Crytek Finally Addresses Financial Concerns - Claims to Have "Secured Capital"

Crytek Finally Addresses Financial Concerns - Claims to Have "Secured Capital"

Crytek logo

Crytek admits that it has been in a "transitional phase" and it could have been more open with its employees.

This month, you may have read one of the numerous news stories revolving around Crysis developer Crytek, that told a tale of financial woes, confused employees, and top-level talent jumping ship. Throughout the whole ordeal, Crytek had remained incredibly tight-lipped, refusing to offer comment on any of the murmurs if discontent that were arising from its UK studio. Now, the studio has finally made an official statement, admitting that while the company has been in a "transitional period," it has, in fact, secured the additional capital it was looking for.

"In recent weeks, there have been repeated reports and rumors relating to financial problems at Crytek. Having already given an update to staff across all our studios, we are now in a position to share more details with members of the press and public," said the company in its official statement. "Crytek has been in a transitional phase," it explained, "Our evolution from a development studio to an Online-Publisher has required us to refocus our strategies. These challenges go along with an increased demand for capital which we have secured."

It also admitted that "that the flow of information to employees has not been as good as it should have, however we hope you understand that communicating details of our plans publicly has not always been possible."

"We can now concentrate on the long term strategic direction of Crytek and our core competencies. We kindly ask for your understanding, that we won't be communicating further details about our developments and progress."

Interestingly, the statement did not address the reports that several high-level Crytek talent have recently left the company - including the producer of the studio's upcoming Homefront: The Revolution - and what this means for its currently in-development titles.

Source: Gamesindustry.biz

Permalink

Steven Bogos:
"transitional phase"

So, to sum up in translation mode:

"We were flat broke from our shitty performance, a bunch of people quit or were laid off, and we beg-borrowed-stole money to get back to work on our shitty games. Also, our inability to reveal much shows that the board has been voting 'No Confidence' and we don't want customers to know that and make us even more poor than we were before."

Ahh, business and economics...

Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

I never really get where that comes from...

Crysis 1 had AWESOME gameplay. Only problem was it scaled with the players skill directly.

And Crytek are one of not many studios that actually use their graphics, physics and special effects to booster gameplay.

Charcharo:

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

I never really get where that comes from...

Crysis 1 had AWESOME gameplay. Only problem was it scaled with the players skill directly.

And Crytek are one of not many studios that actually use their graphics, physics and special effects to booster gameplay.

Something the CEO said last year
http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/04/13/crytek-ceo-claims-graphics-are-60-of-the-game/

flarty:

Charcharo:

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

I never really get where that comes from...

Crysis 1 had AWESOME gameplay. Only problem was it scaled with the players skill directly.

And Crytek are one of not many studios that actually use their graphics, physics and special effects to booster gameplay.

Something the CEO said last year
http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/04/13/crytek-ceo-claims-graphics-are-60-of-the-game/

True he may have said that. What if that is what is important for him (the studio?)?

Power can lead to better gameplay or even more varied gameplay, that I take as a fact.
Besides... you cant tell me (even with what he said) that this here is not high skill ceiling gameplay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw

Charcharo:

flarty:

Charcharo:

I never really get where that comes from...

Crysis 1 had AWESOME gameplay. Only problem was it scaled with the players skill directly.

And Crytek are one of not many studios that actually use their graphics, physics and special effects to booster gameplay.

Something the CEO said last year
http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/04/13/crytek-ceo-claims-graphics-are-60-of-the-game/

True he may have said that. What if that is what is important for him (the studio?)?

Power can lead to better gameplay or even more varied gameplay, that I take as a fact.
Besides... you cant tell me (even with what he said) that this here is not high skill ceiling gameplay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw

Well it would seem there mantra for making games has failed them if they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

flarty:

Charcharo:

flarty:

Something the CEO said last year
http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/04/13/crytek-ceo-claims-graphics-are-60-of-the-game/

True he may have said that. What if that is what is important for him (the studio?)?

Power can lead to better gameplay or even more varied gameplay, that I take as a fact.
Besides... you cant tell me (even with what he said) that this here is not high skill ceiling gameplay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw

Well it would seem there mantra for making games has failed them if they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Its actually not doing what they did with Crysis 1 and progression failure (Crysis 1-2-3 ) and going for the weaker, more expensive console (Xbox One) that landed em here.

If they continued with Crysis 1 except by doing it BETTER with Crysis 2 and 3 (and maybe attaching a half decent storyline to those, especially 3) and never bothered with console exclusivity, they'd probably be in a better position now.

Still, I just never get the elitist stances against Crytek or Tech-dependand developers :( ...

FalloutJack:

Steven Bogos:
"transitional phase"

So, to sum up in translation mode:

"We were flat broke from our shitty performance, a bunch of people quit or were laid off, and we beg-borrowed-stole money to get back to work on our shitty games. Also, our inability to reveal much shows that the board has been voting 'No Confidence' and we don't want customers to know that and make us even more poor than we were before."

Small point: Crytek doesn't have a board. It's owned and run by the Yerli brothers.

As for not publicly revealing that they were in trouble until they had a way out of it, it's kind of annoying, but I don't think any business would have done differently.

We can now concentrate on the long term strategic direction of Crytek and our core competencies.

I may be off here, but that sounds like the closest any company would get to admitting they need to change direction. In any case, they won't have gone through this shitstorm without having a few long, hard conversations with each other about how they got to this point.

archiebawled:
Snip

No board...?

To be fair, you just did, but that makes it worse to me. I picture those two guys in a room, lighting up and thinking of ways to pull a fast one on people. Dunno. Maybe I'm just automatically seeing dishonesty coming because there's so much of it.

