Crykey: Crytek Moving To F2P For Good

Warface is, apparently, the future. Crytek boss-captain Cervat Yerli has said that once Crytek’s current projects – Crysis 3, Homefront 2, and some Kinect game – are done, then they’ll be off to a world where they make downloadable AAA shooters that cost zero bucks to play. Talking to Videogamer he explained: “Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience,” said Yerli. “What this entails is that our future, all the new games that we’re working on, as well new projects, new platforms and technologies, are designed around free-to-play and online, with the highest quality development.” He insisted that this was the best solution to the future of manshoots: “I think this is a new breed of games that has to happen to change the landscape, and be the most user-friendly business model.”


  1. mr.ioes says:

    Shouldn’t they wait to see how successful Warface will be, before deciding to go full-on F2P?
    Will they go F2P even when Warface falls on its face?

    • SirKicksalot says:

      More than one million players in Russia.

      • Balm says:

        And it’s weird. I gave beta a try for about 4 hours – it dosn’t have any interesting mechanics that would stand out, picture is about as pretty as anything else current gen, and inventory of real money shop is obviously better then point-grind upgrades.
        All together – it’s dauntingly generic.

        PS: And I forgot healthbars on enemies in “realistic shooter”

        • mmalove says:

          “inventory of real money shop is obviously better then point-grind upgrades.”

          Non starter for me, then. Competitive pay-to-win models are the antithesis of user friendly business models, in my opinion.

          • Ringwraith says:

            This was already mentioned in another article, but the cash shops are region-specific. Like in China you have to pay for the right to not be muted.

        • Herr Dr. Face Doktor says:

          Yeah, but the point is that it’s free. It might just be a generic call of duty clone with average graphics but it’s a FREE generic call of duty clone with average graphics. I’ve also heard that the Russian version in particular has a more subtle cash shop model, where the upgrades are more for comfort than power, as opposed to China/Korea where they’re selling blatantly OP weapons and stuff and everyone’s chill with it.

          • Thuraash says:

            Surely they realize that the American and Western European markets have reacted incredibly poorly to models that allow players to buy power or an edge in the game. I doubt they’ll do something so stupid as introduce an East Asian F2P system in the West.

      • marlin says:

        In Soviet Russia, Warface plays you…….etc, etc

    • djbriandamage says:

      The move to F2P is surely a reaction to sales of their previous games. They always blamed their PC sales deficiencies on piracy, but after inundating the media with screenshots of godrays, pockmarked faces, and dynamic foliage, my opinion is that they scared people into thinking their PC could never run such a marvel of software engineering. This caused people to pirate the game, sure, but also swept the game entirely off people’s radar. Needless to say, their subsequent antipiracy rhetoric gave me theories as to why they called their company CRYtek. I believe it was more a miscalculation of marketing strategy.

      F2P completely removes any such uncertainty. Download the game and try it with zero risk, all above ground. This is the right move for such a frighteningly talented developer that defines the cutting edge of video game fidelity.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I always thought it was because people didn’t want to pay for a frame rate test program, and the number of people who played it as a game was always pretty small. The piracy figures were inflated because you don’t keep a multigig utility program on your computer, so people would download it again when they got a new PC.

        It doesn’t help that it came at the end of a hugely expensive cycle of upgrades, and that game seemed to be the final straw.

        • MisterT says:

          Fun Facts:
          1) crysis sold over 4 million copies, very respectable for PC-exclusive game that gaming “journalists” called a tech demo.

          2) the gameplay of Crysis/Warhead was utterly brilliant, the player had varied abilities, environment, and challenges which kept the game fresh and exciting for the most part, see NanosuitNinja for an example of the fun one can have with crysis.

          • Thuraash says:

            Very true. Both games were great fun, but I think Crytek messed up when they decided to make 70% of the game play out in a frozen wasteland. Much of the appeal was the setting. It was interesting when you went from verdant tropical paradise to frozen wasteland, but at the same time, it took away much of the game’s beauty.

            That being said, it was still an incredibly fun game that did truly allow the player tactical choices. I just wish enemies actually took cover instead of standing up in the forest. Challenging as it was, it sometimes felt like a bit of a turkey-shoot.

      • PopeJamal says:

        I was, indeed, one of those people who thought Crysis was an expensive graphics e-peen app and completely ignored it. A few years later, when “average” tech caught up with the engine, I gave it a try. When I was actually able to play it with High settings with a decent framerate, I was surprised at how good it actually was.

        I’m not sure if it was my fault, or their fault that I missed out on that one initially.

