Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Crytek: Closed Single-Player Must Go

Last response: in News comments
Share
March 3, 2013 3:06:07 AM

Umm, no. Always online is just retarded.
Score
80
March 3, 2013 3:07:13 AM

Dude you should go away ?)
Score
39
Related resources
March 3, 2013 3:18:23 AM

Don't the "cloudies" understand that there are hundreds of millions of people whose internet connection is inadequate for online gaming, or perhaps they just don't care? Outside of urban areas, there is a huge population that has no ability to participate in any kind of cloud-based activity that requires a low-latency connection. This is going to be true for many years to come. Perhaps it is a good idea in principle, but until high speed internet is brought to the masses, it's premature, and will effectively shut out a large percentage of the population (a.k.a. "customers").
Score
58
March 3, 2013 3:20:21 AM

We're out of ideas so let's make it social! That way you won't care about the game, only where everyone else is in the game.
Score
46
March 3, 2013 3:20:31 AM

What a maroon! Hasn't he heard of Skyrim? Dragon Age? Fallout3/NV?
Score
46
March 3, 2013 3:29:44 AM

No way......I'm sick of this social stuff being thrown in my face, sometimes I just want to sit back and play a game for fun alone by myself in peace and quiet.

Single player is single player, don't try to fix what isn't broken.
Score
64
March 3, 2013 3:33:41 AM



I hear there's this super cool place you can go. It's called "outside". Or something like that
Score
-24
March 3, 2013 3:34:41 AM

If this made sense, then why haven't books, movies or TV become social? I'm not saying social games are of no value, just that restricting the user experience makes absolutely no sense (i.e. shoehorning "social" into something that doesn't call for it is doing no one any favors) . Imagine a world where you need to be "connected" to read a book or watch a movie. That is the world that is being promoted by these idiots.
Score
33
March 3, 2013 3:35:08 AM

unksolI hear there's this super cool place you can go. It's called "outside". Or something like that


Yo, you got problems with games being loaded with DRM? I heard this awesome place called "BitTorrent" where your computer doesn't get infected with a DRM rootkit nor do you have to put up with silly DRM BS (such as only three installs allowed per CD).
Score
-5
March 3, 2013 3:36:21 AM

EDIT: And should the developer ever pulls the plug or goes bankrupt, your "legal" copy won't work anymore. But the fixed ones on BitTorrent would still work perfectly fine.
Score
30
March 3, 2013 3:49:55 AM

So instead of creating better product they want to force product on potential victims of this annoyance and Facebook-like crap.

Or do as Badlo 3, make game with automatic saves only and every time I get disconnected I will get screwed over and over again.
FYI Your games do not sell well cuz you are nowhere near first FarCry what you hoped you would be.
FarCry was evolution in Graphics, AI, large map and good f...ing story.
Go and ask yourself what you have.
Score
26
March 3, 2013 4:04:43 AM

In my opinion, F2P is a black sheep 2nd cousin version of demo/shareware software of old, where you had to buy the full on software in order to play/enjoy the rest of the game.
Score
23
March 3, 2013 4:09:03 AM

I disagree, F2P model can and did work well for some games. However, like any other business model, it can be butchered badly. EA's CEO proposed that they charge $1 for each clip of bullets used in a First Person Shooter game, and didn't get criticized by the shareholders or board of directors.
Score
20
March 3, 2013 4:15:03 AM

I could see myself paying every month for a Mass Effect universe online game, where new, quality, story driven content is being constantly added. I'd imagine it would be like watching Star Trek series every week...
Score
-12
March 3, 2013 4:16:10 AM

Ah brilliant. Another way to take games away from people whose internet is already to terrible for Steam to even launch successfully. I guess I'll be playing lots of older games for even longer then. Internet is not globally getting faster people! Yes, for some people but there are plenty of us without fast speeds!
Score
20
March 3, 2013 4:21:52 AM

No just NO! it's retarded, I have good internet but some don't and even mine is not flawless. Its annoying when it drops packets or lags and you can't play. Its like forcing a car on someone with a combustion engine and you don't have Oxigen for the car to burn except trough a thin and unreliable hose.
Score
13
March 3, 2013 4:22:42 AM

dimarI could see myself paying every month for a Mass Effect universe online game, where new, quality, story driven content is being constantly added. I'd imagine it would be like watching Star Trek series every week...


