I think the decision Crytek has made about going Free to Play is not good and I think they will be back to normal again after a F2P stint. Free to Play gaming is not as big in America as it is in the Eastern parts of the world, especially the Asian areas. Also amongst these cultures first person shooters are not of much interest. Why go F2P, Crytek? I think Europe is with us on this. The games you are making such as Warface is simply to spark interest amongst Asian countries in FPS games. We know that over there micro-transactions are the new thing. But here in the Western World want to see big budget, hardcoe games. Ideally we want to see a Crysis 4 some day.

F2P gaming will never be as popular in America as it is in Japan and China. hardcoe gamers don't want to dive into a game and have to buy their weapons and attachments with real money. It's not sensible. Despite it being free initially, we would still rather have the full game with everything unlocked.

F2P gaming is less competitive. It's silly to play a game against people who are excelling because of the more money they spend on items and weapons. The competition is much greater when everyone plays by the same set of rules.



F2P should really only be for casual gaming. There is far too much hype around casual games and gaming on your cell phone. When I sit in a waiting room, I don't want to play a hardcoe game where I need to immerse myself in a surrounding. Playing something like Call of Duty or Crysis, or Mass Effect is not feasible in a casual setting. I would need to wear headphones. When I am casually gaming I want to play Tetris, or pacman, something easy. When I go home and sit in front of my HDTV I want to play something immersive, like Crysis. Point is, Casual gaming is not going to take over hardcoe gaming, and hardcoe gaming isn't going to whipe out casual gaming, they can exist together in their respective platforms.

If Sony and Nintendo had half a brain, they would realize the next step is not a Vita or the 3DS but phone by Sony or Nintendo, a whole phone that encompasses all the goodies of a 3ds and vita, but more compact and can make phone calls. People are already carrying it around with them. Apple would be hounding Nintendo with deals to bring Mario to IOS. Cell phone customers who are gamers would be attracted to these products, and would much rather play Super Mario Brothers than Angry Birds. But thats another thing, is Sony and Nintendo too late? Have games like Angry Birds already made a brand for themself?

F2P only is not the way to go Crytek, you know this, and you are selling yourself short but not creating games in the traditional format as well. Don't get me wrong, creating and desiging F2P games is great, but when you shift your business format to only 1 style, particularly a newer, untested format it is usually a recipe for disaster. Needless to say if I owned stock in Crytek, upon their F2P only announcement I would call my broker and demand he sell the stock immediately after the release of Crysis 3.

Your entire post completely looks over the worldwide popularity of a few F2P titles. League of Legends is completely crazy for instance, and I don't see TF2 doing too bad. Tribes: Ascend is also pretty profitable AFAIK and it's a bloody good game.

I do believe however that perhaps F2P is too premature right now. How about a mix of F2P and smaller-budget self-published titles either completely digitally or with very limited physical runs?

If they released official cover art for their 100% digital games and these had no DRM (could be burnt in a DVD/whatever media we use in a couple years) I would definitely root for 100% digital self-publishing.