Post Comment - Blue's News

Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play

[Jun 08, 2012, 9:29 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

Crytek CEO tells Videogamer.com that Crytek is moving towards developing only free-to-play games. "Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience," he told them at E3. "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."

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

67.

Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play

Jun 9, 2012, 21:22

Prez

Conversely, the best single-player games are the ones that focus exclusively on single-player. If you're going to make a single-player game, make it single-player-only. If you're going to make a multiplayer game, make it multiplayer-only. When you try to cater to both, you end up satisfying neither.

I think back to the famous PC Gamer interview in which one of the designers of Quake 4 (I think it was Willits but I can't remember) was asked why they were bothering with a singleplayer portion for Quake 4 when Quake 3 was so popular as a mp-only game. His answer was that by a huge margin, Quake 2 was their biggest seller, and data they collected from their players proved that this was because the vast majority of gamers played it in singleplayer. Also, Epic revealed something around 90% of UT3 players never played online at all. I can easily see that myself - I think I may have gone online once for about 20 minutes. Playing against bots was by far the preferred mode of choice for almost everyone. Even Quake 4's multiplayer was canned for not having the option to play against bots.

The point is, evidence suggests that even games that are viewed as largely multiplayer games but have a dedicated singleplayer portion are more successful as singleplayer games. Admittedly these are older games, and I don't have any data for current generation games, but I know for me personally if I ever buy a Call of Duty game again, it will be for about 5 to 7 bucks tops for when I'm in the mood for some mindless terrorist whack-a-mole in the super-short singleplayer portions. I'll never touch the multiplayer side.

Developers WANT us to only want multiplayer games for a number of reasons - the big ones being no tricky AI to code and rendering piracy a non-issue - but I am not so sure that jives with what the majority of gamers want.




Prez on Soundclick http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=604888

Subject

Comment [quote="Prez"Jun 9, 2012, 21:22]q[Conversely, the best single-player games are the ones that focus exclusively on single-player. If you're going to make a single-player game, make it single-player-only. If you're going to make a multiplayer game, make it multiplayer-only. When you try to cater to both, you end up satisfying neither. ]q I think back to the famous PC Gamer interview in which one of the designers of Quake 4 (I think it was Willits but I can't remember) was asked why they were bothering with a singleplayer portion for Quake 4 when Quake 3 was so popular as a mp-only game. His answer was that by a huge margin, Quake 2 was their biggest seller, and data they collected from their players proved that this was because the vast majority of gamers played it in singleplayer. Also, Epic revealed something around 90% of UT3 players never played online at all. I can easily see that myself - I think I may have gone online once for about 20 minutes. Playing against bots was by far the preferred mode of choice for almost everyone. Even Quake 4's multiplayer was canned for not having the option to play against bots. The point is, evidence suggests that even games that are viewed as largely multiplayer games but have a dedicated singleplayer portion are more successful as singleplayer games. Admittedly these are older games, and I don't have any data for current generation games, but I know for me personally if I ever buy a Call of Duty game again, it will be for about 5 to 7 bucks tops for when I'm in the mood for some mindless terrorist whack-a-mole in the super-short singleplayer portions. I'll never touch the multiplayer side. Developers WANT us to only want multiplayer games for a number of reasons - the big ones being no tricky AI to code and rendering piracy a non-issue - but I am not so sure that jives with what the majority of gamers want. [/quote]

;) :( :o %) :) :| ;P X| :D More

If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.

Email me when this topic is updated.

Special Codes

b[bold text]b
i[italic text]i
u[underline text]u
-[~~strikethrough text~~]-
c[code text]c
+[bullet point]+
q[quote text (indented)]q
[quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
[url=Link]text[/url]
r{red text}r
g{green text}g
b{blue text}b
m{maroon text}m
s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.