Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli reveals all upcoming projects from studio will consist of AAA free-to-play games, says DLC and premium services "milking customers to death."
All upcoming Crytek projects will consist exclusively of AAA free-to-play games, company CEO Cevat Yerli told Videogamer. This will take effect after the company's current projects--which include Crysis 3 and Homefront 2--see release.
"As we were developing console games we knew very clearly that the future is online and free-to-play," Yerli said. "Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience."
Yerli did not explicitly say what the impetus for this change was, but he lamented some of the money-making strategies currently being employed by other companies.
"If you look at what kind of games are done in the packaged goods market, with DLCs and premium services and whatnot, it's literally milking the customers to death," he said.
Crytek has not named any of its future free-to-play titles, but Yerli said the company's aim is to "ensure the best quality, console game quality." This entails game budgets of between $10 million and $30 million, he said. Additionally, future titles will be supported by the company's new social gaming platform, Gface, which is currently in closed beta.
Crytek's first free-to-play game--Warface--is in development at the company's Kiev outfit and runs on the CryEngine 3. A military shooter set in the near future, the game claims to offer a cinematic experience with next-gen visuals, artificial intelligence, and physics. It is expected to be released in 2012.
Yes you can pick up the game free of charge and no you don't have to actually pay for anything, but you effectively getting a full-length demo. F2P Crysis 3 likely means you'll start the game with a knife and a pistol in multiplayer. Then you'll be nickle-and-dimed to death just buying weapons and upgrades necessary to actually win a match.
Personally, I don't give a damn about F2P because I'm an offline gamer. The majority of my gaming is done on single-player games or within the campaign mode of games like Halo. I don't give a rats ass about multiplayer gaming as long as there's a fun story to be played. I just hope some of the major titles like H
I can tell you're an offline gamer because what you said about online gaming was pretty inaccurate. For one thing, Crysis 3 is not going to be F2P, as stated in the article. For another thing, "pay to win" is a lamentation of whiner noobs. I've played several F2P games and been plenty successful without spending a dime. There isn't a single game out there that starts you with a "knife and a pistol" and makes you buy the rest. A nice piece of hyperbole, just too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
@Rippletonz There is a pay to win model. Not all games have a good an honest model. So you being abraisive to someone as if you have played every F2P game (you obviously haven't, especially Asian made ones) serves nothing but showing your own ignorance.
To your benefit, many FTP games are not Pay to Win. League Of Legends is a great example of this. You can earn everything without paying a dime and be just as strong as someone who paid 10,000 dollars. That system is great. However, not every game has adapted that system, yet.
Nice straw man argument. I never said all games have a fair and honest model. My point was that F2P is not an inherently broken concept (as you proved with the LoL example). Whether I have played Asian F2P's is irrelevant. LoL and Tribes:Ascend are two good examples of F2P games that you can play for free and have plenty of fun. So if noobs want to whine about Crytek going pay to win before they give it a chance, that only serves to show their ignorance and I have no qualms about being abrasive toward them.
Sub fees fora game meens you pay more than just a set asking price in 6 months. Im not into free to play just simply because i liek to play single player games offline. I dont think we are ever going to get back to the standards of Half Life 2 and DOOM 3 again or even Crysis 1 or STALKER :(
Am I missing something??? I thought F2P ment Free-to-play, and not that the game is free to purchase. I'm all for games that are Free-to-play, but to make a game that you don't charge for, will seriously limit what you can do with it, and thereby taking out most of the fun.
@Sepewrath Wrong. I'm sure some games limit you in content for free to play, but the majority of them offer boosts and better stats for real money. What this equates to is an imbalance in anything PvP related.
Let me put it this way, I used to work on a shooter that had an M4A1 with a 150 bullet clip, no reloading. Of course, you pay for that. That's the BS that everyone's so afraid of when it comes to free to play gaining traction. If you look at something like League of Legends, you can't buy a damn thing that will imbalance anything. You can buy in-game currency boosters, XP boosters, characters(which are also sold for in-game currency), and skins. None of it has any impact on the gameplay. I don't consider a case like that milking. Yes, people are going to spend hundreds on vanity items, but they don't gain any advantage doing so. It's not required.
Milking customers comes from a direct design philosophy that feeds on human addiction and the desire to be better than everyone else. When you are able to spend thousands in one month on chance items in the hopes of getting something super rare, that's when it's milking someone. When you are required to buy things to progress... constantly, without a cap, that's milking.
Not that good of a idea, Yerli, it limits your players to always being online, and (probably) have a pretty big bandwidth. It's not like you are making those cheap ass MMO's that still have that WoW combat, you guys are making full blown AAA titles as F2P, that's gonna limit people severly. Especially if the next gen of consoles kinda limits free to play, I think it's unlikely, but it could happen. So far we know that the Wii U will support F2P, but we do not know about PS4's/720's thoughts on F2P, they'll probably have the support, but we never know.
tribes ascend is a good Free game, but it lacks dedicated servers.
if i was Unreal/Crytek il release all my games in full glory, and make ALL my money from development studios. UE3 has had more then 100 titles so far. crytek is only starting now, but i think they might be very successful in this approach.
This does it! It seems everybody is going crazy in the gaming industry! This will never work. What's the name of the last good free to play game? Oh, there never was one. What a stupid idea and not to even mention the announced gamers social network oh boy I'm glad I practically finished gaming years ago.
I think this is brilliant if well executed! You could get a free to play (demo) version of any game, downloaded instantly, and buy only the additional content and items you want. This is digital sales done right. As long as the freemium content is priced reasonably (unlike certain EA games where pretend donuts cost more than real donuts) ;)
F2P will never offer an in-depth emotional experience like L.A. Noire or Red Dead Redemption. F2P is essentially the evolution of the Arcade and than shallow experience is only one way people will experience games in the future, but not the only way.
Um... what? How does free to play NOT exist to milk customers to death? If you like a particular free to play game, you're almost guaranteed to spend MUCH MORE on it than you would a regular game. I know, I've worked in the free to play industry and I've seen purchase records. I've seen purchase records that show that 1 person spent over $2,000 USD in one month on one game(one MMORPG that is almost a decade old and bugged to death). I've seen some people spend over $1,000 over the course of a year on a free to play first person shooter. I'm not kidding when I say this... there's no speculation. I've seen factual purchase records for myself.
If you design a game properly, free to play can be good for everybody. League of Legends is a good example. All crucial things can be acquired with in-game currency. It might take a hell of a long time to do it, but you're not barred from being competitive just because you're not spending. The kind of free to play that no one likes are games that are designed to milk you for all your worth... the kinds of games that force you to spend to stay competitive. Even more devious is the design tactic of random chance, where the best stuff is super rare. What's the only way to get it? Keep spending of course! It's literally like a slot machine, and nobody wants to feed money to a machine for a chance at something.
The Crytek engine is being used in the upcoming, free to play Mechwarrior game....I was hoping for a more indepth, single player type experience, but if any franchise was going to finally get me into massive multiplayer games, it would be Mechwarrior!! (or Warhammer40k!)
I don't know how would they maintain their company operational then. But one thing for certain: companies need money to run. So, if anything, I believe that this news means there are certainly some very nasty milking on the way. Maybe way worse than the current system.
However, on the bright side, since it's initially free and the milking comes later, I guess I would just drop the game when it starts to get nasty.
@solid_snake1461 Warface is already popular in Russia, apparently. It just haven't been released worldwide. Also note that Lord of The Rings Online has a gigantic increase in profits shortly after they went F2P.
Finally, a company looks through the money and says "hey, lets do something for the people who give us the money for once." Complain about it going f2p, and having micro-transactions all you want. This is damn good news.
I don't know of any AAA free to play games.. I don't believe they exist. Good luck Crytek, it's a risky move. There are still a lot of people who want physical copies of games. Free to Play are always "Pay to Win" and there are lots of people like me who don't like those games since those with the money win, not those will skill.
im into SP games mostly. how am i going to get good games from crytek than? i probably wont. that sad, chevat. sad. i really liked crytek as a development studio. really really talented ppl. it's a shame. i dont see a future for me and their games if chevat has his way.
No more packaged games huh? There goes one of my favorite developers, I rather enjoyed Crysis and Crysis 2. I'll be getting Crysis 3, and after that, RIP Crytek. Maybe this is to pull in the Facebook crowd or something, but as a single player oriented gamer, constant internet is not always reliable, and I don't really want others in my game in any way, and 'social elements' is a put off. Have fun on the new business venture, and hope everything works out well for you.
I agree with your single player comments but noway I could purchase crysis3 with origin attached to it. I wouldn't do that to my PC! I do agree though about social elements are definately a put off.
Not everyone likes other people in their games, I don't -I deal with people all day, last thing I want to see in my game are more people. Single Players seem to be forgotten in this business model, they may argue you can play without having to co-op or use a mp mode, but gaming 'alone' *use that term losely* with a couple hundred strangers isn't really single player.
I'll clearly drop crytek from my list and just pray other companies don't adopt similar business models as a sole means of releasing games.
I and the majority of my friends only do single player- old school. Any company making that hard or impossible can count me and my money out- and all the people like me/us... reguardless of what percentage of customers we are, why shun any cu$tomer$ when you don't have to?
P.S. I don't use origin either. None of my friends buy origin-dependant games. Steam/gog.com get our digital purchases, though I prefer physical.
LIES LIES LIES, CEO is a liar, after observing the investement of the company bought their engine for making Mech Warrior Online, and the profits afterwards - they've decided that it's a better way to make money.
Not sure about the AAA free to play games, but I assure you that they'll milk your money a lot better in their games
And when you discover WHY all the free to play producers nickle and dime their customers to death you will do it too crytek because if you offer a free game and only like 5% of your users buy anything online for it you gonna start trying to get them to buy... ALOT of crap so you incentivize it by making paid stuff better.
@Unholy123 some games are like that, but as said above, tribes and LoL are two games I've played frequently. i pwn on both and guess what? i never payed one cent on either and they are both great games.
the good thing about this system, when used correctly, is that hardcore gamers are usually rewarded without having to pay, while casual gamers don't have the patience to wait and pay to get the same content. believe me, i know plenty of gamers (more than half i know) that eventually shelve out more than a $50 price tag over the course of their play.
@taco_paco I put $60 bucks over 2 years into LoL. All to support RIOT for providing me with hundreds of hours of gameplay. I found most LoL players I know pay money to "thank" Riot for making LoL free, and for doing it right.
@Unholy123 why? i know all f2p games have payment options, but take tribes ascend, or LoL, or even BLR, or many others i can't currently think of: they all have the option to pay for certain things, but non paying player can eventually receive all content, or at least use it to an extent without paying a dime. for many games, paying is only if you want to unlock things more quickly, or for an extended periods, but any free user can do everything a paying user does. and in these games, it all eventually comes down to skill. (LoL and Tribes are the most noticeable) sooo... or you are extremely pessimistic (and\or not good at many games), or you just haven't played enough f2p games
Hah way to start calling me bad at games before you understood what I said your clearly a winner sir i'll stick with the losers if you don't mind if thats the column u put yourself in.
The point was if you don't make people want to buy the items and there is no point to them and no one buys them you will fail and your whole LoL thing is not the best as you yourself spent money on them admit so there yeah its and advantage you enjoy and paid for acting like it aint don't make it so :P
@Unholy123 Stop and go look up LoL F2P model. All you can buy with real money is skins(which are purely 100% visual) and runes/runepages(you can buy both with ingame currency). Spending money in LoL gains zero advantage over those who don't.
You can have F2P without it being Pay2Win, while rare, it does exist and is very successful. My heart dropped when I heard Planetside 2 was F2P. But when I learned they were using the LoL F2P model, it was a massive relief.
@Unholy123 Don't know about others but League of Legends and Dota 2 is certainly not P2W. I played LoL for more than 18 months before spending a cent on it and it really didn't make much of a difference at all. If anything, not purchasing all the champions at once made me try the freely rotated ones which is good of experience.
Although, how F2P model fits Crysis type games is a different matter.