    • Styles says:

      What he means is “we can make more money this way, because it’s effectively a subscription model ….people will continue to give us money forever and ever in the form of micro-transactions, because we’ll find insidious ways of making the free players feel underpowered. That plus no piracy for online only games”

      Yaaay! Everybody loses! (except them)

      • djbriandamage says:

        Playing a game for free = losing?

        • Balm says:

          Yes. If you are not using real-money equipment – you are content for those that do.

          • djbriandamage says:

            Not sure I’m understanding the arguments here. People want to pay either $60 or $0 for the game, but no value in-between?

          • Sparkasaurusmex says:

            It’s not the amount, it’s what you are paying for.
            Even $100 can be okay, if it’s a one time thing that I pay to have the game and everything included with the game. Subscription based is one thing, but “F2P” really means you will have to pay small amounts to unlock parts of the game…sometimes superficial, often times beneficial, sometimes necessary. Even the superficial Hats and things in TF2 cheapen the experience for some players.
            F2P games can be fun, but they aren’t engaging for me. They always feel like I’m playing a demo. I don’t get into the game the same way I would if I felt like I actually had the whole game.

          • djbriandamage says:

            How often do you really play the *whole* game, though? Me, I ignore achievements and collectables, PVP and multiplayer may as well have never been included, I might find a preference for sniper rifles and never touch pistols, or maybe I’ll have had enough of an MMO having only seen a quarter of the quest areas. Why should I pay for content I’ll never enjoy?

          • ScubaMonster says:

            If you end up in the long run paying more than the cost of a retail game to compete then you are a sucker. Companies time and time again say their game won’t be “pay to win” but that rarely is the case despite promises. Why on earth would you want a pay to win model in a competitive shooter? That’s great you don’t care about multiplayer but you don’t speak for everyone. If the content is 100% optional and doesn’t give anybody an advantage then great. I remain highly skeptical about any company’s claims of that. Look at Battlefield Heroes. Truly awful business model.

        • PopeJamal says:

          Every time I hear these arguments about so-called “Pay-to-Win” models, I wonder how much of it is really legit complaints vs “Well, I suck at this game or don’t like it, so I’ll blame “Pay-to-Win” instead.

          As far as I can tell, pay-to-win is no different than play-14-hours-a-day to win, because I have neither the time nor money to invest towards being “competitive” in some of these schemes.

          To each his own, though. I just tire of hearing what amounts to “Boo Hoo! I don’t have anything interesting to throw my gobs of disposable time/money at!”. That could just be my “old man’s disease” flaring up though.

    • MordeaniisChaos says:

      They’ve gone to hell and back with piracy. I expect that had a HUGE impact on this decision.

  2. Jimmy says:

    Warfree2face is a business model.

  3. SquareWheel says:

    I’ll miss you, Crytek. You were on of the good ones.

    • Styles says:

      Ditto. ByeBye fellas ….microtransactions can go shove an angry wasp’s nest up its ass

    • Williz says:

      Goodbye any possibility of Timesplitters 4 :(

    • grundus says:

      Meh. Crytek are totally overrated in my opinion, I would go into it but I don’t know how the RPS hive mind feels about their games. I just felt that Far Cry was good at the time for technological reasons but hasn’t held up well, Crysis was similar (but the suit powers do make it fun even now) and Crysis 2 was a step back from the original in many ways, and I’m sure others would agree with that last point. It did improve some things but didn’t in others and I’d say cumulatively Crysis was the better game, but that’s just my opinion.

    • hosndosn says:

      Crysis 2 was such a disappointment. They could have kept their niche on the PC but instead became yet another generic console and now F2P company.

    • Cinek says:

      Crytek was good.
      Was, till they decided to fuck PC gamers, those who founded their company into existence and glory.
      At the day of Crysis 2 release they lost last remains of respect I got for them.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        I’m not sure how Crytek ever really “fucked” PC gamers. They released two games (Crysis and Far Cry) that only ran well on the best hardware and looked like complete ass on medium- or low-range hardware. They later released two more games (Crysis 2 and Far Cry 2) that were coded to perform nicely on console hardware while still looking fantastic on regular PCs. Hi-Res packs? No other dev I can think of does that for their PC customers.

        People are simply butthurt that Crytek decided to spend even more time on console development. As far as I’m concerned, it hasn’t hurt the quality of their games.

        • FriendlyFire says:

          ‘cept Crytek never worked on Far Cry 2; the FC IP is owned by Ubisoft and Ubisoft Montreal did all the work on the game. It wasn’t even running on CryEngine.

  4. apocraphyn says:


  5. Njordsk says:

    I hate F2P and often don’t even play them because I feel fucked before even downloading it.

    you always lack something. A bag, a weapon, a class, a race etc…

    I honnestly prefer paying 13$ a month rather than paying their half games.
    Give me a trial instead, I played Rift trial (20 level) and really enjoyed it. I wouldn’t have bothered with a F2P model.

    • wodin says:

      No I WOULDN’T RATHER PAY $13 dollars a month. I’d rather just buy a game at a set price.

      • Styles says:

        Yup. Micro-transactions are just a more insidious subscription model.

    • kregg says:

      So you hate TF2?

      • Optimaximal says:

        I can’t think of any real example of TF2 becoming better since becoming a F2P game.

        It was very solid to begin with, which helps, but they’ve also introduced a Pay2Win model with the key/chest model & the Polycount pack (you know, better weapons for money etc).

        • Dominic White says:

          “I can’t think of any real example of TF2 becoming better since becoming a F2P game.”

          A huge upswing in the number of features, weapons and maps added? Unless you’re one of those purists who think that the game was perfect at V1.0, that’s a pretty solid indication of the business model working in the consumer’s favor.

          • Jengaman says:

            I can’t think of any weapon,hat, or item (besides the high five taunt) thats added anything to that game. The only updates that added anything worth while are pay load, koth, and arena. Which are all great game modes that are loads of fun.

            Every update since then has been like new lol champs, Just dumb ,gimmicky , or game breaking. The balance is lost, and every community i enjoyed went with it.

            Tf2 is still fun, but playing it now for longer than an hour just remind me that it wont be as fun as it was before. It’s really sad.

            The problem isn’t pay to win. it’s just now i have to sift through piles of fecal matter to get to the part that makes it fun.

        • zeroskill says:

          Optimaximal: “they’ve also introduced a Pay2Win model”

          What? I don’t want to resort to insults but when somebody spreads ignorant lies like this person it is very hard to withstand the urge to throw a rock at said person.

          You sir are a shameless liar.

      • Njordsk says:

        Yes, but for many reasons others than the F2P model. I just don’t like it.

        And as said above I was talking in the case of suscription, I too prefer buying the game once and be done. GW2 style.

      • hosndosn says:

        I genuinely DO hate TF2, now. Took me long enough, too. But I can write you paragraphs worth of reasons why F2P is an inherently flawed, manipulative business model. It’s never just cosmetic.

        Think of it: Why would anyone pay for stuff in a game that’s free? Because they want to reward the developers? Because they love the game? Fat chance. Because the game is designed to eternally feel incomplete unless you feed it with lots and lots of tiny $5 payments.

        • zeroskill says:

          In the case of Valve, you totally miss the point why they are making free to play games and why that is porfiatable for them. They don’t make money off the items stores. Where the big draw is for Valve is new customers. New Steam customers. All those Dota players, potentially over 10 million people, that for the most part, where not on Steam before Dota was released (closed beta). All those people are using Steam now and are loving it. They will buy games on Steam, and that is where Valve makes money, not the items stores.

          On the note of TF2 and DOTA2, as a long time active TF2 player and modder (since beta) and an active Dota player since years, there is no better model for any of those games as I see it. TF2 was, before the move to free to play, slowly, but steadily dieing. Since it went free to play, the TF2 player base exploded. The game is now more healthy then ever before, and as someone who loves TF2 (because it is one of the few old school FPS still out there other then Quake Live, which is dieing actually) I am very happy about that indeed.

          For DOTA2, I mostly only see shit-level players whining about free to play (mostly newbs from Hon), all the high skill players I know don’t care one bit if the game has cosmetics and is free to play aslong as the balance of the game isn’t compromised. They don’t give a shit, they just wanna play Dota. They wouldn’t care if the game was 60 bucks, or is free, they just wanna play the game. And if free to play is gonna ensure a healthy player base for years to come they are fine with that.

          • rockman29 says:

            Well said, Zeroskill. I’m a DOTA player, and a TF2 player, and I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about purchasing items in those games. If they throw me freebies after winning games, so be it. But I’m not there to play dress up. Dota 2 is just a fun game, and I don’t have to pay for it. Can’t complain!

    • Jimbo says:

      I can’t stomach F2P either. I have an allergic reaction to being nickel and dimed, which you just know you are going to have to face with F2P games.

      • Koozer says:

        Unless you, you know, play the good ones that don’t do that. /snark

        • Jimbo says:

          Such as? And how do they make their money if not by trying to push microtransactions?

          • Dominic White says:

            So, your issue is that you might be encouraged to spend money at some point, ever? And that you’d rather spend $60 for the possibility of getting a decent multiplayer game with enough people around? The arguments against F2P seem to be getting less and less coherent.

          • Koozer says:

            Compare and contrast, say, Battlefield Heroes and World of Tanks. The former charges money for weapons that are significant upgrades to the normal gear, which is quite horrible and is exactly the kind of thing that turns me away from F2P games. The latter charges money for ‘premium’ accounts, which increases xp and credits earned by 50%; for premium tanks, that are generally on par with their free companions (bar a few exceptions, but balance isn’t perfect for the free tanks either), but make a tonne of credits; and for gold ammo, which is exactly the same as normal AP shells but with monstrous penetration, meaning they do damage more reliably and may allow puny guns to damage big tanks that they couldn’t normally.

            ‘Ah HA!’ I hear you cry, ‘so gold ammo gives an advantage over non-paying plebs!’ True, but it’s a small advantage for a horrendous cost, and from what I hear it’s only really used in clan wars. I think the key thing is that you never notice anyone using it, as it does identical damage, and you don’t really need it if you can aim.

          • Dominic White says:

            And this is why I don’t play Battlefield Heroes, because it’s a shitty game with an exploitative business model! The fact that some games are exploitative doesn’t mean that all are.

            Meanwhile, I do play Blacklight: Retribution, a game where the basic, default assault rifle is an exceptionally deadly weapon, and everything is a sidegrade. There are bigger machineguns that are less accurate, and lighter SMGs that are weaker, and heavier scoped rifles which are slower, but you aren’t at any real disadvantage. You can also buy 95% of the stuff with in-game money. It just takes some time.

          • Jimbo says:

            “So, your issue is that you might be encouraged to spend money at some point, ever?”

            Pretty much, yes. I want to pay the entrance fee (and/or subscription) and then that’s it; I want to feel like I’m playing in a game environment after that, not in a store. I want everybody involved to be on a level playing field, or to have earned any in-game advantage they do have from something they have done in the game.

            Most of all I don’t want to play or encourage any game to be designed around payment models like this, because I think it’s detrimental to the quality of the game and gaming in general. The only thing that should be in a designer’s head when designing a game is making the best game they possibly can, not how to design the gameplay systems so that they can most efficiently extract money from the player. How on earth has it become ‘ok’ to sell convenience items? This by definition means that inconveniences are being deliberately left in the base game. If the act of playing the game is considered an inconvenience now, I’d rather just pay $60 and have the convenient version, thanks.

            Both of the examples Koozer describes sound terrible to me. I would absolutely rather take an educated punt on a $60 game that I might enjoy than pay nothing for an experience I know I won’t enjoy. Money is not the limiting factor on my gaming.

            My reasons for not liking games designed around microtransactions aren’t getting ‘less and less’ anything. They’re the same reasons I had when the general consensus was that microtransactions were shitty, and they’re still the same reasons I have now that most people seem to have bought into them. If you like ’em, cool – I personally couldn’t be less interested in what they’re pushing.

    • djbriandamage says:

      This is exactly how I felt until fairly recently. I played many F2P games and realized they were good for at least several hours of fun. I decided that was worth a small contribution so I’d drop $5 here or there, not because I was missing anything, but because I wanted to support them.

      Now I’m more open to F2P. I figure I’d rather spend $5 for something I’ll always have (I hate renting items and buying one-time consumables) rather than subscribing for $15/month only to pay for content I’d ignore like crafting and PVP. Better to play at whatever pace I wish, for whatever content I’ll really use.

      I promise I was every bit as skeptical as you. Find a game that’s good enough to spend 5 or 10 hours with, and tip them a few bucks for the privilege. If they’re smart about pricing you’ll see the value in this alternative model.

    • PopeJamal says:

      I tend to dislike F2P too, but I think it’s more because I haven’t found anything F2P interesting enough for me to stick around.

      At this point, about the only thing I MIGHT play as a F2P would be WoW. Of course that’s only because I already have so much energy and effort invested in those characters already, but it’s not interesting enough for $15 a month.

      I think they’ll need to do much better than $GENERIC_SHOOTER or $MMO_CLONE to get me interested enough to even try most of these F2P games. I don’t want to play the same stuff I played 10 years ago, even if it is “free”.

      In that regard, I’m much more interested in episodic content, meaning: Free to play first chapter, and then microtransactions for additional chapters to finish the story. Almost like a pay as you go TV show. That way, I can drop it when they run out of ideas and start the “Evil Twin with a goatee” story arcs.

  6. Moni says:

    So Warface is in fact, just a pre-face for Crytek’s future plans?

    • Hanban says:

      Well, we shall see. They will have to face up to the facts of Warface’s release first.

      • caddyB says:

        You shouldn’t take anything they say at face value.

        • IshtarGate says:

          In all likelihood, this idea will not penetrate the sur-face of the industry.

