TheBaronOfNA
Banned
So it's seem is not paying off either.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gamestar.de: The vultures are circling over Crytek [Up3: Eurogamer/Kotaku jump in]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
So it's seem is not paying off either.
Keep in mind Crytek has EIGHT studios. Count them -
Crytek Black Sea
Crytek Budapest
Crytek Istanbul
Crytek Shanghai
Crytek South Korea
Crytek UK
Crytek USA
Crytek Ukraine
But you are correct in that the vast majority of them (apart from Crytek UK aka Free Radical) are working on F2P titles. =(
I feel sorry for those few studios that are currently working on Cryengine games.
Steverulez
Member
Isn't this missing the main development office in Frankfurt as well which did Crysis (although not Warhead?) and then Ryse?
What the military is asking for is arguably too demanding, not offering enough money, and expecting results in too soon of a time frame. Other companies have pulled out after deciding it's not feasible.
So, no it's currently not paying off for them. For many years now that's been where the bulk of crytek's income came from. So unless they suddenly become brilliant at game design and release a couple smash hits in the next year or so, I don't see their game division living on.
The sad truth is they probably should have folded years ago if it was completely on its own without its simulator division making the big money. They spend a lot of time and money on R&D and yet don't have any major hits or widespread engine licenses.
Straight up, if your great gameplay only comes from more sophisticated mathematical calculations, you need to hire better designers.
That said, Crysis 1 is an excellent game, far beyond the teraflops needed for its shininess. That game would be fun with Proteus graphics. The physics don't add much beyond additional eye candy. It's nothing like, say, Red Faction Guerilla.
And that's the thing, when you design without constraints, but use most of that horsepower for visuals, you aren't really forwarding game design. Basically, if you've ever been in a thread arguing for 60fps instead of 30fps, you really shouldn't be arguing that Crytek is/was pushing games in the direction you really want.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Exactly. Ryse 2 needs to happen. First game has a lot of potential
shacklesmcgee
Member
Well, this is all their Engine As A Service "thing", which is different than applying for a license. Star Citizen would get whatever they want, as they are a big name, but John Doe Games get's basically jack all.
Their forum is one of the most insular communities I've ever seen, so many posts just comes off so rude and could be prefaced with "ughhh". There are rumors of people being banned and their posts disappearing after writing some unkind words about Crytek. I find it funny that Crytek locked the UE4 thread on their forums because people were bad mouthing their software, and Epic had to lock the CryEngine thread on their forums as well...because people were bad mouthing it haha (it was unlocked, but consists mostly of people who are happy to have switched)
Questions in regular font, my edits in italics, and other members answers in bold
Examples of forum members
Some examples of their forum staff
Correction, if CryEngine is basically the only game engine in the history of everything that does not accept .obj or .fbx, it is the one that is useless.
Either this person is advocating using the educational 3ds max for commercial work, which is illegal, or just has no idea what they're talking about.
Crysis 1 and Warhead are two of my favorite games ever but jeez they haven't made anything worthwhile since. Crysis 2 and 3 were huge let downs. Traded the perfect, isolated jungle environment for CoD NYC. Ew.
Seems like the shift to consoles really diluted their core business of having the most beautiful and gameplay oriented shooters on PC to show off their impressive engines (Crysis, Far Cry).
Seems like the shift to consoles really diluted their core business of having the most beautiful and gameplay oriented shooters on PC to show off their impressive engines (Crysis, Far Cry).
shinra-bansho
Member
It's already been said a lot, but this isn't really that surprising.
I never really understood how they could have so many employees with no real hits in any of the spheres in which they operate. They haven't found success in AAA gaming, in F2P gaming, nor has their engine licensing really taken off as far as I can tell at least for gaming.
People often said that they were engaged in military contracts that managed to support their gaming operations, but it was never really said how much revenue they generated from that. How do they compete against specialised military contractors?
I never really understood how they could have so many employees with no real hits in any of the spheres in which they operate. They haven't found success in AAA gaming, in F2P gaming, nor has their engine licensing really taken off as far as I can tell at least for gaming.
People often said that they were engaged in military contracts that managed to support their gaming operations, but it was never really said how much revenue they generated from that. How do they compete against specialised military contractors?
here's a couple links
almost $300 million:
http://www.cubic.com/News/Press-Rel...lion-to-Support-Advanced-Combat-Ship-Training
$57 million:
http://www.vr-news.com/2011/05/26/u...al-simulation-training-for-american-soldiers/
This is from there forums and from crytek employes? How awful and rude towards your customers who use your engine. But when i think of it this is not the first time they also did this towards the fans. When Crysis 1 had massive graphic options they reduced it to nothing in Crysis 2. They also said why do you need this? You will get this instead! Well a lot of PC gamers where not happy about it. Can't find the post but how they talk towards consumers and fans this way is just horrible. Look at the crysis forums right now they where not even bothered to change from gamepsy for Crysis 1 and 2 for the servers.
That would be really bad, I hope the TS: Rewind guys have something in writing that would prevent this.
angular graphics
Banned
RIP Crytek 1999-2008. 
Nothing.
Canis lupus
Member
LOL this is nonsense, it has nothing to do with their move to consoles at all. Crysis 2 and 3 would still be bad regardless of console releases. They had to move to consoles because piracy was killing them on pc.
Crytek turns back on PC exclusivity, cites piracy
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/crytek-turns-back-on-pc-exclusivity-cites-piracy/
Crysis Developer Puts Piracy Ratio At 1:20
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/110154/Crysis_Developer_Puts_Piracy_Ratio_At_120.php
Crytek produced what is still the apogee of the genre. Then they dismissed it all (and their fanbase in the process) and lost themselves inside the 'me too' cinematic tunnel ocean. Oh, and I'm sure that the fact that the publisher was obsessed-about-CoD-EA, is just pure coincidence in this debacle.
