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.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Did you enjoy this article?

Sign In to Upvote

eddienoteddy

Eddie Makuch

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.
Warface

Warface

Follow
143 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.

LoganDaDestroya
LoganDaDestroya

I don't really care about their visuals, free games like Tribes: Ascend, Blacklight: Retribution, and Planetside 2 look stunning anyway.

 

They may talk about visual quality, but what about gameplay? All 3 of those games I mentioned are very well balanced, and definately do not fall into the pay-to-win category of other F2P games. And each of them carries unique traits that make them stand out:

 

Tribes: Ascend - Sensational freedom of movement and skill-based gameplay that has given me the most epic CTF matches I've ever played in.

 

Blacklight: Retribution - Tonnes of cutomisation that makes it near impossible ti find someone with the same loadout as you, and surprisingly, it is very well balanced, very impressive for a COD clone.

 

Planetside 2 - Epic large scale conflict unrivalled by any game I am aware of, an MMOFPS with 2000 players on 64 square kilometer maps, and a persistant world where you can log out and come back later to find the enemy is still trying to siege one of your bases with all the tanks and bombers at their disposal. In my opinion, it's visuals are much more impressive than BF3, and makes it look puny in comparison when fleets of dropships with enough space for 12 people each start deploying troops at a base, whereas BF3 only ever has 4 planes flying around at once on a map.

 

If you ask me, there isn't much this game can offer, those 3 pretty much have everything covered...

 

 

For those who doubt F2P games can do without pay-to-win, I strongly suggest trying out Tribes and Blacklight. PS2 is in closed beta though, and I'm not sure if there are still any keys going out for it. Totalbiscuit has good and informative videos on all of them.

 

 

hobotech64
hobotech64

I don't get the hate either.  Plenty of free-to-play games have sprung up recently that really aren't pay to win at all, starting with TF2.  Some I even prefer over the likes of paid titles like COD and WoW.

Joeguy00
Joeguy00

*I already posted this on a different site but it's still appropriate here, more so when considering Single Player games*

 

I for one, am easily looking forward to F2P, just because.... (sarcasm)

You as a consumer, put your cash into a "F2P" game, which requires:

 

- Always-Online DRM and different Terms of Service for each company.

 

- Registering accounts on every game publishers store and website.

 

- Using their game launcher or a bad browser site (More so on PC)

 

- Giving the Publishers the ability to ban or block you from your own games.

  * As apposed to the normal experience where you can always just play offline.

 

- Players being targeted by "select 3rd party adverts" or through each providers launch app. (More So PC)

 

- As the game is "free-to-play", the servers can be turned off after a certain time, and all the money you have spent, all the time and all the progress will be lost and gone forever. You have just sunk money into a game you never owned and can never play ever again.

 

- Again, as the game is "free-to-play", the ability for price abuse by the publisher after the consumer has spent notable money on the game and to disregard consumer concerns is far greater.

  * Full release games can often fall in price to very cheap and you can finally afford that game you wanted. "Free-to-play" never gets cheaper, DLC and micro-transactions almost never go on sale... You'll never get a game like Dark Souls with 100 hrs of gameplay for as little as 20 dollars in this price model.

 

- Fair pricing and balanced gameplay without a pay to win model is never guaranteed.

 

- If a game becomes unprofitable; as apposed to a full release game where you know the rewarding experience and amount of content you are getting, a "F2P" game can be discontinued... offering no resolution to the story arc if done incrementally and previously promised features might never be realized as the game is "opt in" and "F2P".

 

- Many games and genres are not suited for F2p... especially where the experience is, at it's core, Single Player. These games should never require a constant online connection, small purchases for more story content or character slots, consumables etc. Will this stop the publisher shoehorning this price model in anyway and telling us it's just providing more choice to the consumer?

 

  * We can never own a game that's "F2P", just pay for licenses to the content. It's essentially renting the experience. We never get to reinstall and play the game years later for nostalgia's sake or just because we loved the experience and never stopped playing.

constantin
constantin

So Crysis 4 will be free-to-play ?

atahanbozkurt
atahanbozkurt

There is rare good f2p games like World Of Tanks. Premium users nearly has no advantage except having items etc. fast. Think it, it's not fair when we're playing game totally free ! It's unacceptable. They need to profit. They have employer wages, server costs etc. etc. And then stop whining about premium systems Whine for unbalanced premium systems.

jayjay444
jayjay444

I do like some free to play games however ive still to play a good Free FPS game, but maybe this game could be good no harm in testing it after all its Free. 

rann89
rann89

It's weird. Everyone keeps whining about how all free games go pay-to-win, but I have yet to come across a free game where I feel like I lost because the other person spent real money. I guess I just stay away from the shitty games.

tmacman
tmacman

"We're focused on quality" ...Sure you are * rolls eyes*

singhellotaku
singhellotaku

Crytek has really been going out of its way to piss off their loyal fans lately

singhellotaku
singhellotaku

stop turning games I want into f2p!  I guess I am now not getting this or generals 2. F2P blows

toshineon
toshineon

What worries me if F2P truly is the future is what will happen to single player games. Practically all F2P games are online multiplayer only, so what happens to the gamers like me that mostly or only play games offline, in single player mode? This worked somewhat okay in Team Fortress 2, as that game lets you play with bots intead of online if you want, but TF2 is to my knowledge the only F2P game to do that. I think it's time to recycle some old PS2, PS1 and N64 games if I wanna keep gaming.

NeoGrayFAQ
NeoGrayFAQ

That's great. Make TimeSplitters 4 now.

victorlamy
victorlamy

homefront 2? why would anybody wanna play a train wrecks' sequel?

jinzo9988
jinzo9988

I like how he didn't mention a thing about what separates Warface from the droves of horrible free to play shooters, other than saying "It's CryEngine 3".  Great... you've got graphics covered, but that doesn't stop it from being pay to win and that doesn't stop it from being low quality in the gameplay department.

Nintyfan95
Nintyfan95

If I'm correct aren't we the ones who lead this gaming industry, Sony didn't make CD's the future, we made it the future. The developers are our b**** basically.  

deadpeasant
deadpeasant

That's a lot of talk I'm hearing from him but no mention of money. Companies don't survive if they don't make money. The question needs to be asked to him, how is this game going to make money? 

 

He can talk all he wants but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that the money matters. The only way to get people to pay you money for something is to offer something they want. And if they are going to give us a "next generation" quality game, why would anyone want to pay for more?

namdar
namdar

I'm so tired of defending F2P... it's a evolution forward and if your not on board then GTFO or go back to playing PC games from 95