          • ulix says:

            If this F2P shit would remain just one face-t of their business, I’d be okay with this.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Maybe they’re just being facetious.

  7. Nighthood says:

    EA are getting quite good at this “free to play” thing, aren’t they? For “good at” read “hilariously over-reliant upon”.

  8. Skystrider says:

    So I guess us single-player only offline gamers like myself just don’t exist anymore then, eh? Well, if Crytek won’t cater to me in the future, I can only wish them the best and farewell. A sad departure to say for sure.

    Oh well.

    • wodin says:

      Dead as dishwater my friend…dead as dishwater…a very sad day for gamers like me who grew up on single player games.

      Curse the multiplayer game..

      • The Malkavian Bear says:

        What is dead may never die.

        Its a shame they are dumping SP, but at-least this is one Crytek game which doesn’t include stupid monsters/aliens.

        • Dominic White says:

          It does feature regular super-science mech and power-armored bosses with huge health bars, though, which I’m sure people will complain about because it’s an enemy type beyond ‘Man With Gun’, and can’t be killed with one headshot.

          • The Malkavian Bear says:

            As long as they are implemented well it should be all good.

        • roryok says:

          we should adopt that mantra for the whole “PC gaming is dead” thing

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      It’s because you single player gamers are all a bunch of pirates

      • wodin says:

        Said in jest or ironically fair enough, if you actually meant that shame on you.

        • TechnicalBen says:

          It’s literal. All PC gamers sit on big sailing ships in the crows nest playing SP games while flying the scull and cross bones flag. We also have peg legs and parrots on our shoulders.

  9. BobbleHat says:

    Ah Crytek, I had such high hopes for you guys. Back when the first Crysis was out and was a breath of fresh air from scripted corridor shooters, I thought you were going to be the company that pushed mainstream FPSs into new and exciting territory. F2P Manshoots wasn’t what I was thinking.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      >I thought you were going to be the company that pushed mainstream FPSs into new and exciting territory

      Suggest you transfer your hopes and monies to the likes of Arkane Studios, Bethsda, Irrational, Obsidian.

      • Apples says:

        Bethesda? Exactly what exciting and boundary-pushing FPS did they make?

        • Salt says:

          They started the whole Bows Are Super Cool thing. The biggest innovation in man-shooting for years.

        • Lars Westergren says:

          Not a great fan of the writing in Fallout 3, but it did bring more RPG into FPSes than is customary. Also, the are the publishers of Arkane’s Dishonored.

          • Malk_Content says:

            Wrong way round, they brought more FPS into RPGs than is customary. Borderlands is a game that brought more RPG into FPS.

        • DazedByTheHaze says:

          They bought idSoftware and SplashDamage … too bad idSoftware only produces shinyshiny-tech enignes instead of gameplay-engines like the first 3 Quake where. Oh and they build rockets… so now Bethesda can explore space and SplashDamage tries it’s best to fit some gameplay into the idTech engines… and fails. idTech 4 is on a gameplay level of the UnrealEngine … I mean, Tribes:Ascend for example would feel the same crappy way on idTech like it does now on UnrealTech. I just wrote a sentence where id and EPIC are on the same quaility level. My former self from 10 years ago will kill me in my sleep. Rocket jump right on my sleepy face…

        • NathanH says:

          I imagine that Bethesda will make an open-world game which is more of a shooter than an action-RPG eventually.

  10. frightlever says:

    Ironic that a dread fear of piracy (oooh, a pun) is turning companies from saying “look at all these people downloading our game for free” with a sadface to saying it with a smiley face.

    • Vorphalack says:

      Cannot dislodge from brain the image of some suits office with the poster ”A free to play is just a piracy turned upside down”.

  11. sneetch says:

    I think that the F2P shooter space will fill up quickly. These games are designed as time sponges to get people to pay to unlock things rather than just play to unlock them if I’m paying for my unlocks in Tribes Ascend I don’t see myself bothering with Cryfacewar II.

  12. Flukie says:

    People turned off by free to play need only to play or at least appreciate League of Legends. That game doesn’t do anything wrong and feels feature rich despite being completely free to play.

    Tribes also is quite strong but misses the mark a fair bit by having way too much of a grind.

    Planetside 2 seems like its going to be very similar to League of Legends model.

    • nizzie says:

      I don’t think League of Legends is a good example. It’s alright, but every game that tries to sell content to you is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. I’m a huge World of Tanks fan, but I really can’t justify the model that allows players to pay for premium tanks and better gold ammunition. I’m somewhat okay with ‘less grind’ consumables (although I’m afraid that this might temp developers into making their games more grindy in the first place). In an ideal model players would pay only for cosmetical items and character customization. Planetside 2 seems to be going down that road.

