Sections

Sony & Microsoft face next-gen struggle unless they support free-to-play – Crytek

Tuesday, 28th August 2012 11:13 GMT By Dave Cook

Crytek founder Cevat Yerli has stated that both Microsoft and Sony will struggle unless they embrace the free-to-play genre going into the next generation of console hardware.

Speaking with Eurogamer Yerli explained that Sony and Microsoft need support F2P titles.

“I hope for them that they do,” Yerli said, “If they don’t then it’s going to be a tough time for them. It’s quite a challenge for those companies logically because they rely so heavily on retail to sell the hardware and to sell the games where the margin for retail really is.”

“If they would forgo their entire retail business and go digital free-to-play, then they would not be selling any more Xboxes as well. There’s a chicken and egg thing there. And they have to make radical calls.”

However, Yerli exclaimed that his own company Crytek is approaching free-to-play correctly, “We know that free-to-play games have a bad image. They have a bad reputation – it’s pay to win, it’s low quality. I completely get that, but we are making free-to-play that’s high quality. It’s CryEngine 3, it’s a big investment.”

Crytek’s first foray into the F2P market is the shooter Warface, currently in development at Crytek Kiev. Check out the full Eurogamer interview here.

What do you think about F2P on consoles going into the next generation? Does it appeal to you, is it essential? Let us know below.

Latest

14 Comments

  1. Ali

    He wanted to say, “unless Sony/MS support Free to Play, CryTek would struggle hard to the point it might go bankrupt”

    Seriously, none of their games deserved a full new retailer release price.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. monkeygourmet

    Developer who just started making F2P games insisting new hardware manufacturers support them!!!

    Shocking news!!! :)

    What a joke, just make some good games! F2P will be the bane of next gen gaming…

    Sooooo much worse than DLC or digital only.

    It effectively ruins online gaming because people tend to pay for better weapons etc… Thus ruining completion.

    Also it turns games into stealth subscription services (which all major titles want to become).

    Soon every game AAA will have some kind of subscription based content. Season pass, elite tier etc…

    Sad days for gaming really…

    #2 2 years ago
  3. The_Red

    I really, REALLY hate the free-to-play model. While games like Tribes Ascend and to some degree LoL are doing it right (Hopefully Hawken will join them soon), I prefer to pay for my game once and for all at the start. That’s why we have freaking demos.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. freedoms_stain

    @2 “It effectively ruins online gaming because people tend to pay for better weapons etc… Thus ruining completion.” Only in a shit F2P model. If a game is doing that, don’t play it. There are plenty with fair models.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. KrazyKraut

    F2P is maybe good, but over-rated.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. DrDamn

    Sony already do support the F2P model. Balance in the model is key, and quite tricky. A bit like DLC publishers will take a while to sort out what works and what doesn’t. Think we’ll have a fair bit of horse armour before it’s largely accepted though.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Moonwalker1982

    All this talk about free 2 play and i haven’t played a single game yet. I’m good with how consoles are now…to be honest.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Christopher Jack

    Playing to unlock gives me a purpose to try harder. It was what helped make Time Splitters 2 awesome(imo). I enjoy LoL & admit that I’ve bought a dozen or so skins & champs but none of that gave me an unfair advantage as each champion is about balanced & skins are purely cosmetic. It’s a choice to buy skins & you can unlock every sub 6300 Influence Points (IP) champion by the time you’re level 30. What does effect champion performance are runes but runes can’t be bought with cash, only IP which is earned by playing.

    So long as F2P models don’t provide people who CHOOSE to pay with cash an unfair advantage. Alternatives to current characters, etc. are fine, so long as they aren’t over powered- but that can come down to perspective in a game like LoL. Some champs are indeed unbalanced but none have an automatic advantage against every single other champ.

    @6, Pretty much. Entirely about balance. I mean half of them do offer unfair advantages, but so do certain retail games- they provide slightly better weapons or whatever only if you pay extra or preorder or some bs.

    F2P doesn’t deserve as much criticism as it receives. I can understand why many gaming traditionalist are agitated, but it’s not going to ruin gaming as you know it, I assure you.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. OlderGamer

    F2P isn’t the issue.

    This is an issue of game pricing.

    I have said it a bit here and there the current biz model for consoles is out dated and flaging behind. This gen games cost 60usd, but when you add in (often day one DLC) that price turns into 75usd to 90usd, or more. CoD with four map packs costs 60 + 15 +15 + 15 +15 = 120usd.

    Trip A games just plan cost too much.

    I don’t know if F2P is the answer tho. How do they balance value against profit? A challange to say the lest.

    And I do wonder what games will retail for on the Next MS/Sony systems.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Erthazus

    The best F2P models right now is in World of Tanks or Tribes:Ascend.

    and they are super successfull.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. DrDamn

    @8
    F2P does give publishers yet another way to mess a game up mind. Fantastic game could be messed up badly by poor F2P implementation.

    @9
    Balance is key. Can see some pubs losing a lot of money on some titles. Though it does give more scope to prototype stuff. I.e. develop a title without the content a full retail release would have and if the game is a F2P success then develop more.

    “And I do wonder what games will retail for on the Next MS/Sony systems.”

    Not sure about the US but here in the UK we have a RRP of ~£50 for most retail games. When a new console releases the price you actually pay in a shop is very close to that. As a generation goes on then prices go down getting closer to just under £40 for a new release – though the RRP remains £50. This has happened the last couple of generations.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. keymouse

    Haha, Yerli seems to have stated that he is a moron in an alternate way. It’s like me telling Mcdonalds that they need to sell tacos or else they will go under. Or, it’s like me telling another how to raise their child. – I have no place telling another business what they should be doing to stray from financial problems, as do developers/publishers. Maybe Yerli and Jade Raymond should get together and make games with their not-so-bright mentality. On one hand you have a developer telling console companies what they are doing “wrong”. And then you have Jade; blaming the customers, who buy Ubi’s products, for ruining games.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. rhetoricmonkey

    How do you balance profits?

    #13 2 years ago
  14. NocturnalB

    @2 and 3

    I agree. F2P is ok in certain cases, but i don’t see it or want it going mass standard. Like you said Red I prefer paying for my disk. I personally don’t want to be paying $120 a game next gen.

    #14 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.