There is a Star Trek MMO, but it doesn't have additions that frequently, and that would likely be the actual result. I've bought into studio claims that with premium support they'd deliver this and that.. and what they really did was divert everything to some other project.
Score
9
March 3, 2013 4:28:18 AM

NO. I like to play with myself, thank you.
Score
26
March 3, 2013 4:29:24 AM

jalekThere is a Star Trek MMO, but it doesn't have additions that frequently, and that would likely be the actual result. I've bought into studio claims that with premium support they'd deliver this and that.. and what they really did was divert everything to some other project.


I actually tried ST online , and quit after like 20 min of play.
Score
2
March 3, 2013 4:32:26 AM

I swear they are trying to force PC gamers to play the consoles. I don't need another Game Distribution program. Steam is enough. I already quit some free to games that I used to pay for. It ruins the game, seriously, only rich kids win. I swear, i'll quit playing games before I switch to playing the stupid consoles, or this free to play in game transaction crap. If you think i'm just someone talking out my ass and never pay for games, I have 130 games on steam, and I swear I'll never buy into this crap.

Score
21
March 3, 2013 4:40:03 AM

If this keeps up, I might have to start playing board games to get away from this insanity. Thank you very much for ruining gaming EA and Co. Back to reality for me soon.
Score
15
March 3, 2013 4:53:40 AM

Quote:
I’m not saying that there will be no single-player experiences," he told IGN in an interview. "It could be it’s called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead."


WTF how is that any different than muliplayer. Thats like polishing a piece of crap and trying to call it a diamond. You can polish it and make it shiny but it's still a stinky turd. This whole idea of cloud based gaming and having to pay "X" amount of dollars in monthly membership fee's is is a horrible idea. If that is what gaming goes to I'm done.
Score
10
March 3, 2013 4:54:15 AM

Hmm. Crytek taking up the banner for always-online games at the same time that I stop buying their games and passed on their newest release, Crysis 3? Surely a coincidence. Heh.
Score
15
March 3, 2013 4:54:46 AM

Crytek you are not so big that you can dictate terms. All you have ever done is made a good tech demo.
Score
21
March 3, 2013 5:11:18 AM

GO ahead Crytek, u wont be getting my money.

I will fall back to indie games that actually treat their customer with respect than greed. Playing indie games also doesnt require me to upgrade my computer constantly.
Score
12
March 3, 2013 5:16:42 AM

What's this all about really..?? If its not some imaginable audience they're aiming for then I assume its either to make more money by investing less or/combined "Trying" to eliminate piracy?

If its the former then hoping it fails because I believe an always online to enjoy product model will continue to be forced down our throats. By reading peoples replies from all over the web, its just a bad idea and its definitely not they want to be left with. How would (edit; 'some' ) developers decide what is best for the customer? Some idiot taking a survey seeing the percentage playing online vs sales. Big number of those would have played the campaign first before taking any interest online.

Developers once upon a time just wanted to please their fans. Maybe game developers today are turning into what is now the commercial bullshit music industry we have now. Just NO talent left.
Score
8
March 3, 2013 5:17:47 AM

Crysis 3 campaign was around 4 hours for me. Not even close to worth half the price.
Score
10
March 3, 2013 5:19:01 AM

Between the developers that want always online and the developers that want digital download only, I'm really starting to get annoyed. I have a 2.5 mbit/s connection that often has ping up to 400ms and the only faster option in my city costs alot more. And I'm one of the lucky ones living in a city with a population of about 20,000, there are country areas within 10 miles of me where the only high speed internet is expensive, high latency, satellite internet.
Score
7
March 3, 2013 5:21:35 AM

This is great because it makes room for indie game developers and small studios who can't compete with huge budgets and armies of coders/artists.
Score
5
March 3, 2013 5:41:36 AM

thats too bad because we need single player time as well., weird decision from crytek
Score
17
March 3, 2013 5:57:15 AM

Well, it's only natural that the developer who wants to go 'F2P' in next 5 years or something, to enforce online play where they can implement microtransaction system.
Either way, it won't happen (from most of the developers).

