The Future for Crytek is High-End Free-To-Play Titles

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because F2P is the future of gaming industry profits. Think about this: We'll let you play the game for free, however if you want to advance in the game or get better weapons you'll have to pay. SO either you can spend hours and hours to level your character or unlock items/weapons, you pay a premium in order to advance to a next level or get newer items/weapons.
 
Can’t believe what I’m reading. Is it true, is it., is it really true PC has (long overdue) been given recognition it deserves.

Neo must have saved us from the matrix 😱

Edit; I do mean the 'PC exclusive aspect of newer Crytek games' i do not agree with the way they’re headed with their f2p strategy -_-
 
Crytek, push ur game title to use up Nvidia/AMD GPU and as well as Intel CPU with state of art graphics + AI without compromise gameplay quality. I am pretty sure these 3 companies are happy to subsidized/sponsor ur game without question.
 
[citation][nom]amuffin[/nom]Because F2P is the future of gaming industry profits. Think about this: We'll let you play the game for free, however if you want to advance in the game or get better weapons you'll have to pay. SO either you can spend hours and hours to level your character or unlock items/weapons, you pay a premium in order to advance to a next level or get newer items/weapons.[/citation]

OR: If you don't pay, you don't get to trade or craft hats.
 

tumblr_lduofmXDwd1qzhteao1_500.jpg
 
free-to-play games have a long shelve life before they pump out the next one. like DLC. making games now a days is expensive and right now publishers are trying out new methods to generated more money. the guys from extra credit touch this topic awhile back in one of their episodes.
 
While I think the F2P model is innovative I also believe it could lead to the consumer paying more for the same video game experience by having to spend money to get good gear, level, and so on.

I'd rather have the game be all encompassing to begin with and not have to worry about shelling out $5 here and $5 there every time I do something new in the game.
 
"As is evident in Warface, our approach is to ensure the best quality, console game quality,"

Since when console quality is a best quality? From as long as I can remember it always meant worst.
 
[citation][nom]s3anister[/nom]While I think the F2P model is innovative I also believe it could lead to the consumer paying more for the same video game experience by having to spend money to get good gear, level, and so on.I'd rather have the game be all encompassing to begin with and not have to worry about shelling out $5 here and $5 there every time I do something new in the game.[/citation]

Human psychology studies shows that people are more comfortable shelling out $5s every once in a while rather than suppose $80, even though the $5s eventually add up to far beyond $80. F2P and the DLCs concept make an excellent usage of our flaws.
 
There is one BIG benefit to F2P for the average gamer: No more shelling out $60 upfront on a game that turns out to be horrible. Now, you only pay when you know the game is good, and you can see value in shelling out the $5 for upgrades. In other words, the company has to provide real value to make money from you. Of course, for a really good game, the company can then ask players for much more than a $60 upfront fee - since they'll be willing to pay.
 
"As is evident in Warface, our approach is to ensure the best quality, console game quality,"
Click to expand...

What a joke.

Between this type of attitude and the whole F2P model it's no wonder I'm becoming increasingly bored with gaming. The whole industry is turning to garbage.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Human psychology studies shows that people are more comfortable shelling out $5s every once in a while rather than suppose $80, even though the $5s eventually add up to far beyond $80. F2P and the DLCs concept make an excellent usage of our flaws.[/citation]

That just proves that most people are ignorant fools and incompetent at managing their own money. Its a sad state of affairs really.
 
"While Blizzard is slapping customers with a $60 price tag and DRM that requires an internet connection to play a single-player campaign..." Crytek plans to make double that per customer because F2P often costs more than an upfront flat rate in other games. LoL is a prime example, F2P.... but people frequently spend hundreds of dollars on it. I really dislike this "F2P" and DLC filled era of milking me.
 
Actually Crytek really didn't have a choice but to go this route. To max out Crysis (ultra-high, full aa, etc) AND get a consistent 60 fps, you need a gtx 690 or high-end cards in Sli or Cfx. That's why Crysis was more of a tech demo than anything else, that and it's run-of-the-mill gameplay. Don't know if you guys remember a game from '98 called Trespasser, the Jurassic Park game that was meant to "revolutionize PC gaming". When it was released, it was in the same boat. Not even the fastest systems could run it. That, coupled with its numerous bugs and glitches made the game a disaster, even though it had some amazing innovations. Also, Cevat's statement about being next gen ready two years ago is utter nonsense. If he thinks that developers that have been around for years (Epic, Activision, etc) with innumerable game development experience can't close that gap in a short amount of time, he's out of his mind.
 
Free to play (F2P) or "freemium" means you don't get to see the price upfront. Deceptive pricing or "price hiding" it should be called. I would really rather be done with the unpleasant aspect of "paying", upfront, then be able to enjoy my game experience without having to think of things such as money.
 
Current route that games are going for today are either; free to play or pay to play with DLC.
Both has bads and goods. Pay to play you may get most of the content but these days devs arent able
to deliver a very polished product. The more complex a product is more likely it will ship as is for buyers to QA for them. There is also other reasons that devs run into when during process; hence some features maybe taking out but later brought back in form of DLC. P2p with DLC = QA & milking. Free to play experience vary so much it depends on devs/pub. It can range from balanced play to tiered, milking to heavy milking, low population to heavy population, etc. Free to play does give devs more flexibility on their products. No doubt that F2p does bring in more for the devs then
P2p. Money tends to be spent more faster when it is asked in a low amount versus a high amount.
Depending on how its set up; whats free and whats not, how much to charge, items of interest and
constant new items for sale.
 
[citation][nom]TheRabidDeer[/nom]"While Blizzard is slapping customers with a $60 price tag and DRM that requires an internet connection to play a single-player campaign..." Crytek plans to make double that per customer because F2P often costs more than an upfront flat rate in other games. LoL is a prime example, F2P.... but people frequently spend hundreds of dollars on it. I really dislike this "F2P" and DLC filled era of milking me.[/citation]plenty of FREE MMO exist for this reason as well. they work, it also work on valve's team fortress 2. I probably think blizzard and EA will be the last company that realize this kind of business model. They dont seems to believe wall-mart business model(selling cheap in huge volume) works all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom