Crysis Dev's Future Titles Embrace Free-to-Play

Crysis Dev's Future Titles Embrace Free-to-Play

image

Crytek believes free-to-play is the future, at least until aliens invade.

Crytek isn't an especially big fan of used games, but what can it do? Well, starting with Warface, it can give away its games for free. As it turns out, Crytek isn't too thrilled with the current sales practices of most F2P games, and aims to throw its hat in the ring with some AAA titles that will go easy on the bank - both its own and the hypothetical player's.

While the company's two big-budget sequels Crysis 3 and Homefront 2 will come in $60 packages as planned, they will herald the end of a pay-to-play era for the German developer. "As we were developing console games we knew very clearly that the future is online and free-to-play," says Cevat Yerli, Crytek's CEO. "Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience." Aside from Warface, Crytek has not announced any free-to-play titles, but it plans to spend a respectable $10-30 million developing each title. Yerli suggests that current F2P practices are "literally milking the customers to death," but has yet to detail how his company plans to tackle F2P payments differently.

Leaving aside the gruesome image of death by literal milking (how would that even work for male customers?), Crytek's decision is a fairly weighty one. While it's not one of the foremost heavy hitters of the AAA world, it's released a number of profitable, high-profile titles, and has decided that it could make more money without charging an admission fee. If this strategy works for Crytek, which AAA developer will be the next to travel the wild and untamed F2P road?

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

As we were developing console games we knew very clearly that the future is online and free-to-play

what...nobody likes single player? we all want online and co-op shoved down our throats?

All I hear from Crytek these days is whine and bullshit.

Marshall Honorof:
Leaving aside the gruesome image of death by literal milking (how would that even work for male customers?)

OH THE USED MAMMARIES!

Vault101:

As we were developing console games we knew very clearly that the future is online and free-to-play

what...nobody likes single player? we all want online and co-op shoved down our throats?

Playing a video game by yourself? What are you, some NERD?

I need another game to play :)

I thinks sounds kinda ridiculous how many developers are going "Oh look those guys have made some money off a F2P game.... Quick develop one!" but Crytek is really taking the cake. Additionally, I have bad feeling about this...

I can't imagine off-hand what they'll do differently, but I can guess what the thinking behind it may be. The argument probably goes something like, if they sell 1mill copies at $30, instead they'll try to make $10 from 4mill players. Or something.

Facebook shows that (targeted) advertising is a profitable venture. Micro-transactions and paid DLC also make money by nickel-and-diming players. What else is there? Hmm....oh yes, subscription bollocks like CoD Elite or whatever it's called. And lastly, the controversial real-money store from Diablo III (aka "The Money Press"). So there are a handful of options for them. Don't really care what Crytek do after the travesty that was Crysis 2 to be quite honest.

Nile McMorrow:
"Oh look those guys have made some money off a FTP game....

I think you mean F2P. FTP is a very different different thing, and probably not as much fun to play. Unless transferring files between computers is your thing ;-)

KingsGambit:

Nile McMorrow:
"Oh look those guys have made some money off a FTP game....

I think you mean F2P. FTP is a very different different thing, and probably not as much fun to play. Unless transferring files between computers is your thing ;-)

Oops, I goofed. I wrote that thinking T for To after reading the article and forgot that the general acronym used is F2P. I'll correct it.

Hmmmm...I think part of the problem might be from them not following up their own game. As I gather Crysis 2s multiplayer is filled with hackers and is literally unplayable. So maybe they get that sussed out then things can work better.

Also, you have control of Timesplitters, the 'sequel' to Goldeneye64 bloody make use of it!! >:L

Free to Play just means stripped out content that you'll have to later pay for and ingame advertising. Can't imagine a game where every 5 minutes its a "loading screen" depicting some sort of liquorice flavoured soft drink.

Vault101:

As we were developing console games we knew very clearly that the future is online and free-to-play

what...nobody likes single player? we all want online and co-op shoved down our throats?

Agreed, it seems that single player is getting thrown under the bus right now...

OT: I've played Crytek games, never really enjoyed them all that much, so this gets a 'meh' out of me.

Go for it. Make them all F2P. The bad news is that I don't touch most F2P games. I played Tribes Ascend in the beta. It was cool and I know they did a whole lot of changes to it now, but it just doesn't interest me. I used to play LoL, and I'm kinda done with that. Here is why.... after some thought... I really like single player games. And since those games are all MP games, I mostly don't play them. So, in order for you to release future games as F2P, they need to be MP, so that excludes me in your plans. I'm cool with that.

I like some MP elements, but I don't want to play games that exclusively involve running around and shooting people. And since that is what they actually mean by F2P MP games, that is actually what excludes me.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)