*yawn* strawman argument. bored with it already. they killed their only good franchise. crysis 1 is the superior one of all crysis games
Still if they where smart move to steamworks for that matter but they didn't and making pc for piracy yes it happens but same thing happens towards console's there is also piracy but you hear nothing about that.
Miles Quaritch
Member
How is this even possible? It was in development for years. Years.
Crysis 1 also supposedly didn't make a profit. So what would be the intelligent reaction? Make changes and hope the next one does make a profit; or make a sequel that is true to the original and will probably also make a loss. Crysis 1 was expensive to make, a Crysis 2 in that style would be too.
A $(1)60'000'000 stretch goal for creating the "Roberts Space Engine".
Last figures I know of, were:
3M copies for Crysis (pc only);
3M copies for Crysis 2 (mutiplat).
(These were before Crysis 1 port for consoles).
And they didn't turn a profit on either of them. ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=499493 )
Chobel
Member
It's rumored that Ryse was Kinect only X360 title until at some point in 2012, so Crytek had only a year (and few months give or take) to make it a non-Kinect XBO game.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Jesus, I would have thought the shift to X1 would have happened much sooner or at least the shift to a non Kinect style of gameplay.
And then there's the claim where Crytek apparently had it in development for several years prior too on their own dime? Must have been a huge money sink.
Hypereides
Member
Frankly, they've seemed quite disorganized with lacking direction ever since the completion of Crysis. It seems like Yerli and his brothers are after fast profit and easy revenue, whilst neglecting other priorities such as the well being and operational health of the studio/company.
FlyingSaucer
Banned
I'm bothered if they dont have access to the source code. If Cryteck goes under and support stop, wont it limit future graphical improvments ?
The mistake wasn't "multiplaform-ing" the franchise, but to forgo their philosophy of design: they tried to expand their fanbase by alienating the existing one (which resulted in a new fanbase roughly as big as the old one).
(Also to me Crysis 2 looks noticeably a more expensive game than the first, but I have no data on this).
angular graphics
Banned
Err no, straight from Yerli's mouth: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2008/08/19/gc-2008-crysis-cost-22-million-to-make
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2008/06/26/cevat-yerli-qa
Even EA just a couple of months after the game was released reported the game's sales had exceeded their expectations, which means it could have sold even worse than it did and still make profit. http://seekingalpha.com/article/626...q08-qtr-end-12-31-07-earnings-call-transcript
Dictator93
Member
After the launch of theEaaS and the rather poor launch of Ryse, I am not surprised things look scary at Crytek right now.
Seems like a lot of talent there is held back by poor management decisions. You can see hints of genius in their games since Crysis 1, but that it is completely inconsistent.
I hope Homefront 2 makes it out, the game looks to be of high quality actually. Kind of like a Crysis 1 sequel without a nano-suit but with 4 player coop.
Seems like a lot of talent there is held back by poor management decisions. You can see hints of genius in their games since Crysis 1, but that it is completely inconsistent.
I hope Homefront 2 makes it out, the game looks to be of high quality actually. Kind of like a Crysis 1 sequel without a nano-suit but with 4 player coop.
KaiserBecks
Member
They used to make games that completely pushed PC Hardware (even components that weren't available when the games launched), technical benchmarks. It's hard to do that with the console market in mind.
The Crysis port, released 4 years later running on a different engine, actually sort of proves that. The game was ahead of its time. How do you think the game would have looked if it had to be released on consoles simultaneously? They could have built on their fanbase. Instead, they went after the console audience. They completely fucked up Crysis 2 and sort of tried to get it back together with 3, but the ship had already sailed. So, yeah, consoles are very much to blame. They should've stuck to what they know instead of expanding and going for the big bucks.
While the idea of so many people losing their jobs is most unpleasant, This was inevitable as Crytek are clearly in the wrong business.
They don't make games to be enjoyable, they make them to be sales pitches. They were always engine salesmen first and video game developers second.
They don't make games to be enjoyable, they make them to be sales pitches. They were always engine salesmen first and video game developers second.
Straight from his mouth too: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=499493
"Cevat Yerli: That's a difficult one, and I'm not talking about being greedy and we want more sales. But effectively Crysis 1 and 2 and 3 are just about breaking even. "
I didn't even know they had blown up like that. I only knew of Crytek UK and Crytek GmbH in Frankfurt before your post. What are all these studios doing and who thought it would be a good idea to expand like that, when you seemingly don't have enough work (income) for all these people.
GenericUser
Member
not surprising at all, I am amazed how they managed to stay alive this long. Far cry 1 was the only good game by them imo.
angular graphics
Banned
He is bullshitting there ^_^
He said at least twice in 2008 that the game had already made profit and in 2012 and many many many many Steam sales later he revised his statement.
From the thread you linked to:
Or he is bullshitting at the original moment when he wanted to make it look like his hot new game was effectively a hot new game? Or more likely based on this topic, he is terrible at accounting.
They most surely have access to entire CryEngine source code.
Wiktor
Member
Yeah..and then Crysis 2, which was a lot more expensive to make than previous one and was released on 3 platforms sold less than Crysis 1 did on PC. Move to consoles indeed "saved them"
The sad thing is that Crytek never had to choose which way to go. With so many studios they could have easily diversyfy. Make PC exclusives, make multiplats, make F2P titles. Which would make the whole company much more secure. But instead Crytek choose to thrown itself completely after newest fads. They saw Modern Warfare sales and they switched to console-centric dev, then they saw companies like Riot making a killing in F2P and now they're switching completely to F2P with the few remaining traditional titles being the last ones they will make of this type.