bit-gamer.net

E3: All future Crytek games to be free to play

E3: All future Crytek games to be free to play

Crytek will be specialising in triple-A free to play games in the future, it has said at E3 2012.

Crytek will only be make free-to-play games in the future according to CEO Cevat Yerli, changing the entire business model of the Crysis developer away from boxed products.

Speaking to Videogamer at E3 2012, the Crytek CEO stressed that it would keep a reputation for triple-A quality even when it came to free to play titles.

"Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience," said Yerli.

"What this entails is that our future, all the new games that we're working on, as well new projects, new platforms and technologies, are designed around free-to-play and online, with the highest quality development."

Crytek's first free to play game is the already announced Warface, which you can see a trailer of below.

"As is evident in Warface, our approach is to ensure the best quality, console game quality. That implies budgets of between $10m to $30m - so no compromise there - but at the price-point of $0 entry."

Crytek will continue to complete all current contracts for boxed releases - the only one we know about being Crysis 3 - before transitioning utterly to this new free to play model.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

33 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Culinia 8th June 2012, 11:49 Quote
Could be ok I guess.

The only 'free' game I've enjoyed to play is actually: Alliance of Valiant arms. I only spent £6 on it (more of an impulse-noob buy). You might say this is a Counter-Strike knock-off. One which I enjoyed.

This looks like a Battlefield knock-off. According to Steam, I've played 350 hours of Alliance of Valiant arms. And *whoops* for Battlefield 3.

So I guess there is hope, after-all.
Blazza181 8th June 2012, 11:53 Quote
Well, as long as you can buy a nanosuit hat as a microtransaction.

Also, note how Cervat mentions "console game quality" - he seems to be well and truly done with PC gaming.

Pity, Crysis was a stunning, but flawed, game. If they had tryed to perfect it in Crysis 2, rather than make a standard FPS with a couple of gimmicks, we could have had a classic of a game.

Sent from my Orange San Francisco using Tapatalk
B1GBUD 8th June 2012, 11:53 Quote
First line fail "Crytek will only be make free-to-play games".......

On topic.... free is good!! but something has to give.
azrael- 8th June 2012, 11:54 Quote
I can't really see this fly...

Oh and I almost choked on my food when I read the words "our approach is to ensure the best quality, console game quality". Oh dear!
Aracos 8th June 2012, 11:54 Quote
The graphics didn't even look that nice! The tree was bloody ugly and they used loads of blur often, is that what pretty graphics is now?
SMIFFYDUDE 8th June 2012, 12:01 Quote
So instead of paying £30 for a full game, we'll now get it free but have to pay £100 on dlc to get the game up to where it would otherwise have been.
Gunsmith 8th June 2012, 12:03 Quote
<removed>

Everyone knows or should know that swearing is not permitted on Bit-tech, upside down or otherwise. Just don't. - spec
Horizon 8th June 2012, 12:16 Quote
Wow, it looks like a mash up of BF3, TF2, and MW#
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracos
The graphics didn't even look that nice! The tree was bloody ugly and they used loads of blur often, is that what pretty graphics is now?

for consoles
Griffter 8th June 2012, 12:57 Quote
dont like it.

would like it if they were not businessmen. if u are at a shop or better yet, garage sale and they guy says, take it... its free, what will u think?

so the only way to enjoy their games in the future is to pay up more than boxed items most likely, and stop ur experience often when limit is reached to go buy more stuff to continue.

i myself love and am an sp campaign guy, maybe old school, but not a word on sp campaigns.

pity... cry engine was my fav engine
Guinevere 8th June 2012, 13:50 Quote
This will turn out to be a subscription based system by another name.

Game = Free.

DLC = £
'Optional' weapons = £
Some in game currency / coins = £

Old = One off purchase price of £25 from play.com (or £35 from steam)

New = First four hours free, then £15 in next two days to 'level up', then £5 to £10 every month to remain competitive and an extra £5 a month to have access to the popular levels.

Better?
Platinum 8th June 2012, 14:40 Quote
EA are slowly killing gaming.
Showerhead 8th June 2012, 15:17 Quote
Seems risky to spend £10-30m on a game then release it as f2p. If it doesn't take off and get as many players as you were hoping the company is in real trouble especially with EA as the publisher.
steveo_mcg 8th June 2012, 15:18 Quote
Indeed, just ask Realtime worlds what happens when your subscription model fails.
Harksar 8th June 2012, 15:49 Quote
I don't have much time to play games any more and so never get round to completing them and I often feel I could have used that money spent better, so this is pretty good news I guess. But I definitely can see how this would suck for a lot of people.
silky 8th June 2012, 17:34 Quote
Free to play, and then add in those £50,000 items Molyneaux was playing around with, and bingo! The plan is finally complete.
keir 8th June 2012, 20:44 Quote
looks fine to me, and it's free can't see what people are crying about.

If they feel they don't want to make paid for games anymore thats their choice.
Fizzban 8th June 2012, 21:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by keir
looks fine to me, and it's free can't see what people are crying about.

If they feel they don't want to make paid for games anymore thats their choice.

I would agree with you, but I'm actually a little concerned.

Some MMORPG use the free to play model, and they rake in cash from their online shops. If this were to work with AAA games as well, how long would other companys take before they started doing the same?

