Crytek defends free-to-play Warface

CEO Cevat Yerli acknowledges F2P games may have a "bad image," but says its new near-future shooter is different because it focuses on quality.

The free-to-play model has negative connotations for many gamers, but Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli hopes to turn the tide by delivering a high-quality experience. Speaking to Eurogamer, Yerli acknowledged some of the shortcomings of free-to-play games, but asserted its investment in that space will be different, beginning with Warface.

Crytek's Warface will be a "high quality" free-to-play game, Yerli says.

"We know that free-to-play games have a bad image," Yerli said. "They have a bad reputation; it's pay to win, it's low quality. I completely get that, but we are making free-to-play that's high quality. It's CryEngine 3; it's a big investment."

Warface is Crytek's first free-to-play game. The game is in development at the company's Kiev outfit and runs on CryEngine 3. The game is a military shooter set in the near future, and Crytek claims it offers a cinematic experience with next-gen visuals, artificial intelligence, and physics. It is expected to be released later this year.

Yerli's comments today follow another adamant statement of support of free-to-play games from June, when he said all future Crytek projects--following the release of Crysis 3 and Homefront 2--would be free-to-play. Yerli said the company's aim is to "ensure the best quality, console game quality." This entails game budgets of between $10 and $30 million for free-to-play games, he said.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and is a big UCONN athletics fan.

Want the latest news about Warface?

Warface

Warface

Discussion

147 comments
OneMoreJedi
OneMoreJedi

Boys and girls, is F2P really that bad? I mean... we save money on dlc and get to play games. But I would like to personally SUPPORT a studio for making a game without micro-transaction-in-game-currency... Some games I can deal with it (LoL) but it doesn't even feel the same... So I think it's time for publishers to just accept it's time to let your $60 title games get updated with their dlc for free, cause it's crap that I have to continue to pay in order to expand my experience on a game I already bought... What was I saying? 

Crazyplayer042
Crazyplayer042

I want to say that if anyone could pull it off, its Crytek. But I said the same thing about Bioware with Old Republic. I'm also extremely dissapointed to hear that they are going to a F2P model after Crysis.

IronBeaver
IronBeaver

To sum up his argument "We know people hate F2P. But ours will be good." Wow. So convinced.

Renato1984
Renato1984

It will have very high quality graphics for a F2P game.

 

And it will play exactly like a pay2win F2P game.

Litchie
Litchie

I'll decide if the game is high quality or not. And if Crytek calls Crysis 2 "high quality" I can't say I have any hopes.

baskedragon
baskedragon

I played this game on russian servers and its amazing , cant wait for EU release .

parkurtommo
parkurtommo

"ensure the best quality, console game quality."

 

BUAHAHAAHAHA

davedrastic
davedrastic

I don't get the F2P hate.

 

Crysis have said that they understand what the issues with F2P are, and given that they are a successful developer it's fair to assume that they'll be doing what they can to avoid such issues. That doesn't mean it will necessarily be the perfect game, but at the same time there's no point in writing the game off so early.

 

F2P will be prevalent very, very soon. People like free stuff, developers are embracing F2P, which is a cousin to the fully adopted DLC, and not that far removed from the 99c Android and iOS games which are very much the growth segment, I believe.

 

Heck, you've even got Sony jumping in with their Instant Game Collection on Playstation Plus. Sure, there's a subscription involved, and the games are fairly old in the main - although Warhammer and Deus Ex are pretty recent games. But fundamentally Playstation Plus does give us free fully functioning, current gen, blockbuster title, highly rated games.

danielwd
danielwd

Well if their f2p games turn out to be terrible then people wont spend money on them and as a business they will simply go back to making games that do earn money. I'm ok with this.

Lotus-Edge
Lotus-Edge

These guys are a little inconsistent....

Deadly_Nemesis
Deadly_Nemesis

Of course they defend it. Look what else these guys have defended.

LoganDaDestroya
LoganDaDestroya

He should talk more specifically about the issues they are presented with, good developers like the guys making Planetside 2 quickly explained why the game won't be pay-to-win; making it so the only things that can only be bought by real money are cosmetics, and anything that affects gameplay can be bought using in-game resources.

 

All these guys are saying is "Calm down, you'll get good graphics, what more do you want?"

Unfallen_Satan
Unfallen_Satan

There is a lot of criticism over "free" to play, but there is also a lot of support. The bigger problem for Warface is not its business model but the presence of too many military shooters. There is yet no concrete reason why Warface will stand out. Instead of defending F2P, how about justifying exactly why Warface is a good game because of it?