      • Flappybat says:

        The grind in WOT is harsh as hell once you get past the first few tiers, the match making punishes being in a lower tier tank. You barely break on money in high tier tanks unless you are paying the subscription and the prices for premium tanks are a joke.

    • malkav11 says:

      It’s not the free to play model that’s turning me off. It’s the implication that they’re only going to make multiplayer (or best case scenario always-online singleplayer, which isn’t much better) shooters from now on instead of something I would actually play.

      • PopeJamal says:

        Same here. I’m good enough at competitive manshooting at this point, and I don’t think continuing to work at it will make anyone happy.

    • Vorphalack says:

      Something to consider with LoL is that Riots FTP model is getting progressively worse with each new champion they release. It’s nothing to do with each new champion being a little bit OP (as we can ban them), it’s more to do with lack of choice for players who don’t buy champions with money. I stopped playing in the end as the rate of new champions was simply out growing my limited selection, so counter picking became harder every patch to the point where I felt at a disadvantage.

  13. MeestaNob says:

    Piracy is killing the – oh.

  14. Dominic White says:

    So, Crytek effectively give the finger to insane and demanding publishers like EA and go independent, focusing entirely on lower-budget games that they can build on their own terms, and nobody is happy? Yep, RPS comment threads continue to not surprise.

    • Mo says:

      I clicked through to the comments specifically to find the “Well Crytek games have gone downhill anyway, AND ALSO BECAUSE OF CONSOLES!!!” (aka the No, We’re Breaking Up With You response).

    • Secundus says:

      crytek gave the finger to publishers to make free2play shooters. thats not an improvement

    • UncleLou says:

      With F2P, I associate “online only”, which is also what Crytek have pretty much confirmed. As I greatly enjoyed both Far Cry and Crysis 1, and Crytek were one of the remaining few who offered meaty single-player games with sandbox-like qualities, and Idon’t play manshoots online anymore, I think I am allowed to find this move not all too great.

    • Dominic White says:

      Warface may not be single-player, but it’s very co-op focused. And it’s a very good, very polished team FPS that doesn’t rely on massive setpieces or cutscenes.

      No QTE’s, no walking slowly while being told what to do (even the helicopter landing sections let you shoot out the windows), none of the things that usually get in the way in a singleplayer game these days.

      • vodka and cookies says:

        RPS seems to be taking this with a bit more understanding compared to other places Eurogamer is positively frothing at the mouth.

        I dont see it as a big deal either, TF2, Tribes Ascend are all great FTP games, but their is a sort of a hardcore fanboy out there who love to moan about FTP games, even though they probably never played any of them and just hear second hand complaints and parrot those.

        The other contentious issue will be single players games, that will be up to Crytek to decide if they are still doing those.

        • Bork Titflopsen says:

          I think a lot of it is to do with people directly linking anything f2p either to grindy, shoddy quality, pay2win mmo’s or facebook games. And we all know that even though nearly all the worlds information is at the tip of your fingers nobody will ever bother to look things up.

          Anyway, I’m excited for this game. It seems like a quick, fun shooter. Let’s hope their shop is set up properly.

    • Brun says:

      They did it for the wrong reasons (i.e. because they had a temper tantrum about piracy and then console sales didn’t bail them out). That’s why no one is happy.

      • Dominic White says:

        I think Crysis 1 & 2 did quite well, despite moaning from the peanut gallery. I’d imagine that Warface has just done better, at least to a degree that Crytek think that they’d be better off as an independent studio rather than being tied to EA.

  15. Durkonkell says:

    Well, this is rather silly.

    Developers do this sort of thing all the time. It’s like when WoW became a massive success, lots of developers thought “screw making [insert other genre], let’s all make MMOs! FOREVER!”

    What they failed to realise is that if every publisher starts churning out MMOs at the fastest possible rate, you’re only ever going to get a very tiny slice of the pie that everyone’s now competing fiercely for (see also: All non-WoW MMOs). This is a spectacular case of a developer failing to pay attention to history, and failing to understand the people they want to sell games to.

    Instead of “Everyone on the planet subscribes to WoW! We’ll only make MMOs from now on”, it’s “TF2 is making far more money now than when they charged for it! We’ll only make F2P multiplayer shooters from now on”. Shortly we’ll be swimming in F2P shooters, and each one will only have 3 people playing it. Apart from TF2 which’ll have 12.7 billion.

    Pay attention developers! I like a bit of TF2, and I play WoW, but I also play lots of RPGs, single player FPS, strategy games of various types, action-adventures and… more or less everything else, really. I recently decided to play through Beyond Good and Evil again. I COULD be playing TF2 or WoW, but I’m not, because I like other types of games too. Instead of trying to dislodge the incredibly successful market leaders with existing very loyal communities, maybe you could make other types of games instead?

    • Torgen says:

      But if Blizzard had not decided to try and knock out very successful market leader Everquest, we’d all still be playing Everquest. WoW was actually made during the first glut of MMOs that were trying to get some of the Everquest market.

      • Durkonkell says:

        And Blizzard were lucky as hell. Who has the luck or skill necessary to knock off WoW? It seems more likely that WoW will kill itself eventually than it does that a competitor will take its market share.

        I have a personal bias in this story, admittedly. Instead of developing and releasing KOTOR 3 as a single-player RPG (which should have been enormously successful unless my understanding of the universe is effectively broken), BioWare decided to take on the WoW juggernaut with TOR. I wanted KOTOR 3 and would’ve paid unreasonable amounts of money for it. After playing quite a bit of TOR… I don’t really want that.

        If there’s another game set in the Crysis universe after Crysis 3 (and developed by Crytek), it’ll be multiplayer only. I think I played about an hour of multiplayer in the first game. I don’t want that, either.

    • Brun says:

      The MMO space is really a special case, due to the constantly-expanded nature of MMOs like WoW. New ones have a very difficult time carving out a space for themselves because the predecessors (like WoW) are already X patches/expansions/content tiers ahead. To topple WoW (back when that might have still been possible), a developer would have had to target the amount of content and polish in their game to whatever WoW would have at the time the new game was released – otherwise no one would stick around past the first couple of months. This is exactly what we saw with SWTOR.

      I also think that, while luck was a huge part of WoW’s success, it came along with really impeccable timing. The market was absolutely ready for an accessible MMORPG, which is exactly what WoW provided – in many ways, Blizzard contributed to the start of the accessibility trend that we saw throughout the mid- to late 2000’s and continue to see today.

      • wuwul says:

        Your argument is bullshit, because all the content except the latest tier in WoW is obsolete, and could as well not be there.

        The problem is that after WoW nobody managed to both be able to innovate enough to make the trouble of switching from WoW worthwhile, and also secure the huge funding needed to create a credible competitor.

        Also, most have made basic mistakes like failing to include a region-wide dungeon finder, UI customization and at least 10-15 hard raid bosses on launch.

        • Snakejuice says:

          To be fair, WoW didn’t get a dungeon finder until many years after release, before that the only way to play PUGs was to LFG in chat and walk to the dungeon or have 2 people already at the dungeon stone teleport you there.

          Also the dungeon mobs where hard enough that you HAD to use lots of CC, even in the leveling content. Oh the sweet memories.. :)

  16. Mr. Mister says:

    So it’s implycit that Crysis 3 will end the Cryisis series.

  17. Jimbo says:

    Presumably he meant ‘new bread of games’.

  18. GallonOfAlan says:


  19. Maldomel says:

    Homefront 2? Is that a joke?

  20. bobster says:

  21. HisMastersVoice says:

    Don’t see a problem here. Crytek clearly isn’t interested in making good single player games any more, so rather than tantalizing us with promises of another Crysis they should just go full retard on the F2P front and let us forget about them.

    And it doesn’t even have to end bad, just look at the very promising Hawken, with it’s stunning graphics and riot fun gameplay. Or Planetside 2.

  22. Shooop says:

    It is a massive success in Russia, but is this really a sound business strategy?

    The game hasn’t even seen release in North America and Europe yet. A little early to declare it was such a great idea you’re going to do it all the time isn’t it?

    That said, anyone actually play the game?

  23. Gunsmith says:

    if the f2p thing was purely to support the development of other titles then id say sure do it, but really? f2p only? madness i say.

  24. jhng says:

    I’ve been playing around with the Onlive lately and if it wasn’t for my very-slightly-too-slow rural internet connection I’d be seriously considering it as a potential preferred choice for some new titles. I can certainly envisage a future where AAA games are released on cloud-based systems and monetised through a spotify model like the Onlive Playpack rather than having each game individually priced.

    I think this kind of aggregated ‘tv licence’ pricing would be a better slant on F2P than the ‘guns and outfits’ model. The reason being that it wouldn’t compromise the development of strong single-player offerings as much. On the ‘guns and outfits’ model, in order to drive the microtransaction economy I think you really have to have the sort of long-term community that is driven by people investing socially in games — hence it all has to be about multiplayer.

