Just a few weeks after Crytek saying that they are going free-to-play in the future, now Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli reinforces the idea and states that the platform holders just aren’t willing to accept digital-only and free-to-play online games.
(Crytek, Microsoft Game Studios, Nintendo, PC, PS3, Sony, Warface, Wii, Wii U, Xbox 360)
Doubt it. Current generation consoles don't make it easy for F2P games to coexist. Playstation 3 only has one (with another on the way I think) while the other two sit around with zip.
However, I heard the Wii U's infrastructure is more open and supports F2P. I'll be darned if the other two don't follow suit with their upcoming consoles and corresponding network upgrades.
I guess it just takes one of them to take the risk (and reap the rewards) and the others will immediately jump aboard.
However, since the PS3 (for example) has a couple of F2P games, rejecting Warface doesn't seem like a sensible option, but we'll see how things turn out.
Seems like a no-brainer for me. Throw some free games to your audience to get them involved with the network and maybe they'll get more conventional games later.
For example, if Wii U got the non-vanilla version of TF2, I would be quite pleased.
Sony accept F2P more than even the 2 corporations.
Nintendo had that E3 Ghost Recon Online Presentation
MS had a few MMO titles(excluding ff11) in the works but most dev would just trash the 360 development. Beside MS would most likely require XBL Gold if there was any F2P mmos coming to the 360 so truthfully it wouldn't be F2P.
this article needs research. I can play DC Universe online from my PS3 right now for free, and Dust 514 is also free to play, so why would Crytek have problems when they aren't even going to be the first F2P game on the PS3?
Crytek are probably saying this because none of the companies want to distribute the game for free, so even if it is free to play, it would take up space on the PS Store and XBLM, and it would take up bandwidth. And Sony charge publishers for the bandwidth usage of their games, and Microsoft do a similar thing I believe in some way.
ALL games F2P @ the same time and you'll see just a bunch survive, everyone else will be f@*ed and then blame on something else and jump to another fad...
Microsoft already announced Ascend which is going to be their first F2P game. I recall that Joyride was also supposed to be F2P, but unfortunately they turned it to a Kinect game (and then released the sequel as a regular arcade game).
Sorry but, if you are required to pay for Live Gold in order to access the online to play the f2p game, then it's not f2p. Free to play means that it costs you literally nothing to play the game, which will NEVER happen on a Microsoft console.
Yep, that's what I'm saying. There have also been countless F2P games expected to hit the consoles like Huxley and Conan, and eventually nothing came out of it.
On the other hand, coming to think about it The X360 already supports a number of entirely f2p games - only these are not MMOs. Aegis Wing is a free game available for everyone (either Gold or Silver members), some sponsored games were also available for free in the past, and sometimes there's the occasional free table in pinballFX (which is also free to download, and you have to pay for individual tables). So I guess DragonKnight got it all wrong.
totally baseless comment from CRYTEK especially regarding Sony. like many here have said, Free Realms, DCU Online and soon Dust514, I don't see how Sony is against the idea. in fact, HOME is a F2P game too
If they rejected Warface, then they're not entirely clear on their intentions. And by having a couple of F2P games doesn't mean they want every game to be free.
Maybe they rejected Warface because they don't like Crytek. Ever thought of that? Maybe they don't want to spend bandwidth dollars on a game they don't think is worth having on PSN? There could be any number of reasons for Warface to have been rejected, Crytek is just whining.
the reason of the rejection is unclear maybe instead of using PSN, CRYTEK wants to have a total control over Warface like Konami was with MGO and their stupid Konami ID. who knows
"I've believed for about a year now that as soon as tablets can stream on to TVs, then there's no reason why you should buy a console anymore."
Smartest thing I've heard from Crytek in awhile! Too bad this is OLD News cause many Tablets and Smartphones have video out ports already allowing them to Stream to TV's, buy a $30 dongle and connect them to your TV!!
Seriously though about time the Next Gen consoles get released, Tablets will be just as powerful as The Next Gen Consoles.
Now as far as Free 2Play Crytek is right about console/Retail/hardware business model cause Sony/MS/Ninty need stores to sell their hardware.
F2p works very very well on the PC and has the PC raking in the money! Zynga, Valve, Blizzard, Nexon EACH makes over a Billion dollars yearly just on GAMES and PC gaming as a whole made over $18 Billion last year!
Consoles will incorporate more F2P and micro-transactions into their games next Gen especially with the influx of MMO's Next Gen on consoles.