West123
West123

10 bucks it will fail..... even before you give them 10 bucks for a flash-bang

OmegaSabre
OmegaSabre

Then you are not playing the right F2P games. There are a lot of those that are really great. Just take a look at Path Of Exile or RaiderZ.

brok
brok

In short: Crytek talks about something that isn't Timesplitters 4. World continues to turn.

10V3n0M01
10V3n0M01

Still don't want it...I like how he conveniently addressed it being high-quality rather than low quality and not addressing the "pay to win" side. As long as its Pay to win using microtransactions and "game-packs" then I want nothing to do with it.

Obviously they have to make money, but F2P has an infinite payment ability so one could pay $100 because it's his weekly pocket money and be at a greater advantage rather than everyone paying a base price. I just don't like it and I hope people will not buy into this allowing the laying of the foundations of future games to go into F2P.

keyb0red
keyb0red

Will defintely check out Warface along with Mechwarrior (also using Crytech3 I think) and Hawken

 

So much free stuff I dont know where to start!! LOL

 

Seriously though if they play their cards right, these F2P games can actually be very successful -- i.e. none of that pay to win cr4p, cos last thing I need is for some rich 12 year old kid with all the cool toys pwning my sorry middle age 4ss cos I got grown up commitments like a mortgage and credit cards and alimony payments etc. and all I can afford in Warface is a rusty old 1908 Luger :)

Zaika
Zaika

Yeah it may be high quality but the game experience is shallow. No singleplayer, no story, no unique characters = no thanks

1nitram2
1nitram2

I want single player games, and free to play most likely will always be multiplayer cr*p, so i hope that not all their future games will be free to play. :|

jhcho2
jhcho2

I keep hearing about Yerli heralding a F2P model for his future games, but the one thing I have not been hearing, is what point in the game would he start charging us for. Are we expected to pay to unlock weapons? Or pay to unlock the later stages? A F2P model in essence, isn't really a bad thing, but it's easily subjected to abuse on the developer's part, and considering that Yerli has been rather tight lipped on what he'll be charging us for, I doubt it's gonna good for us. (ie. it deserves every bit of bad image it currently does)

Baelath
Baelath

I will forever reminisce the days of FarCry, as Crytek seems to forget what they did so awesomely right.

PC-RUL3S
PC-RUL3S

What's this? Warface another P2W game I will completely ignore I am not supporting anything that doesn't have a single player campaign, I couldn't give a shit about MP modes Crytek are crap at making multiplayer games I tried Crysis, Warhead and Crysis 2 MP's and they were all rubbish. It seems to me that Crysis is dead after Crysis 3 and what is he on about console quality games? Has he never played a PC quality game like the witcher 2 or Guild wars 2.

makryu
makryu

If they're ditching single-player campaigns for this, the company might as well be dead for me. Developers insist in ignoring that some of us just aren't that interested in hearing unknown pubescents screaming and/or don't have the time (we work, have children, etc.) to invest the effort needed to make multiplayer an enjoyable experience.

MJ12-Conspiracy
MJ12-Conspiracy

Honestly I'm not impressed with their engine, it's nothing but graphics and fluff features and honestly the trailers for Crysis look gods awful, worse than Crysis 2. 

If you need to defend yourself then you are doing something wrong.....it's as simple as that, besides I could care less about another COD wannabe.....

EKGProd
EKGProd

No thanks. Don't care how many layers of icing they try and put on that cake, free to play games are scams, and spell the death of traditional single player gaming experiences. I want nothing to do with them, or Crytek anymore. So they can go rot in hell for all I care. Sellouts.

DarkSaber2k
DarkSaber2k

"best quality, console game quality" Those 2 standards of quality are mutually exclusive. Come at me console fanboys.

berserker66666
berserker66666

First EA defends C&C and now Crytec defends this shit? EA & Crytec's becoming a bigger scumbag than before. These F2P are just their way of raising their stock price to keep floating on the market. We are just mare cashcows to these douchebags.

Spartan_418
Spartan_418

He says it's high quality, and acknowledges that people don't like pay-to-win games, but he doesn't confirm whether or not Warface will be pay-to-win. My guess is it still will be, and that's where the main problem lies.

 

Unless they've somehow found another way to pull in revenue from free-to-play games, that isn't microtransactions and advertising, which is unlikely.

Reuwsaat
Reuwsaat

It's not only F2P that have a bad reputation, it's you, your studio, and your publisher, altogether.

killerclam48
killerclam48

@OneMoreJedi The claim they make, saving money on dlc, is the trap. You will indeed not save but might spend a lot more. The current dlc majority content such as new maps, new campaign, etc are going to be priced the same as they are now if not more. We will then get a plethora of dlc such as weapons, cosmetic items, that would otherwise be fun to just unlock through progression and in game challenges. Now the game might let you unlock extras by yourself but this is usually offset set by making it time consuming, repetitive, and overall extremely difficult. This is the strategy, to limit your patience so you can buy buy buy and this is what gamers dread... Not only because of money but the degrading effect it has on quality overall.

Morphine_OD
Morphine_OD

 @Unfallen_Satan because it's made by the people who brought you CRYSIS 2 : REVENGE OF THE CONSOLES BWAHAHAHAHA

LorenaLarue
LorenaLarue

 @10V3n0M01 It was mentioned some time ago that the Russians already have their hands on war face but they are generally hardcore shooter fans, so they don't want that pay to win stuff so the game was tweaked to their tastes. Depending on that Crytek thinks players want in America and Europe we could see it in a very different light.

Spartan_418
Spartan_418

 @makryu Good point, though an important part of Warface will be cooperative play vs AI, which should be more tolerable/interesting than competitive multiplayer

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @MJ12-Conspiracy Agreed, the graphics look good, but I don't see much in it tbh, use the Real Virtuality engine and I would be seriously impressed, or something similar though I don't think there is anything that is.

rockdawg
rockdawg

 @EKGProd I wouldn't even call it icing on the cake. More like, they have the icing and are trying to slide a cake underneath it.

psx_warrior
psx_warrior

 @DarkSaber2k

 Agreed, now it would have been different altogether if he had said pc quality graphics.

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @DarkSaber2k lol was just thinking how stupid that statement was, sure F2P games can be good and not all console games are bad, but given the choice I would always choose PC as they are always better unless it is a direct console port which is usually a half assed attempt by the devs to put it on PC and is not near as good as it could be since PC can do so much more than a console, but instead of console game quality they should have said AAA quality, makes more sense imo as you can have free games on both the console and the PC.

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @berserker66666 I am not a fan of "F2P is the future" but I don't see that as a reason to hate every F2P game, World of Tanks is certainly not a "Pay to Win" game along with a few others. Though I do agree with you on EA's F2P way and all of their F2P games, especially C&C, when I read about that I had to check the date to see if it was April 1st because that was the biggest load I have ever seen, I lost all respect I had sub consciously for EA after that as I had already lost all respect IK of before that. IDK about how well this game is and if they do live up to the no pay to win style, but it may be good, may be bad. From their choice of console style quality I am assuming the latter for now, but I cannot be sure.

10V3n0M01
10V3n0M01

 @LorenaLarue I hope so, CryTek is an awesome developer and I'd like to see them be successful. Unfortunately, if they are going to have a full studio on this they will need to generate income and, using a free to play model, the best way to do this is microtransactions which are honestly just way to much of an annoyance than just paying a base price and having the game end of story. However, I haven't heard anything about the russian situation but I will be interested to see if CryTek can pull this off.

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @psx_warrior  @DarkSaber2k lol I don't think graphics are an issue here, we all know the graphics quality for Crytek's games. That is not what impresses me though, now if they said ARMA sized map scale I would be seriously impressed, but I don't see that running too well on most PCs, the Crytek engine is really not all that demanding really, just the PhysX they use is what kills most imo. I could run the first Crysis on my old HP G60 about 50 fps with everything on low and it didn't look that bad. That is saying something buying a stock HP laptop lol.

berserker66666
berserker66666

 @Smosh150 Here's a simple equation:

 

WOW /Linage/Guild War + F2P = Good.

 

Any F2P games + EA = HORRIBLE!!!

 

It's their business model. They care only for money and not the game.

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @psx_warrior Yea it might have just looked good then when I had a shitty comp, if I turned it back to low now I might say the same thing, but I play a lot of DOS games so maybe not.

psx_warrior
psx_warrior

 @Smosh150  Eww, low quality.  I tried playing the game on low settings, and IMO, it looked awful compared to high settings.

 

Smosh150
Smosh150

 @berserker66666 Woa woa, don't take me as supporting EA on their F2P, I am totally against EA and their F2P model. I just mean not all F2P games are bad such as the World of (Tanks, Warplanes, and Battleships) given the last 2 are not released though I have confidence in them.