This comes to mind http://i.imgur.com/dZAvwB9.jpg
Score
8
March 3, 2013 5:58:15 AM

I think that Cevat Yerli is good when it comes to developing an AAA product but he should leave the marketing to other people that are much more suitable than him.
Just imagine Albert Einstein - the fashion designer ! :p 
Score
5
March 3, 2013 6:01:24 AM

maybe crytek is looking at installing fibre to homes with google otherwise do not want anything forced online
Score
2
March 3, 2013 6:01:42 AM

MichaelSPAh brilliant. Another way to take games away from people whose internet is already to terrible for Steam to even launch successfully. I guess I'll be playing lots of older games for even longer then. Internet is not globally getting faster people! Yes, for some people but there are plenty of us without fast speeds!


There is a massive difference between being able to stream content and being able to log into a server to verify that you own content. The bandwidth required is even many times less in the short term. Really the demands is likely requires less then a 56k modem.

Honestly people have little to complain about

I personally play far cry 3. Logged into the system and started playing after login I capped my outbound and inbound speed from theubisoft domain to 33.6k basically modem speed through the early/mid 90s and never had a problem. Honestly as far as I am concerned people have nothing to complain about unless they can no longer pirate "said" title
Score
-10
March 3, 2013 6:12:33 AM

says the developer who can't make a good single player game ever.
Score
6
March 3, 2013 6:24:24 AM

Am I the only one who's fine with always-online, but just doesn't like multiplayer games?
Score
-5
March 3, 2013 6:57:27 AM

It's like he wants us to hate him...
Score
10
March 3, 2013 7:01:15 AM

No, just no, so now I can't play any games when I on long flights, great just great
Score
5
March 3, 2013 7:22:36 AM

Cevat Yerli:Just saying this shit because Crysis 3 had a pretty short and unimpressive single player mode.
Score
7
March 3, 2013 7:38:03 AM

Speak for yourself, I haven't grown used to having to pay for a game piece by piece only to pay more in the long run. I use my tablet to get all my web browsing done so I can come home and play real games that took more than a week to make. There will never be anything "free" about F2P. Games made on the cheap lack the quality of a game that took some money to make. You get what you pay for. Mobile gaming has not surpassed the realm of being 10 minute diversions on your smoke break. AAA "F2P" titles are never really free. In order to encourage sales, it is necessary to offer an advantage to paying players. Every F2P is by design pay to win, and you will pay far more in the long run than $60 to win because you're also paying for several people who will try it and leave without paying. Oh, and let's talk about Zynga's "success", how's that success doing now? Last I checked the company was falling apart. Remember how awesome the internet was to get into before that bubble popped?

Oh, right. Was this article about F2P or always online games/single player modes? It seems to hop around quite a bit, these are two different things. One is an economic model and the other is a social model. Here's the thing about online games. They don't work well for every single game. I read an article on Kotaku awhile back where the author was playing Final Fantasy Tactics and mentioned that game would not be able to be an online game. Certain builds and classes like the Calculator are incredibly OPed and gamebreaking. In a single player game, cheapness and cheating are no issue, you play how you want. In a game where you're online and socially connected, those things would be gamebreaking and unfair to others. You do not play an online game how YOU want, you play an online game how EVERYONE wants. Still don't get it? Watch the new SimCity, maybe you'll get it then. SimCity in the past was about cheating, fooling around, breaking the game, making things how you want. People did not play it because they aspired to be urban planners, they played it because they wanted to play around with virtual cityscapes. An online SimCity where everyone has to be equal strips away the God Mode and leaves you to be nothing but an urban planner. You won't be able to play God this time, because not everyone can be God.
Score
11
March 3, 2013 8:04:21 AM

slabbosays the developer who can't make a good single player game ever.


or multiplayer
Score
5
March 3, 2013 8:20:22 AM

K-zon,

Online is nice for its worth for, but on the interest of expense and also its place of interest to to find of such on would only probably place an interest within to probably have at a time for a means of regards to say for covering, otherwise any practical interest even within itself ownself it to say a debate of regards on if worth an interest of no question.

Free to Play is nice, but still at times for that of the bottomline to have or find within itself to say within a place of for such on is still to say that what of interest to find has none at all. Basically speaking, if you can't get something why would you?? Which at a time doesn't make sense of course, but still even say a financial interest "only" of the same still would say on the place within of to would probably be still on interest of what there is isn't to buy.