Sony/MS/Ninty are gonna have to quickly change their business models to keep up with changing Tech. The PC being the Leader has already shown the world how it's done.
EA has several F2P titles with each game bringing in over $3 million a month and growing and these are not even close to being AAA titles.
@ATI Elite U just say this cause ur a PC gamer and a console hater. F2P the way Crytek means it, is OK(they mean well). But most other companies want to deceive gamers with F2P and charge the hell out of DLC after u started a gimped half made game...it is a horrible way to get gamers into the online only gaming. Just because it is too early for streaming only, they make up this stuff, so we get used to online only gaming and less ownership and not question it. They can try but i hope gamers will not fall for this deception. They can stick F2P up their *rses. This will result in segregation amongst gamers, pay to play the rest of the game, we will all be scattered and they will make loads of unjustified profits.
^ You're acting like this hasn't already happened with existing paid games.
Let's go over the elements of a typical F2P game: - Everyone can play the game - Maps and game-modes will typically be available to all, but paying members might get earlier access - Players can pay for 'boosts' which let them unlock things either instantly or faster than normal - Players can pay for exclusive cosmetic items that have little impact on gameplay, but look fancy - Players can purchase exclusive paid-only items (such as weapons if it's an FPS game) which might give the paying members an advantage in gameplay (a characteristic of 'pay-to-win' games)
Ok, now, look at Battlefield3 and its premium model. It has almost all of the traits of a F2P game, except it isn't free. (You can also purchase 'unlock kits' which will unlock items without having to level up) ... and it would appear that other games are also starting to do something similar by offering 'passes' that offer similar bonuses to players who pay more than everyone else.
Exactly what I was thinking There will be companies that will abuse the F2P model. We'll end up paying more in the long run for what would have been considered a "complete" retail version of a game.
PS3 has sever free to play games....some that most haven't even heard of There are some Japanese/Korean based ones like UNCHARTED WATERS ONLINE, and another called ANGEL ONLINE.....they are in the Japanese store.
Then of course we've got FREE REALMS, DC UNIVERSE, KILLZONE 3, and the upcoming DUST 514.
Yeah that's a good example, but will Dust514 make it's money back, the money it cost to make the game..?? -we shall see, it's not a successful idea just yet, but I guess we will see if this works..
and if this is what Gamers want.
but would they have made a better profit if the game was just a little cheaper instead of free? I can't wait to check it out, I hope the game is really good, this will be a good test of this idea of making games free to play. -if they can make it work.
That's how f2p works; There are (virtually)always limits; usually in form of purchasable "upgrades" or "premium" items... Were it just a "demo",then you would have limited options such as being limited to ONLY experiencing "warzone"(in ADDITION a level cap)
With that being said, having owned (past tense) the retail version of KZ3, by the time this released, I'd already surpass the level cap :(... however, I still chose to buy the stand alone multiplayer.
Instead of (or in addition too) the F2P model, I hope more games adopt the FNC model; where you could buy only the mode you wanted, and the cost of entry (for story mode) was only $5. I thoroughly enjoyed the story mode *best $5 ever*, only to later spend $5 more to unlock the offline versus mode...
Paying only for the modes you want is beyond awesome. For instance, anytime I've played COD, I've gone straight online and only play team deathmatch; Imagine being able to get the full team deathmatch experience for only $5... *faints*
I agree. I prefer playing on steam but both versions are always packed with passionate players who take the game seriously. Man the games be so full that I be waiting hours for an open pvp match to open.
There is cost involved for Crytek, which is what I think they are trying to avoid, when using the PSN to distribute.
Sony levy a bandwidth charge per MB/GB downloaded to the distribution company so that is restrictive in terms of F2P/Free digital release.
However, there is a way to minimise that financial impact for Crytek. Only have Sony host a small client and when downloaded diverts the user to an external host (Crytek Servers) to download the main game file set. MAG, MGS Online, Free Realms and Dust514 all do this already.
What I don't know is whether Sony charge a bandwidth levy once players have downloaded, installed and are playing the game across the PSN network.
TBH, I don't like F2P one little bit as (even though optional) the micro transactions usually amount to more than the cost of a base game and transactions are usually required to progress beyond a certain point or to remain competitive within that game. Though, it is good for gamers to have a choice.
Sony take a commission on all sales on the store. So long as your games micro-transactions run through the Playstation store and not your own service then I imagine platform holders are fine with it.
If you use your own client / service / website for the micro-transaction side of your game, however, then there's no benefit for the platform holder to allow your game to exist on their network.