I already resent multiplayer as it is often used as a way to release sub-standard games (or cheapens good games as it is tacked on as an after thought). It will be far worse if potentially great games are marred by a pay-to-win system. We already have DLC...we don't need this.

Perhaps it is an overreaction on my part, but I don't like the sound of this.. at all.
Elton 9th June 2012, 02:11 Quote
I'm just sad that they might stop pioneering awesome game engines.
silky 9th June 2012, 06:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by keir
looks fine to me, and it's free can't see what people are crying about.

If they feel they don't want to make paid for games anymore thats their choice.

Ch33sefiend 9th June 2012, 09:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
EA are slowly killing gaming.

I don't think EA have anything to do with this - they only publish Crytek's boxed games as far as I'm aware
fdbh96 9th June 2012, 09:04 Quote
This surprised me really as I don't think I have seen a console F2P game yet, will be interesting to see if it works.
Tribble 9th June 2012, 10:29 Quote
what the hell does console quality mean, code for poor quality, well of course they are going to make money some where.

sits, waits and watches.
.//TuNdRa 9th June 2012, 10:45 Quote
The only issue I see with this is that Crytek may not like the world they find. Or the world may not like Crytek for what they attempt. Pay to win games are rarely any fun if you just start off, and the inherent barrier that crops up when people see "Free" means they're less likely to sink money into the game.
longweight 9th June 2012, 12:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum
EA are slowly killing gaming.

How?
fdbh96 9th June 2012, 21:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
How?

By trying their very hardest to ruin bf3 with origin, battlelog, shortcut unlocks, the list goes on forever really...
2bdetermine 10th June 2012, 05:20 Quote
There is no such thing as a free to play. ISP, hardwares that cost money just to name a few.
Elton 10th June 2012, 06:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
By trying their very hardest to ruin bf3 with origin, battlelog, shortcut unlocks, the list goes on forever really...

Please continue that list. It's one thing to criticize a company for double standards, poor customer practices and horrible statements made to their audience, but if you're going to make claims that they're killing gaming, please substantiate.

The entire BF3 episode hardly killed gaming. Truth be told, it tried to establish something similar to the steam network. The only problem with that was the inefficiency and wonkyness of the whole system.

I can't argue about some of their practices reeking of greed, but I would not say that they're going as far as ruining gaming as much as unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) segregating the audience by making pay to win games. Mind you this is nowhere near as bad as BFF2P. It's getting close and the whole premium pack DLC is reflective of it, but DLC has become a normalized practice as it is.

I wouldn't say they're trying to ruin gaming more than they're trying to enact a larger modicum of control over it. Which can be extrapolated as trying hard to ruin it, but that's at best a subjective term.

Boy I sound like an EA defender as of late. But I guess it's mainly due to me realizing nothing will come of merely railing a company. Everything has some kind of reason.
fdbh96 10th June 2012, 12:39 Quote
I just don't like the way (and I know other companies do it too) that you buy a game for a set price, then almost get left behind if you don't spend almost double that on DLCs. I bout bf3 but can't play with my friends as they all play B2K and are planning on getting all the other expansions. They even won 'the worst company in america' (a bit ott).
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-by-consumerist-6370000
atlas 11th June 2012, 08:30 Quote
And by free to play you of course mean pay to game. If you have to pay for anything that makes any tangible difference in the game (that you would normally need skill for) you have already failed at free-to-play.
Elton 11th June 2012, 08:46 Quote
The mircotransaction works to an extent. The problem with DLC (which has been covered before again and again) is the splitting of the audience. And that's entirely true. The best example I have is Burnout Paradise, where once Big Surf Island came out, it split the audience. Not to mention some of the better cars were on the DLC.

Mind you this is a marketing tactic to get the DLC to sell. The sale of shortcuts has also been around for a while now. It's not new, and it really doesn't make that much of a tangible difference if it merely unlocks items and weapons that can be gained normally if they are balanced.

The only DLC I ever bought was for Gran Turismo 5. Mainly because it was the one console game I played. To be entirely honest though, the model of DLCs is pretty brilliant yet very abusive towards customers. Make a game. Make extra content. Wait. Sell. Profit.

My problem is that I have to download the DLCs and not be able to use them. The worst part is the frankly atrocious pricing for them. A map pack and a few guns should not cost $15-$20.

Worse still was dirt 3 where a handful of cars and two maps-ish cost you a whopping $12.99. Or FC2's DLC.

My point: DLC is not only horrifically overpriced (they do not actually represent an increase to gameplay representative of the % of the price of the original game), they also divide the audience. With that said, of course publishers would sell it. It makes great money.
[USRF]Obiwan 11th June 2012, 12:59 Quote
A much better model I would like suggest to Crytek, is that Crytek pays me to play their games.
azrael- 12th June 2012, 06:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton

<snip>
To be entirely honest though, the model of DLCs is pretty brilliant yet very abusive towards customers. Make a game. Make extra content. Wait. Sell. Profit.
<snip>
I'm fairly certain it's more like: Make game. Rip out half of content. Sell. Wait. Sell "DLC". Profit.
Elton 12th June 2012, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
I'm fairly certain it's more like: Make game. Rip out half of content. Sell. Wait. Sell "DLC". Profit.

Fair enough. To be honest it's very apparent if there is 1-st day DLC. But hey, we still lap it up.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums