Crytek defends free-to-play Warface

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? 

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.

No single player then no good.

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

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

And it will play exactly like a pay2win F2P game.

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.

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

"ensure the best quality, console game quality."

BUAHAHAAHAHA

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.

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.

These guys are a little inconsistent....

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

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?"

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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

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. :|

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)

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

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.

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.

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.....

nice

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.

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

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.

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.

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