I don't believe F2P games are the future though for most games / genres. Probably going to increase market share over competitive online games but I don't see much of our industry adopting a free distribution strategy.
The reason they said this is because of micro-transaction. You get most of the game for free, but they will sell you items. It is a win-win-win situation for consumers,developers, and publishers.
These guys need to stick to PCs, if they really knew about consoles and the console business theyd be putting great games on consoles instead of tapping about how great their next game will look and be. Crysis 3 will do equal or worse than Crysis 2 on consoles.
People keep saying that games like mag and dc online are f2p. they are not, you have to buy the game.
Currently the only f2p games i know of on ps are anything in ps home and the upcoming dust 514. I think there are a couple more on the horizon but nothing officially announced yet.
OMFG. DCUO has been f2p for a long time now. Jesus. Just download it from the PSN Store. You can frikkin max out every...you know what I'm not even gonna bother explaining this.
MAG is technically f2p as well from there only with a level cap. You can keep playing forever though. Every map, every mode, it stat tracks. I got the expansions free from PS Plus as well. I have it on my XMB right now.
20°
150°
30°
40°
30°
30°
Ad 
20°
However, I heard the Wii U's infrastructure is more open and supports F2P. I'll be darned if the other two don't follow suit with their upcoming consoles and corresponding network upgrades.
However, since the PS3 (for example) has a couple of F2P games, rejecting Warface doesn't seem like a sensible option, but we'll see how things turn out.
For example, if Wii U got the non-vanilla version of TF2, I would be quite pleased.
Nintendo had that E3 Ghost Recon Online Presentation
MS had a few MMO titles(excluding ff11) in the works but most dev would just trash the 360 development. Beside MS would most likely require XBL Gold if there was any F2P mmos coming to the 360 so truthfully it wouldn't be F2P.
MAG is now F2P, and I'm sure there are others.
KZ3 is not F2P. it is just a demo up to level 10, then you have to buy the game if you want to keep playing.
not the same as a Free to Play game.
For the PS Vita is Phantasy Star Online 2 by Sega.
And Mobile Suit Gundam Battle Operation for the PS3 by Namco Bandai baby!
Freemium games galore!
I recall that Joyride was also supposed to be F2P, but unfortunately they turned it to a Kinect game (and then released the sequel as a regular arcade game).
Yep, that's what I'm saying. There have also been countless F2P games expected to hit the consoles like Huxley and Conan, and eventually nothing came out of it.
On the other hand, coming to think about it The X360 already supports a number of entirely f2p games - only these are not MMOs. Aegis Wing is a free game available for everyone (either Gold or Silver members), some sponsored games were also available for free in the past, and sometimes there's the occasional free table in pinballFX (which is also free to download, and you have to pay for individual tables). So I guess DragonKnight got it all wrong.
especially regarding Sony. like many here have said, Free Realms, DCU Online and soon Dust514, I don't see how Sony is against the idea. in fact, HOME is a F2P game too
maybe instead of using PSN, CRYTEK wants to have a total control over Warface like Konami was with MGO and their stupid Konami ID. who knows
Smartest thing I've heard from Crytek in awhile! Too bad this is OLD News cause many Tablets and Smartphones have video out ports already allowing them to Stream to TV's, buy a $30 dongle and connect them to your TV!!
Seriously though about time the Next Gen consoles get released, Tablets will be just as powerful as The Next Gen Consoles.
Now as far as Free 2Play Crytek is right about console/Retail/hardware business model cause Sony/MS/Ninty need stores to sell their hardware.
F2p works very very well on the PC and has the PC raking in the money! Zynga, Valve, Blizzard, Nexon EACH makes over a Billion dollars yearly just on GAMES and PC gaming as a whole made over $18 Billion last year!
Consoles will incorporate more F2P and micro-transactions into their games next Gen especially with the influx of MMO's Next Gen on consoles.
Sony/MS/Ninty are gonna have to quickly change their business models to keep up with changing Tech. The PC being the Leader has already shown the world how it's done.
EA has several F2P titles with each game bringing in over $3 million a month and growing and these are not even close to being AAA titles.
http://www.cinemablend.com/...
http://www.gamesindustry.bi...
Let's go over the elements of a typical F2P game:
- Everyone can play the game
- Maps and game-modes will typically be available to all, but paying members might get earlier access
- Players can pay for 'boosts' which let them unlock things either instantly or faster than normal
- Players can pay for exclusive cosmetic items that have little impact on gameplay, but look fancy
- Players can purchase exclusive paid-only items (such as weapons if it's an FPS game) which might give the paying members an advantage in gameplay (a characteristic of 'pay-to-win' games)
Ok, now, look at Battlefield3 and its premium model. It has almost all of the traits of a F2P game, except it isn't free. (You can also purchase 'unlock kits' which will unlock items without having to level up)
... and it would appear that other games are also starting to do something similar by offering 'passes' that offer similar bonuses to players who pay more than everyone else.
There will be companies that will abuse the F2P model. We'll end up paying more in the long run for what would have been considered a "complete" retail version of a game.
There are some Japanese/Korean based ones like UNCHARTED WATERS ONLINE, and another called ANGEL ONLINE.....they are in the Japanese store.
Then of course we've got FREE REALMS, DC UNIVERSE, KILLZONE 3, and the upcoming DUST 514.
Kinda like if you can download the Music for free why would you want to pay for it?
-But it would be interesting to see if they can actually make this work, but I don't see how it's going to make people want to buy it...?
.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||
F2P lets you play games for free and spend money on them to customize weapons, characters, or level up faster.
Free 2 play works Great for everyone and the PC has proven it which is why consoles will be getting this business model now.
If you have questions about F2P ask me i know almost everything about it and can give you a Long list of great F2P games.
I'm currently in the Firefall MP Beta and this is a AAA+ F2P game and it's awesome and I haven't even touched the SP mode yet!
and if this is what Gamers want.
but would they have made a better profit if the game was just a little cheaper instead of free? I can't wait to check it out, I hope the game is really good, this will be a good test of this idea of making games free to play. -if they can make it work.
.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||
Microsoft and Nintendo don't give anything for free. If you want, you pay.
Microsoft is the company that doesnt support it (on their consoles at least)
Dust514
Free realms
Planetside 2(pc still sony though)
Dc universe online.
Crytek runs their mouth way too much they think its them vs the world.
it is not the same as a Free to Play game.
With that being said, having owned (past tense) the retail version of KZ3, by the time this released, I'd already surpass the level cap :(... however, I still chose to buy the stand alone multiplayer.
Instead of (or in addition too) the F2P model, I hope more games adopt the FNC model; where you could buy only the mode you wanted, and the cost of entry (for story mode) was only $5. I thoroughly enjoyed the story mode *best $5 ever*, only to later spend $5 more to unlock the offline versus mode...
Paying only for the modes you want is beyond awesome. For instance, anytime I've played COD, I've gone straight online and only play team deathmatch; Imagine being able to get the full team deathmatch experience for only $5... *faints*
You either have to buy it, or stop playing.
IT IS A MULTIPLAYER DEMO!!!
quit being so dumb.
Sony: DCUOnline, Free Realms, Dust 514, Mobile Suit Gundam: Battle Operation (JPN only), Various PS Home games.
Microsoft: Ascend: New Gods
Nintendo: Nintendoland, More up to 3rd party.
I think yewles1 just shut them up.
Sony levy a bandwidth charge per MB/GB downloaded to the distribution company so that is restrictive in terms of F2P/Free digital release.
However, there is a way to minimise that financial impact for Crytek. Only have Sony host a small client and when downloaded diverts the user to an external host (Crytek Servers) to download the main game file set. MAG, MGS Online, Free Realms and Dust514 all do this already.
What I don't know is whether Sony charge a bandwidth levy once players have downloaded, installed and are playing the game across the PSN network.
TBH, I don't like F2P one little bit as (even though optional) the micro transactions usually amount to more than the cost of a base game and transactions are usually required to progress beyond a certain point or to remain competitive within that game. Though, it is good for gamers to have a choice.
Sony take a commission on all sales on the store. So long as your games micro-transactions run through the Playstation store and not your own service then I imagine platform holders are fine with it.
If you use your own client / service / website for the micro-transaction side of your game, however, then there's no benefit for the platform holder to allow your game to exist on their network.
I don't believe F2P games are the future though for most games / genres. Probably going to increase market share over competitive online games but I don't see much of our industry adopting a free distribution strategy.
This is getting popular with pc at the moment.
Crytek's credibility went out the window anyways.
Currently the only f2p games i know of on ps are anything in ps home and the upcoming dust 514. I think there are a couple more on the horizon but nothing officially announced yet.
MAG is technically f2p as well from there only with a level cap. You can keep playing forever though. Every map, every mode, it stat tracks. I got the expansions free from PS Plus as well. I have it on my XMB right now.