THQ... Next Crytek?

    I am not disputing your general claim, but this claim about Dark souls is pretty wrong. Dark souls was not a sleeper hit, demon souls was. Dark souls was pretty much guaranteed to sell 2m+ units.

    Yeah at that point dark souls was a pretty good investment. If you all remember demons souls was very stupidly dropped by Sony. If they hadn't done that it probably would still be exclusive to their system and they would have had a major selling point during the ps3 vs xb360 era.


    Also a note on tomb raider. It would have most likely made a profit if they hadn't spent so much money on things that dont matter like paying exorbitant amount of money to celebrities to do voice acting and mocap. Seriously, the people who made those decisions must be so disconnected from reality. I don't notice celebrities in games and I certainly don't care.

    Quote from FMPONE

    And the ups and downs are part of a sustainable model IMO, Nintendo still has an absurd, absolutely absurd stockpile of cash to weather the hard times. I think the fact that they can always rely on the quality of the product differentiates them from the parasitic publishers, whose primary interest is to take a good franchise and milk it for every last drop. It's a focus on quality of product as a way to sustain long-term profits, versus a profit-focused approach which views franchises as commodities to be rotated in and out.

    Do the really? Differentiate from the others i mean.

    I think they are just acting like so, and they fooled everybody. They are underselling the competition: it works for one/a few companies in different businesses.

    And by the way they really have two businesses going on at the same time, one boosts the other and vice-versa so I don't see them as a term of comparison.

    As I remember, they weren't doing great at all before the Wii, they hit it big then and their stash comes from making a dirty cheap console… that has been taking dust in most households as the novelty wear off.

    They have been the only selling well their own titles, and not simply because they were great games for the platform. I've tried some Ubi games and they are as good party titles as Nintendo's, but they don't come bundled with the console. Correct if I'm wrong in thinking that game sales account for the bundles.

    Another reason you cannot compare them is that they are basically the sole providers for their own platform. Ubisoft and Activision, or EA, don't have means to differentiate, they cannot boost their own sales juggling two businesses: of course they milk the hell out of titles! And frankly, I think stuff like COD has quality, I might not like it, but much more people do so…

    I dunno the innards of business, but I guess that if they have to put out a title per year, that's necessary for their sustainability, whether Nintendo can sits on its ass after putting out a Mario game because of its sales, the indirect sales of hardware it causes, and the royalties from other companies.

    Like Valve not putting out shit for years because of Steam. Or Blizzard because of WoW.

    id Software tried to make quality games, draining their stash, and look how it worked out for them. I think companies see that as a cautionary tale.

    Quote from Vilham

    I am not disputing your general claim, but this claim about Dark souls is pretty wrong. Dark souls was not a sleeper hit, demon souls was. Dark souls was pretty much guaranteed to sell 2m+ units.


    Apologies, I got the two confused....

    Quote from Furyo

    Apologies, I got the two confused....


    Who doesn't, I still don't know which is which and I've played both. Title naming fail.

    Im not even affected by any decision Cevat made and I actually didnt even care.

    But after reading the Interview... wow. I dont like that guy.

    an Ex-Frankfurter i work with sent me that article. Real arrogance. What really disgusts me is the assumption that ppl can live for a month or more without getting paid...

    I don't understand this whole f2p plan. Crytek was always such a cutting edge technology driven company. For the best technology and best gfx you need the best people. But i don't see how f2p would tempt anyone to move around half the globe or even within Europe. It's not very interesting from my perspective.

    Quote

    Some people live in very tight financial planning. That’s their own privacy. They can do whatever they want. Those guys, when they get under pressure it can become emotional.


    What a cunty thing to say

    Quote from Steppenwolf

    I don't understand this whole f2p plan. Crytek was always such a cutting edge technology driven company. For the best technology and best gfx you need the best people. But i don't see how f2p would tempt anyone to move around half the globe or even within Europe. It's not very interesting from my perspective.


    I cannot think of any other studio who used to do AAA premium games and has transitioned into a F2P company. What they are doing is either very stupid or genius. Time will tell. Either way now they are going all-in. When you look at core F2P titles, when you look at what Riot and Wargaming have been doing, or the MMO space, I think it shows that you can have high quality F2P experiences for core gamers. Moving forward, especially as far as young audiences are concerned, I think it's going to be an increasingly tough argument for developers to make as to why a customer is supposed to pay $60 upfront, when you can play a similar product for free (and get to choose how much you want to spend on extras).


    Looking at the current selection of F2P games, I can see why it's hard to imagine a F2P future. The monetization model for example, you can't just take the model of one game and slap it onto the other. It doesn't work like that. And core gamers are especially wary of any IAP that might give someone a competitive advantage. But as soon as somebody creates that FPS with AAA production quality and a monetization model that is widely regarded as fair and transparent, I think other devs will have a problem on their hands. Obviously to have that kind of runway and gain that expertise, build up that organizational structure (like Cevat said in the interview), you need a lot of cash. We'll see if they can get it right before time runs out.


    A different aspect I can imagine is the experiences made from Ryse. AFAIK Microsoft made them move the project from Budapest to Frankfurt because it wasn't up to snuff. So they are building this game on a tight schedule for hardware that isn't ready yet only to find a smaller than expected install base and lower review scores than expected (which are so important for this kind of product/target group). Then Microsoft only wants to enter a deal for a sequel if they get the IP rights. Compare this to a model where you have full control. It's a lot of work and I hope they don't overburden themselves, but I can also see the benefit in that.

    Quote from FrieChamp

    I cannot think of any other studio who used to do AAA premium games and has transitioned into a F2P company. What they are doing is either very stupid or genius. Time will tell. Either way now they are going all-in. When you look at core F2P titles, when you look at what Riot and Wargaming have been doing, or the MMO space, I think it shows that you can have high quality F2P experiences for core gamers. Moving forward, especially as far as young audiences are concerned, I think it's going to be an increasingly tough argument for developers to make as to why a customer is supposed to pay $60 upfront, when you can play a similar product for free (and get to choose how much you want to spend on extras).

    Looking at the current selection of F2P games, I can see why it's hard to imagine a F2P future. The monetization model for example, you can't just take the model of one game and slap it onto the other. It doesn't work like that.

    God you're so right. I don't even understand the F2P attraction for Crytek, what companies were they really trying to emulate? I'd love to learn why they felt this shiny pricing model was worth totally upending their entire company for

    There is a difference between F2P as a business model and F2P as a game genre. Most people think of both as one thing, but it doesn't have to be that way. Like Frie said though, no one has cracked that formula just yet, mostly because we haven't found a way to break the traditional SP AAA production schedule into tiny bite size deliverables that can be priced in F2P mode. So F2P really just is mobile games and moba/online FPS games at this point because maps can be broken into parts.


    What we're really facing here is what Hollywood did with sitcoms like Friends, and 24, The Shield, The Wire, etc paving the way for all other series. We have to find a way to make AAA high end content in a relatively cheap but very fast way and write story episodes. Once we have that, we'll have the traditional AAA SP games again. For now, it's all online online online.

    Some people will always say with hindsight, you could say anything, so I'm calling it now, we haven't seen the end of the huge turmoil just yet.

Participate now!

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

Register Yourself Login