Once Crysis 3 is Done, Crytek will be Working on Nothing but Free-to-Play Games

Illustration for article titled Once emCrysis 3/em is Done, Crytek will be Working on Nothing but Free-to-Play Games

Crytek is building Warface, the studio's first freemium shooter, shown recently at E3. It's also going to deliver Crysis 3, a more traditional FPS, sometime in 2013. Whenever the studio finishes off its current committments, CEO Cevat Yerli told VideoGamer.com, it will be developing free-to-play games only.

Advertisement

Yerli considers DLC and premium gaming services, both of which Crysis 3 publisher Electronic Arts is very fond, to be "milking customers to death."

"Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience," he said to VideoGamer.com.

Advertisement

"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."

Yerli says top-flight games Crytek produces still require a $10 to $30 million budget, they'll just get an entry price point of, oh, zero dollars. Obviously, they'll be monetized through the sale of upgraded items. Is this really milking consumers any less? More of his thoughts on freemium model at the link below.

Crytek: All our future games will be free-to-play [VideoGamer.com]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

staindgrey
staindgrey

Honestly, I'm not a fan of F2P, but that's just the old geezer coming out of me. I want my box, my midnight release, my player's manual... I'm a collector just as much as I am a player. F2P doesn't feel like "gaming" to me; it's more social funsies than anything.

But what I don't understand is why every company feels its game is worth $60. I hate that that's the accepted price point (Nintendo aside) and few, if any, ever stray from it. Some games just aren't worth $60, and it shows. No one can possibly convince me that Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City got the same budget as Resident Evil 5, yet the former was priced the same as the latter WITH half the game reserved for paid DLC (RE5's batch of DLC, save Versus, came out a whole year after RE5's release; RE:ORC's DLC all came out within 2 months of release). I feel like people wouldn't be nearly as harsh on the game if the cost of entry were simply lowered to the actual value of the experience, rather than depending upon blind fanboy consumers coughing up $60-80 on launch day then dropping the retail price a couple months later.

One of my favorite games this generation, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, wasn't worth $60. It was too short with not enough replay value to justify $60. I sure as hell enjoyed it— but I bought it for $15. Had the initial price been $30-40 brand new day one, I would've been much more likely to give it a chance, but instead I bought the game LONG after a sale was really relevant to the developer or publisher or the fate of the IP.

I guess all I'm saying is that F2P doesn't have to be the way; just vary your price points and budgets accordingly. Not everything is a AAA title; publishers need to stop kidding themselves with some of these.