Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Crytek: Closed Single-Player Must Go

By - Source: IGN | B 109 comments

Crytek is seemingly out promoting is social network for games, Gface.

On the PC gaming front, free-to-play is a good thing. Why? Because the economy still sucks. Because we've grown used to the small bits of game and expense on tablets and smartphones. Because Zynga showed that you can create a highly-lucrative franchise without requiring players to install software or spend money up front. In one sense, free-to-play opens up a world of opportunities to those who don’t have the funds to shell out $60 for a game and a possible added $15 per month.

In speaking about the free-to-play FPS Warface, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli said that the notion of a single-player experience needs to go away. "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."

His words seemingly echo Blizzard who insists that Diablo 3 be played with an always-on Internet connection. Due to social features embedded in the single-player campaign, the action-RPG title cannot be played offline. This factor has caused a lot of controversy for the past year, as the game becomes unplayable if something goes wrong with Battle.net, or if the player doesn't have access to the Internet.

Unfortunately, the success of Farmville has caused the industry to rethink about what a gamer now wants, and how publishers can make money from those needs. Even though Farmville technically isn't a multiplayer game, there are social aspects that seemingly make the gamer feel that they're playing with others in real-time.

"Online and social can reignite single-player in a new type of context and provide benefits that will make you want to be a part of a connected story-mode rather than a disconnected story-mode," he said. "Sure, if the technology forces you to play a traditional single-player game online, that doesn’t make sense but if it’s offering actual benefits to be online then you want to be part of it."

A good example of this scenario is The Walking Dead from Telltale. The user experience is "peppered" with simple but connected updates about the decisions other players are making.

"I would actually say that The Walking Dead on Gface would make more money than anywhere else," Yerli added. "The Walking Dead would be a primary example of how, with some innovation, it would work even better with the free-to-play concept."

Yerli is referring to Crytek's social platform, the browser-based Gface which is still in closed beta. He said it's not a distribution platform with tacked-on social features like Steam and Origin, but instead serves as a library of titles that friends are playing together. It's a gamer-focused social network with its own news feed, people cloud and more. Naturally Warface is the only highlighted game.

That said, Gface will initially focus on Crytek's free-to-play titles, but the company will open the doors to third-party offerings later down the road. As shown with the Walking Dead reference, not all titles offered on the social platform will be free-to-play multiplayer games, but offer some kind of single-player connectivity possibly spanning into full retail releases.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 109 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 80 Hide
    retrophe , March 3, 2013 3:06 AM
    Umm, no. Always online is just retarded.
  • 64 Hide
    edogawa , March 3, 2013 3:29 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.
  • 58 Hide
    thenewnumber2 , March 3, 2013 3:18 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").
Other Comments
  • 80 Hide
    retrophe , March 3, 2013 3:06 AM
    Umm, no. Always online is just retarded.
  • 39 Hide
    golfdk , March 3, 2013 3:07 AM
    Dude you should go away ?)
  • 58 Hide
    thenewnumber2 , March 3, 2013 3:18 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").
  • 46 Hide
    glasssplinter , March 3, 2013 3:20 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.
  • 46 Hide
    mrmike_49 , March 3, 2013 3:20 AM
    What a maroon! Hasn't he heard of Skyrim? Dragon Age? Fallout3/NV?
  • 64 Hide
    edogawa , March 3, 2013 3:29 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.
  • 33 Hide
    nitrium , March 3, 2013 3:34 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.
  • -5 Hide
    A Bad Day , March 3, 2013 3:35 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).
  • 30 Hide
    A Bad Day , March 3, 2013 3:36 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.
  • 26 Hide
    downhill911 , March 3, 2013 3:49 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.
  • 23 Hide
    memadmax , March 3, 2013 4:04 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.
  • 20 Hide
    A Bad Day , March 3, 2013 4:09 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.
  • 20 Hide
    MichaelSP , March 3, 2013 4:16 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!
  • 13 Hide
    olaf , March 3, 2013 4:21 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.
  • 9 Hide
    jalek , March 3, 2013 4:22 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.
  • 26 Hide
    thillntn , March 3, 2013 4:28 AM
    NO. I like to play with myself, thank you.
  • 2 Hide
    dimar , March 3, 2013 4:29 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.
  • 21 Hide
    upgrade_1977 , March 3, 2013 4:32 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.

Display more comments