Almost would be like saying advertising or such alone is what actually takes an interest of acquirance to the regards of say a release and/or regards of interest within the same of or on to.

The article within itself ownself speaks on the interest of that of what might be placed to say you don't find for single player to say at a time for a worth of regards on to say at a time, spend 60 dollars to continue to spend 15. Just to say free-to-play on its interest within would then be placed for a regards of difference say still to find within the idea of a release placed better off on the idea of being closed rather the interest of expense is put within the part of or not for, given that rather the interest does or not the place of such for still has none for any at all.

Closed is probably practicall within its' place to find at a time, but rather to say the interest should maintain itself out on rather that is to be part of for not and to still say is is rather the regards is placed within its means of to say have for rather is put to on having about. Basically probably anyways.

The biggest debate there probably is to say at a time for a worth of is that of any release despite what it is, that its still the same as the one you had gotten before.

Its a weird debate given say all the digital downloading to find of at a time, but to still say rather or not is practical against the difference of what isn't, is still placed even on the debate of no closed, on saying even then when placed within say "network" "regards" of "interest" that closed even then is not left to its say place to find for what there has/is for what isn't its' place of be rather say at or not.

A good release is proabbly always the idea to find for one, one ratherly placed with the social interest of for to say find to have or not, but rather what has its place of open or closed to say is the difference still seems to come down to what is in it still for the idea of probably many things at a time.

The direction or idea of my post may not have some of the better interest within rather for say the two words of interest say intial, but for one to find without the other is probably still debateable for sometime and that of what would be either to find of for alone is to still say is wrong, and even put said might actually just be the worser of what there is. Still of such is that of there still probably being alot better interest of such to "find" then what there has to say "have" on regards for in terms of Crytek place of "practice" in terms of "releases".
Score
-5
March 3, 2013 9:36:33 AM

I had crappy internet for years:- 1mbps was the best i could afford and that was only recently, and when i would read things like this, it really felt like a slap in my face. i have good internet now, but that's not the point. I am not condoning piracy, but i can see this driving many to it, even just on principal.

the only model i would POSSIBLY accept would be one similar to guild wars 2, where you pay the full price for the game, and get the whole game, but if you really love the game and want to show your appreciation you could buy cosmetic items etc, nothing that could give you any sort of edge (other than visually) in the game.

I also, however, get the feeling that change is coming to our gaming industry, whether we like it or not... don't get me wrong, i am not afraid of change, if the reason is to enhance our gaming experience, as I am sure most of you would agree, but these changes seem to be for one thing and one thing only :- to part us from more and more of our dollars.

Score
2
March 3, 2013 9:45:56 AM

Don't play with words and try to change the definition of single player. If you're incapable of making proper single player campaigns then just don't even bother trying. If I eventually become senile and want to play "social player" campaigns I'll buy a game that has them. Until then give me some Witcher any day.
Score
7
March 3, 2013 9:48:45 AM

edogawaNo way......I'm sick of this social stuff being thrown in my face, sometimes I just want to sit back and play a game for fun alone by myself in peace and quiet. Single player is single player, don't try to fix what isn't broken.

So true. I don't like the direction the industry is taking.
Score
9
March 3, 2013 9:53:32 AM

Heh, guess devs forgot the basic, if you make good games they will sell.

Online or Offline, Single Player or Multiplayer is a part/feature of the game.
Score
5
March 3, 2013 10:32:49 AM

Do they even conduct market research to come up with these "brilliant" conclusions?
Score
6
March 3, 2013 11:09:54 AM

edogawaNo way......I'm sick of this social stuff being thrown in my face, sometimes I just want to sit back and play a game for fun alone by myself in peace and quiet. Single player is single player, don't try to fix what isn't broken.



AHMEN TO THIS !!!!

I'm tired of industry big wigs trying to tell us as GAMERS what should be popular for us. I chalk this up ther with worst game industry ideas right along side EA"s "Micro transactions in every game" crap.

NO i don't want to be nickeled and dimed on every game... and no i don't want to always have to play online.
Score
7
March 3, 2013 11:15:43 AM

I absolutely hate online gaming. Single player only for me.
Score
7
!