have the "Graphics Options" menu, where you can turn up or down all the shinys available in whatever engine the game is using.

      I think its great that they aren't releasing on the PS3, Xbox or Wii. It means we will get a solid, PC-centric game instead of some crappy console port ala Oblivion. While I love Oblivion, it is very clear the PC is an afterthough with the way the user interface functions.

      Also, if performance was the biggest issue, Oblivion should run gre
      • Also, if performance was the biggest issue, Oblivion should run great on everyone's high end PC, since it was also released for the Xbox360. Oh wait, it was released for the Xbox and STILL chokes on the PC. I


        Maybe oblivion runs like crap on PC's because the Microsoft/Intel PC platform wasn't designed for games, but business applications and is still feeling the effects of that design decision. The consoles are simply far more efficient gaming machines.

        • by smash (1351)

          Maybe oblivion runs like crap on PC's because the Microsoft/Intel PC platform wasn't designed for games, but business applications and is still feeling the effects of that design decision. The consoles are simply far more efficient gaming machines.

          Thats why consoles have far superior hardware specs (in terms of bandwidth, cpu horsepower, 3d geometry processing, audio processing, etc), right?

          Oh, crap, they don't.

          Your argument might have held water in the early 1990s, but technology has definately moved

          • Note I didn't say superior in specification numbers, I said efficient. I was making a bang for the Hz generalization. Also note that system specs are not the sole thing that determines overall system power. And when the PS2 came out, no Wintel box could match the raw GFLOPS the PS2 could do or it's memory bandwidth.

            Take a look at multiplatform games. Go on. do the PC version of those games run on a 300 MHz P2 with 32MB of RAM and 4MB of graphics memory? They don't?

            Again, a console does more with les
    • Crysis will use an all new engine that ... is to be among the first to use the Direct3D 10 framework of Windows Vista [wikipedia.org]. Wikipedia also says that Crysis is going to be coming out Q4 2006. So, now that we are all aware [slashdot.org] of Vista's release date, does this mean that no console or OS will be able to run it at launch?
    • by smash (1351)
      Remember: this year's alienware monster is next years budget gaming PC.

      Comparing WoW to Crysis is fairly amusing - the graphics in Wow are nowhere near the level of detail as those in Crysis.

      Even if you're a budget PC buyer, you should be glad for games like this pushing hardware along. Without the requirements for kick-ass hardware, it won't be developed. Eventually, it all trickles down to budget buyers as well.

  • Will it run on Linux and/or Mac/x86? Please? Pretty please?
    • by shimage (954282)

      Crytek claims that only DirectX 10 allows the game to run as it was intended by the developers because the next-generation DirectX API, which will ship along with Windows Vista, allows more effects and more objects to be drawn on the screen with a smaller computational cost for the hardware.

      So I'm guessing that's a no.

  • They're the borg of PC gaming, assimilating uniqueness into uniformity. After they bought Westwood, C&C became a modern warfare themed WarCraft. Yet another WarCraft clone with builder units and war factories you have to scroll to and click on to use (classic C&C had a centralized build queue with an always on-screen remote control).

    I imagine FPS gamers appreciate variety as much as RTS gamers do. I sure don't want too many games pumped through the same risk-averse cookie cutter.
  • Whew! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zyl0x (987342) on Tuesday August 29, 2006 @12:07PM (#16000806)
    Thank God EA has been stopped from absorbing yet another promising game studio. I was worried there for a minute. As for the "no consoles" thing, they think the 360 is too weak? Are they kidding? There are a lot of people who can't even afford a 360, nevermind the PS3.. and they expect to market their game to the "teenagers with enough free time but also somehow have hojillions of dollars" niche? Maybe I'm the minority here, but I don't find it very feasible to spend many thousands of dollars just for a system to play one extra game that I probably won't have the time to play. Not only that, but if this is the only game that will require such ridiculous system specs, why would we invest in such a system for some 40 hours of gameplay only to be left with a machine that overkills the rest of our collection?
    • by The Dalex (996138)
      Sounds like you are not the target demographic for this game.
      • by zyl0x (987342)
        That would be obvious. My question was whether or not their actual target market was such a great choice.
        • by Danse (1026)
          That would be obvious. My question was whether or not their actual target market was such a great choice.

