I think the decision Crytek has made about going Free to Play is not good and I think they will be back to normal again after a F2P stint. Free to Play gaming is not as big in America as it is in the Eastern parts of the world, especially the Asian areas. Also amongst these cultures first person shooters are not of much interest. Why go F2P, Crytek? I think Europe is with us on this. The games you are making such as Warface is simply to spark interest amongst Asian countries in FPS games. We know that over there micro-transactions are the new thing. But here in the Western World want to see big budget, hardcore games. Ideally we want to see a Crysis 4 some day.

F2P gaming will never be as popular in America as it is in Japan and China. Hardcore gamers don't want to dive into a game and have to buy their weapons and attachments with real money. It's not sensible. Despite it being free initially, we would still rather have the full game with everything unlocked.

F2P gaming is less competitive. It's silly to play a game against people who are excelling because of the more money they spend on items and weapons. The competition is much greater when everyone plays by the same set of rules.



F2P should really only be for casual gaming. There is far too much hype around casual games and gaming on your cell phone. When I sit in a waiting room, I don't want to play a hardcore game where I need to immerse myself in a surrounding. Playing something like Call of Duty or Crysis, or Mass Effect is not feasible in a casual setting. I would need to wear headphones. When I am casually gaming I want to play Tetris, or pacman, something easy. When I go home and sit in front of my HDTV I want to play something immersive, like Crysis. Point is, Casual gaming is not going to take over Hardcore gaming, and Hardcore gaming isn't going to whipe out casual gaming, they can exist together in their respective platforms.

If Sony and Nintendo had half a brain, they would realize the next step is not a Vita or the 3DS but phone by Sony or Nintendo, a whole phone that encompasses all the goodies of a 3ds and vita, but more compact and can make phone calls. People are already carrying it around with them. Apple would be hounding Nintendo with deals to bring Mario to IOS. Cell phone customers who are gamers would be attracted to these products, and would much rather play Super Mario Brothers than Angry Birds. But thats another thing, is Sony and Nintendo too late? Have games like Angry Birds already made a brand for themself?

F2P only is not the way to go Crytek, you know this, and you are selling yourself short but not creating games in the traditional format as well. Don't get me wrong, creating and desiging F2P games is great, but when you shift your business format to only 1 style, particularly a newer, untested format it is usually a recipe for disaster. Needless to say if I owned stock in Crytek, upon their F2P only announcement I would call my broker and demand he sell the stock immediately after the release of Crysis 3.

Your entire post completely looks over the worldwide popularity of a few F2P titles. League of Legends is completely crazy for instance, and I don't see TF2 doing too bad. Tribes: Ascend is also pretty profitable AFAIK and it's a bloody good game.

I do believe however that perhaps F2P is too premature right now. How about a mix of F2P and smaller-budget self-published titles either completely digitally or with very limited physical runs?

If they released official cover art for their 100% digital games and these had no DRM (could be burnt in a DVD/whatever media we use in a couple years) I would definitely root for 100% digital self-publishing.

Nah I'd rather they stop at Crysis 3, so as not to let the series stagnate. Then start work on a new, fresh, IP. Nowadays everything seems to be a sequel of something

I think if they do a Crysis 4 it would need to be after some next hardware comes out. Unless they actually push some boundaries with C3 which so far it doesn't look like they will do, the franchise is gonna burn out quick if they keep pumping out sequals every couple years. Everyone I know that is a Crysis and Warhead fan are hoping for the WOW (myself included) and it doesn't look like we'll be getting it. I'm open to it but doubt it will happen so maybe their F2P tangent will be a nice break so they could potentially come back with fresh eyes and big ideas.

Just because crytek is going f2p does not mean we won't see crysis 4. I imagine crisis 4 being free to play will be like this: We get a bad a$$ single player map that leaves you wanting more then you have to pay for additional single player maps to finish the single player campaign. Also you will get 2 free multiplayer maps, then you can purchase additional ones and weapons etc. This way when you buy all the maps, plus weapons, plus extra stuff you end up paying just as much (or more) as you would for a $60 game plus $50 worth of dlc.
I don't blame crytek one bit for going f2p, lets face it, with this model they can be more profitable, and when you talk about any industry, including the gaming industry, its all about $$$$$$$$. plus this model will cut down on piracy. one way or another, f2p is the future of the gaming industry.

Isn't that the "milking players with dlc" approach they are trying to evade by going F2P?

You have a very good point, DLC is sketchy. Especially with already on disc DLC. Anything thats DLC should be completely and creatively designed upon the finish of title. Games did this years ago they just weren't called DLC, they were called Expansion Packs and they made sense cause they would be released like a year after the game anyway.



My main concern is F2P competition. Getting into games where people have massive over powered loadouts or guns or items, simply because they invested more money into the game, rather than time. At least when you invest your time you are gaining skill. Imagine if you could just buy your modules for Crysis 2 and didn't have to upgrade them by playing.


Has anyone here played Mass Effect 3's multiplayer? It's the beginning of F2P, at least for consoles. In the Multiplayer you level up by gaining XP points, there after you can use those points to buy packages, one valued at 5000 XP another at 20,000 and another at 60,000 and they have other deals too. But instead of spending XP, if you don't have any you can spend REAL money to buy XP points to get these packages.

Absolutely atrocious, another thing about it is you have no guarantee of the items you get, you get a package with randoms, the higher you pay for a package the higher chances of getting a better weapon and other items.

Competitively in a game like Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, it's not so bad, because it's a 4 player co-op going against AI. But imagine this format in a multiplayer shooter? It could completely destroy competition and give the odds to the person who pays the most money, instead of works the hardest. (Sadly this model is also used in the Banking industry today, and we know where that has gotten us.)

Half Life: Opposing Force and Homeworld: Cataclysm for example, those were good times, now it's all just map packs (that used to be free) and short missions that in some cases suck anyway and do not add anything to the storyline

While I agree, I get the impression that Crytek aren't happy with how they're doing. Crysis has stalled and stagnated - let's be honest, every game since the original has been a milked, half-arsed effort, something that's becoming more and more apparent - and they've lost Far Cry to Ubisoft. Compared to the best AAA developers, Crytek simply aren't on the level. They'd rather take a chance (IMO a very small one) to lead a new wave of F2P games than sit where they are, playing second fiddle to the likes of Treyarch and 343.

Personally, I'd rather Crytek raised their reputation with an innovative new title as opposed to this Hail Mary pass of a business plan, but I'm not their boss.