I don't... yeah, I understand the business point but shouldn't the "we just might... not have any money?" part be told to their employees at least?

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

That was the funniest quote from a Crysis guy I ever saw, especially considering how Crysis 2-3 played were steamlined not-as-good-looking grey/brown versions to a game that had pretty fun gameplay and looked amazing for its time.

flarty:
Well it would seem there mantra for making games has failed them if they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Actually, abandoning that Mantra has put them on the verge of bankruptcy. They stopped pushing the tech, tech, tech line they were famous for, went to console and F2P land and as a result Crysis is still the best selling game they've ever made, seven years later.

fix-the-spade:

flarty:
Well it would seem there mantra for making games has failed them if they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Actually, abandoning that Mantra has put them on the verge of bankruptcy. They stopped pushing the tech, tech, tech line they were famous for, went to console and F2P land and as a result Crysis is still the best selling game they've ever made, seven years later.

Yeah kinda sad they just burnt out after Crysis, 2 was decent but it just made some really weird design choices. I can take switching to a urban enviroment after spending the first game in a jungle but for some reason New York seemed odd to me.

What was really annoying was the switch to enemy desgin, "Hey guys know those really awesome flying squids armed with Ice cannons you had to shoot out of the sky with a railgun and supported by miniature drones you could punch in the face? They're gone now! This time you get Halo knockoffs that work like slightly better versions of the human enemies!"

Hard to believe but I think Crytek is the first video game version of a one-hit wonder I've ever seen.

so they got that loan they were looking for.

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

without graphics you would not be able to play (unless you like to play games for blind people), so yes, they are very important.

Strazdas:
so they got that loan they were looking for.

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

without graphics you would not be able to play (unless you like to play games for blind people), so yes, they are very important.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

flarty:

Strazdas:
so they got that loan they were looking for.

flarty:
Well lets hope they realise that graphics aren't 60% of games.

without graphics you would not be able to play (unless you like to play games for blind people), so yes, they are very important.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

If thats what it takes to stop people proclaiming "Graphics dont matter".

Strazdas:

flarty:

Strazdas:
so they got that loan they were looking for.

without graphics you would not be able to play (unless you like to play games for blind people), so yes, they are very important.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

If thats what it takes to stop people proclaiming "Graphics dont matter".

So what would your thoughts be on minecraft? Or how COD has been the biggest selling game every year? Yes its important for your game to be pleasing to the eye, but that is mostly down to aesthetics, not graphics.

flarty:

Strazdas:

flarty:

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

If thats what it takes to stop people proclaiming "Graphics dont matter".

So what would your thoughts be on minecraft? Or how COD has been the biggest selling game every year? Yes its important for your game to be pleasing to the eye, but that is mostly down to aesthetics, not graphics.

Minecraft has good graphics. Its world is built out of blocks (forgot the technical term, there is one) and its objects are often 2D sprites, but thats not what makes graphics bad. Minecraft textures quality is good, minecraft is optimized well enough for high FPS gameplay, its adaptable to your machine capabilities via settings, at least as much as java structure allows it to.

COD is not the biggest selling game every year. Altrought it does sell quite well. COD has graphics though. graphics was so important to them they even made a fake check for RAM in COD:Ghosts. They tried to made AI for a damn fish.

The reason COD sells though is its online gameplay and mostly brand loyalty. COD was cutting edge in graphics and gameplay back in COD4 days, now people just keep buying it because "hey thats what everyone does". Altrough i find it odd how you would consider COD to be an example of a good selling game without graphics, because its not one.

Strazdas:

flarty:

Strazdas:

If thats what it takes to stop people proclaiming "Graphics dont matter".

So what would your thoughts be on minecraft? Or how COD has been the biggest selling game every year? Yes its important for your game to be pleasing to the eye, but that is mostly down to aesthetics, not graphics.

Minecraft has good graphics. Its world is built out of blocks (forgot the technical term, there is one) and its objects are often 2D sprites, but thats not what makes graphics bad. Minecraft textures quality is good, minecraft is optimized well enough for high FPS gameplay, its adaptable to your machine capabilities via settings, at least as much as java structure allows it to.

COD is not the biggest selling game every year. Altrought it does sell quite well. COD has graphics though. graphics was so important to them they even made a fake check for RAM in COD:Ghosts. They tried to made AI for a damn fish.

The reason COD sells though is its online gameplay and mostly brand loyalty. COD was cutting edge in graphics and gameplay back in COD4 days, now people just keep buying it because "hey thats what everyone does". Altrough i find it odd how you would consider COD to be an example of a good selling game without graphics, because its not one.

Are you really trying to suggest that graphics are the most important component in minecraft? and not the crafting and mod-ability?
And claiming COD was cutting edge 7 years ago does nothing for your argument, in fact it hinders it.

flarty:

Are you really trying to suggest that graphics are the most important component in minecraft? and not the crafting and mod-ability?
And claiming COD was cutting edge 7 years ago does nothing for your argument, in fact it hinders it.

No, im suggesting that minecraft as an example of "graphics dont matter lulz" does not work.

i disagree. being cutting edge attracts users. just look at crysis, the series gone downhill ever since they decided to cut content to fit it on console (rerelease of 1, begining of 2) and yet people still bought it out of loyalty (altrough in diminishing numbers to the point of Crytek going on brink of bancrupcy).
Costumer loyalty and nostalgia factor is very strong in gaming industry and leads to many sales. thats why sequels do much better than original IPs despite often being worse. COD has earned its loyal fans, and online fans are the ones that cling to you.

COD tries to be cutting edge nowadays too, it just fails miserably.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here