Crytek to make free-to-play games only

    I think this is a really interesting, bold and exciting idea! Stoked to see how their products will turn out. What I want to know most before speculating too much is whether or not they are sticking with AAA glossy shooters or switching up genres?

    Also, I imagine the idea is not so risky as it sounds; Crysis sells for $60 yes, and hoping people buy enough in game / expansion stuff sounds dicey but the idea here is that by removing the high price point a far greater number of people will buy into small chunks of the game say $10 for a map pack, $2 for a character skin or w/e. So instead of 5 out of 30 people paying $60 you end up with 22 out of 30 paying $10 - $50 (probably more for some people) over some time. The initial profit may be slightly lower, but what they make over time could be far greater. A few companies have successfully pulled this off, I'd like to see what Crytek plans to do!

    We knew that the company was heading that direction, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad decision (although I am also concerned about the single-player immersion taking a hit in the process) however I'm not sure what was the benefit of making it an official announcement so soon.

    In any case, we've got quite some time left before we reach the point where Crytek is working only on f2p titles anyway, so let's think about that later and focus on our current projects!

    I hope Crytek will actually try something new other than the "freemium" model... The F2P market is a bubble, everyone is making those games and it will be hard to capitalize in the future.

    Why not just turn into a self publisher and sell their games digitally for cheaper for example? I wonder why no big companies have done that yet. Minecraft is a great example of a successful game sold this way - you get the money straight from consumers, no 3rd party involved to bite a sum of the money, which means that $20 bucks sold on your "own platform" is probably worth more than $60 bucks sold on a retail store. But I could be wrong, this is just my opinion and I'm no games industry analyst...

    Quote from Minos

    Why not just turn into a self publisher and sell their games digitally for cheaper for example? I wonder why no big companies have done that yet. Minecraft is a great example of a successful game sold this way - you get the money straight from consumers, no 3rd party involved to bite a sum of the money, which means that $20 bucks sold on your "own platform" is probably worth more than $60 bucks sold on a retail store. But I could be wrong, this is just my opinion and I'm no games industry analyst...

    Isnt that exactly what Valve is doing? Defo agree with you though.

    Quote from e-freak

    Isnt that exactly what Valve is doing? Defo agree with you though.

    Well, kinda. Except for this part:

    Quote from Minos

    sell their games digitally for cheaper

    As Corwin said, known about for some time but we've still got plenty of time left on boxed products with C3 and HF2 in the UK studio + Ryse in FF. That's only 2 out of 6 Crytek studios however, cant speak for the rest.

    Quote from Minos

    I hope Crytek will actually try something new other than the "freemium" model... The F2P market is a bubble, everyone is making those games and it will be hard to capitalize in the future.

    I did not want to reply at first but this comment is really bothering me. Could you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion?

    btw. I have read an interesting discussion between Cliffski and Nicholas Lovell on the subject not too long ago. Each of them brings up valid pros and cons, you can read it here: http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2012/0 ... he-debate/

    Quote from FrieChamp

    I did not want to reply at first but this comment is really bothering me. Could you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion?

    Market saturation, specially with garbage titles. The same happened with the tween/casual market on the DS and Wii and the mobile market.

    Quote from Minos

    I did not want to reply at first but this comment is really bothering me. Could you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion?

    Market saturation, specially with garbage titles. The same happened with the tween/casual market on the DS and Wii and the mobile market.

    You're implying that free2play titles are low quality games, but if anything this move by Crytek shows that AAA developers have begun to adjust to the f2p model. Yes, all the money that is being pumped into the space will consequently mean that there will be many more f2p games and many will suck, but the idea is disruptive and the change is happening. I don't see the iOS app market collapsing due to over saturation caused by f2p. The top performing games are f2p titles and the pressure is on those developers who charge for an upfront price, because consumers now expect to play a base version of the game for free.

    tf2 and dota2 are f2p.

    however, the half-life games arent. And this is why I think crytek is making a mistake. f2p is viable (almost necessary these days) for a multi player game. But for a summer box office popcorn single player experience like the next crysis, then I dont really see how they will earn money with f2p.

    Quote from FrieChamp

    I did not want to reply at first but this comment is really bothering me. Could you elaborate how you have come to this conclusion?

    Market saturation, specially with garbage titles. The same happened with the tween/casual market on the DS and Wii and the mobile market.

    You're implying that free2play titles are low quality games, but if anything this move by Crytek shows that AAA developers have begun to adjust to the f2p model. Yes, all the money that is being pumped into the space will consequently mean that there will be many more f2p games and many will suck, but the idea is disruptive and the change is happening. I don't see the iOS app market collapsing due to over saturation caused by f2p. The top performing games are f2p titles and the pressure is on those developers who charge for an upfront price, because consumers now expect to play a base version of the game for free.

    I have yet to play a freemium game that doesn't suck. One you could play for 200 hours. When you develop a game prioritizing ways to monetize it through microtransactions since the beginning the rest suffers from it. TF2 is an exception because it started as a retail game. Imagine if TF2 was a F2P title about hats since the beginning. I doubt it would be as good as it turned out to be.

    Everything that's "free" comes with a cost. I'd rather pay cheaper for my games than playing them for free and ending up spending money on virtual items so I can progress faster.

    Another problem with current freemium games is that you don't learn anything from them. They are just time wasters to make you spend money on microtransactions. Imagine if Sim City 3000 was a F2P title with a barebones selection of buildings and you had to pay real money to acquire new ones, new subway systems etc... Where would be the fun in that?

    Quote from Minos

    I have yet to play a freemium game that doesn't suck. One you could play for 200 hours.

    Trackmania says hi. Thousands of hours for me. They have a better more player friendly buisness model tho. Free game that on it's own is awesome and motivates for hundreds of hours and then it makes you want the full game to sink in hundreds of hours more. It's also nice that the microtransactions within TM are not based on real money but an internal economy with virtual money. Honestly even as the biggest TM fan i would abandon the game if i had to pay real money on it regularely for the smallest shit. Such a buisness model just feels like a rip off to me.

    Tribes: Ascend is a recent F2P game that actually makes the concept work well IMO. Think BF3, but instead of grinding to unlock weapons you have the choice of buying them — or you can spend the money on boosters which double your unlock rate. It doesn't sound great and obviously you have to like the game, but it does succeed.

    Quote from Minos

    Imagine if Sim City 3000 was a F2P title with a barebones selection of buildings and you had to pay real money to acquire new ones, new subway systems etc... Where would be the fun in that?

    Nowhere, because that's a terrible idea. I've played many hours of Hero Academy without putting down a single cent. You can play the default race as long as you like, but to unlock different races you'll have to pay. I don't know how well it monetizes but from a 'fun' perspective it's a game that I enjoy(ed) quite a lot despite it being f2p. Point being: it's not all bad.

    i think the current f2p model could use some work. what i imagine going through a consumer's head when he hears free to play is essentially, "oh right, i can spend an infinite amount of money on this game and i still won't be the best". i've never been a fan of free to play, i'd much rather have an all inclusive edition that switches on all options for you.

    Quote from FrieChamp

    Relevant (Molyneux goes JJ Abrams): http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... mium-games

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login