          They'll probably come up with a lower graphical quality, simplified, and dumbed down version for consoles later, just like last time.
    • Seeing as how a $300 CPU and a $200 video card out perform the 360 at higher settings and resolutions by a long shot, yeah I would say the 360 is pretty weak. Moreover, Crysis is a DX10 game and will not run on anything but Vista.
      • by Dakhran (319216)
        Actually, according to the article I just read in Computer Gaming World, Crysis will release with DX9 native, with a painless one-click DX10 upgrade option once Vista is available. ...but I'm sure you *did* notice that the game's release date is November 2006, whereas Vista is not due out until end of January, right?
      • by brunascle (994197)
        Crysis is a DX10 game and will not run on anything but Vista.
        the article says that:
        Although Crysis will support both current and the next version of DirectX, Crytek claims that only DirectX 10 allows the game to run as it was intended by the developers
        does that mean that we'll be able to run it on XP? anyone?
      • by Babbster (107076)
        It's just too bad that a $300 CPU and a $200 graphics card don't constitute a PC that can play a game - maybe with a case, power supply, motherboard, memory, optical drive and hard drive, you could actually do something with the CPU and graphics card...

        Folks need to stop pretending that PC gaming (at least of new games) is cost effective compared to consoles - it's not and it never will be. That doesn't mean that PC gaming isn't cool and fun (well, as much as any videogaming is "cool"), but it's going to
        • by smash (1351)

          It's just too bad that a $300 CPU and a $200 graphics card don't constitute a PC that can play a game - maybe with a case, power supply, motherboard, memory, optical drive and hard drive, you could actually do something with the CPU and graphics card...

          No, but none of those components are expensive either. As I posted earlier, some gamers are mid-20s or older, and well paid.

          Folks need to stop pretending that PC gaming (at least of new games) is cost effective compared to consoles - it's not and it never

        • by mgblst (80109)
          Folks need to stop pretending that PC gaming (at least of new games) is cost effective compared to consoles
           
          Wow, you just started spouting absolute nonsense.
           
          Nobody has ever pretended that - everybody knows that PCs are the expensive option, and that consoles are the cheaper option. Why would anybody buy a console if this weren't the case?

          • by Babbster (107076)
            Why would anyone buy consoles if they weren't cheaper than PCs? Well, depending on how much cheaper, convenience could certainly be a factor. Assuming the console works well, it's an entirely "plug'n'play" experience. The games enter into it as well - assuming, of course, that there continued to be games released on consoles that never see a PC release (and, yes, I'm aware that the reverse is true as well).

            People do try to compare PC gaming to console gaming in terms of price, attempting to make the P
    • by poopie (35416)

      I was worried there for a minute. As for the "no consoles" thing, they think the 360 is too weak? Are they kidding? There are a lot of people who can't even afford a 360, nevermind the PS3.. and they expect to market their game to the "teenagers with enough free time but also somehow have hojillions of dollars" niche?

      Oh, waa! Listen here, sonny. People like me used to need systems that cost thousands of 1980's dollars just to be able to play games that sucked compared to what you get on a GBA today... and w

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smash (1351)

      As for the "no consoles" thing, they think the 360 is too weak? Are they kidding? There are a lot of people who can't even afford a 360, nevermind the PS3.. and they expect to market their game to the "teenagers with enough free time but also somehow have hojillions of dollars" niche?

      I think you under-estimate the modern game market.

      There's a significant portion of well-paid, mid-20s to mid-30s gamers out there who *can* afford to buy kick-ass hardware and are also inclined to do so.

      And it's not going

  • Damn, that had me laughing. They can't be serious, can they?

    The footage [gametrailers.com] looks freaking sweet (sometimes almost to the point of near-photorealistic quality), and after having played FarCry I can't wait to see how this game will turn out.

    But how on earth wouldn't the Xbox360 or PS3 be able to run this game? I would think that, since the PS3 isn't even released and the 360 is pretty much still beginning, that the developers would be able to crank out alot more stuff than which was allready shown off in eit
    • by bigNuns (18804)
      according to the link you posted, its release date is 1/1/2007. i believe that puts it out about a month before vista is supposedly released. i know i sure cant wait to buy it so i can look at the pretty box for a month or so before i can actually get an operating system it runs on.
  • I hope the gameplay will be better than it was in Far Cry. They certainly can make a good engine though, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until I can afford a PC capable of playing this at a decent framerate. My crusty old Dell can't even play HL2, Crysis will stomp it into the ground... :)
  • Well, the next-gen consoles had a good run... But it looks like PCs are back in the lead...

    Wait... How many of the next-gen consoles have been released sofar?
    • >Well, the next-gen consoles had a good run... But it looks like PCs are back in the lead...

      you mean WILL be.

      when it's released.

      in 4-5 months.
  • NextGen are not anymore in the lead. What is going to happen in three years? The game publishers will start to all make Wii style games on consoles to avoid to pitch false high power graphics games. I can't wait for Cryoshere to be released. But nobody will really react to this news, because the whole industry and consoles fans needs and wants to believe in the NextGen success.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...