    This makes me sad because as a professional miserable old git, I feel no need for other people in most games and would find it very stressful if all my gaming had to be a social/multi experience (in fact, I’d probably just stick to books instead). It’s also not necessarily sound business sense — social-driven gaming models may be generating an economic surge in the gaming industry at the moment but this could change quite quickly if new social media models emerge and suck the farmvillistas away from gaming. If that happens, the gaming industry may regret abandoning the geekier darkened-room brigade which were its original core constituency (I am aware that this is a generalisation).

  25. Jamesworkshop says:

    Well This is certainly unexpected, a total comitment to F2P online with so far no major successes in the business.

    I do love gamers responses sometimes, ooh look at PC and all the different ideas, micro-transactions, subscriptions, etc that are available, this makes the PC the best platform ever….
    Then when somebody does it

    “I never asked for this”

  26. Brun says:

    I guess Yerli still has his complex about piracy. Good riddance.

  27. says:

    Well, you can’t steal what’s free, so…

    …take THAT, pirates!

    • RegisteredUser says:

      You may be saying this jokingly, but given that the guy has a massive ego and at times came across quite a dick on that topic, I would not be one inch surprised if this was a huge part of their reasoning.
      Especially for the online-only game model.

  28. Vinraith says:

    Game developer announces own future irrelevance, film at 11.

  29. Ravenger says:

    Doesn’t this mean that Crytek is abandoning console development to concentrate on PC? AFAIK you don’t get free-to-play microtransaction based games on consoles.

    So I guess chasing the console dollar didn’t work out too well for them. They ended up alienating their core audience on the PC whilst failing to attract the huge sales necessary to sustain high budget console develpment.

    • Dominic White says:

      You do, actually. There’s a few on the PS3 already (DC Universe Online, Dust 514 soon, etc). Microsoft is against the idea because they want a cut of every transaction, and most studios aren’t cool with that. It’s definitely slowly rolling out on non-desktop systems..

  30. Chandos says:

    Ironically Yerli wants to move to F2P because he feels that currently “DLCs and premium services and whatnot, it’s literally milking the customers to death.” (source:

    Naturally the solution is a business model where customers are brought only to the brink of death and kept there in a vegetative state so devs can keep harvesting their blood.

  31. Lizarmi00 says:

    I think F2P can have future, but not pay for win.

    The best way would be in game publicity. One of the best exemples that come to my mind is the film blade runner. But only if they don’t over do it and is well placed well place.

    They also put publicity in the loading screen. And in special gifts, for example they could send a e-mails with a free item, that could not be over power, should rather have normal stats but should be cool. Other example for gifts would be you buy a real thing which come with a code that gives a gift, that would be better for heap stuff like a cinema ticket, because if it is expensive stuff like a gaming mouse the campany would demand over power gifts.

    Other thing that could be done is tournaments sponsored. They could have 2 types of tournements, in game and off game. Off game tournements could be some thing like From Software done, ask the community to draw a shield and the winner will have his shield in the game and also a gift.

    Also for this method to work the game need to have lots of players, because the companies would only pay enough to maintain the game if they know that publicity have a vast audience. And to have lots of players the game need to be just as good as a paid game.

    And if the game has single player mode that would bring the gamers that don’t play multiplayer. Also have the bonus that almost all players play at least one time the campaign and single player could have in game publicity the same way and have the plus that is cheaper to maintain because only need fraction of the server and bandwidth that is need to multiplayer, well at least I think it would only be necessary when loading the game check if the publicity as change since the last loading and if the player don’t delete it.

  32. ichigo2862 says:

    I think this might work better for them at preventing piracy than any DRM they could think of. Why pirate when you can download the legit client for free?

    • LionsPhil says:

      It moves the problem to pirating the unlocks, e.g. by gaming the drop system or hacking the unlock database.

  33. Shortwave says:


  34. namuol says:

    So I can safely ignore any future news about Crytek. Noted.

  35. Chaz says:

    This is it, the begining of the end. The end of days, the final years before the big implosion.

    With every body going “free” to play and when Microsoft and Sony put out their new “games” consoles. Sorry, all sing all dancing media centers that can also play a few games and that spew endless adverts at us in between levels; because you know, that’s what the customer really really wants, honest. They will then realise that the games playing public actually quite liked paying £30 for a game and having it all there in one whole piece and not have to bother with a seemingly endless stream of micro transactions (Not that I find anything particularly “micro” about a £5 transaction). Sony and Microsoft might also realise that we also quite liked it when our games consoles were dedicated to just that, and were on the whole AD FREE. This will only happen of course moments before the big implosion, by which time it will be too late. They will end up being sucked up through a hole by their own corporate greed.

    I think maybe, that will be a good thing.

  36. Mokes says:

    Wait! You guys own Free Radical! What about Timesplitters, you bastards?!