Put the game on both stores?,or maybe timed exclusive for Origin, but exclusive to it was a bad move imo.
-
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.
Kotaku: Crytek Not Paying Staff On Time, Ryse Sequel Dropped
- Thread starter Nibel
- Start date
Put the game on both stores?,or maybe timed exclusive for Origin, but exclusive to it was a bad move imo.
To be clear, I wasn't agreeing with the notion that Crysis 3 being on Steam would have in large part reversed Crytek's current and seemingly dire situation. I was just using the post as a springboard to express my own observations.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Can you buy Valve's games on Origin? I couldn't find them, so I understand EA using their games to gain a foothold against Steam with their service. If PC gamers choose not to buy their games despite them being on sale numerous times for dirt cheap, because it's not Steam, then that's on them.
When you look at Crysis 3, which seemed to me, a very short campaign, with typical so-so online multiplayer, no wonder it sold poorly. I mulled it over when it was $20 and decided against it because I don't like the online multiplayer, which was the meat of the game. Poor decisions were made of the game's focus. The whole "consolization" thing I've seen mentioned in the thread is ridiculous. As if console gamers are different people or some shit. Like the prehistoric mentality that jrpgs wouldn't sell to western audiences because we wouldn't get it.
It also doesn't sound like refusing to give up the Ryse ip is smart when you can't even pay your staff.
As someone who's been through such a reduction first-hand: I'm significantly better off now, but I'm in the minority. I bumped into someone recently who was culled in the same round of layoffs and he's not doing anything like as well. It's pot luck, really, where you end up.
Besides which, there was a terrifying few months where I was looking for work and hoping the money wouldn't run out.
FonkyByNature
Member
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i wanted a Ryse sequel so fuckin bad
This.
Ryse had its flaws but the game was fun to me. Since Todd Pappy was going there, i thought he'd work on Ryse 2...
I always wanted Microsoft to buy Crytek, seems like a great fit for MS studios.
Muppet of a Man
Member
I hope they either strictly focus on middleware technology like EPIC is doing for the most part or, if they don't decide to do that, at least move away from shootbang type games and to games with a bit more depth.
Triggerhappytel
Member
All this discussion of Crytek has made me want to play Crysis again, so I loaded up an old save tonight about an hour into the game. Man, it's such a shame what happened to them because this game is fucking *awesome*! I love love love the level design, it has a great mix of stealth and action with loads of options available to the player, there's just the right amount of depth in the weapons and items to allow for different strategies, and the visuals are still amazing (even on PS3).it is such a fun game in which to just mess around with the enemy troops, and the AI is great too.
Persona RS
Member
Triggerhappytel
Member
It's all very well wanting to own IP to increase the value of your studio, but if as a result of your stubbornness said studio looks like it might be going out of business, then you're doing it wrong. Most developers are not Bungie or Epic or even Gearbox and have to take work-for-hire jobs where they can.
I'm also curious as to why MS all of a sudden have decided they want the trademark, when that's never been a big deal for them in the past. It's the main reason Insomniac are working with them, for instance.
I'm also curious as to why MS all of a sudden have decided they want the trademark, when that's never been a big deal for them in the past. It's the main reason Insomniac are working with them, for instance.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Maybe they knew Crytek were not going to last much longer.
Nightengale
Member
Ryse was greenlit around 2010 or earlier. Things may have changed then and now.
Besides, a publisher will always want the IP if they can leverage the deal to get the IP.
Green Ranger
Banned
It seems MS wanted more than just exclusivity for funding the development. Can't really blame them.
NotSaladin
Neo Member
I don't have any facts to back this up, pure theory, but I believe this is intentional by MS. They gives the developer thee IP ownership for the first time, and then depending on the success - they can do the following:
1) First dips on exclusive/timed-exclusive sequel
If unsuccessful..
2) Force the studio into selling the IP, or give no funding.
The number two scenario is Crytek. They can cling on to the IP but with no money to fund it...leaves them in the situation of - sell - in order to secure business, which they didn't do
Just a guess, but the third game might use EA's servers for multiplayer, unlike the first two which used Gamespy. (seeing as it's still online).
uncledonnie
Banned
Could also be that Crytek is clearly a hot mess right now and MS wants control for that reason.
Neolucifer
Neo Member
I dont understand it either . They havent exactly line up true hits after Crysis 1 , and yet they were buying stuff as if they struck gold and were EA .
Wiktor
Member
PCgamers aren't that dumb. If C2 and C3 would be as good as C1 majority of them would buy them in heartbeat. The "no Steam, no buy" crowd is laughable small in reality.
Even assuming EA hosts Crysis 3's master server, I don't think that would preclude a Steam release as EA doesn't own the game. I do think there was some sort of Origin exclusivity grace period involved due to EA backing the game, but with it being almost 18 months old I'd be surprised if said period hasn't passed.
Late edit: Didn't realise the Cocatalog.gov link was session-based. Here's a screenshot:
Mr. Pointy
Member
Well, Crytek had a good run.
I think they just stretched themselves way too thin.
I think they just stretched themselves way too thin.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I honestly thought that what they've done with their engine licensing that they'd be in the black. Are companies just ignoring Cryengine? Is it still Unreal even in the transition?
LurkerPrime
Member
Cinematic-action-thrillers (CATs) are only going to become more common this generation, so I don't think that's a big reach.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I imagine Unreal Engine 3 and Unity are the two most commonly used engines at the moment. Looking at Wikipedia, UE3 has been in a massive amount of games, CryEngine does not have a lot of licensees listed and UE4 has about four times the number of games listed.
Obviously these lists are unlikely to be definitive, but I think it highlights the adoption between CryEngine and Unreal Engine. Meanwhile, major publishers tend to use in-house engines, so that's not really a reliable revenue stream for third parties either.
It is interesting seeing as there's a Crysis Trilogy bundle exclusive to Origin. You'd figure they'd want as many people to see it as possible.
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
Yeah, they should do it.
Triggerhappytel
Member
EA probably own the publishing rights to the game, and I suspect it'll take a lot more than 18 months before that expires. Probably more like five years.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Ryse is a thriller now?
It's a reach. Why would they want to buy unsuccessful IPs? And why haven't they tried that with other unsuccessful IPs? I'd say that Microsoft is clearly pleased with how Ryse has performed, and they see future potential in the series.
I really really didn't gel with Crysis. Firstly, I wasn't party to the "you need to play the game on the higher difficulty levels" thing, although that begs the question "why is it not good at all levels"? Secondly, I spent most of the game crawling around the outskirts of places - MAXIMUM CLOAK, MAXIMUM ARMOUR - watching yellow chevrons run about in confusion until they walked into my bullets. Thirdly, hardly a decent narrative to fall back on.
Weirdly, the bit of the game that was most maligned brought the most rewards. Aliens meant no more crawling around, sudden urgency and resourcefulness required.
Weirdly, the bit of the game that was most maligned brought the most rewards. Aliens meant no more crawling around, sudden urgency and resourcefulness required.
Hopefully MS can snap them up with the Ryse IP. Given Vigil's work on dark siders I'd feel pretty good about a sequel with much better exploration, enemy variety, puzzles, and combat.
Triggerhappytel
Member
They obviously see potential, and want to add it to their catalogue of IPs. I think the 'character action' sub-genre is one in which every publisher wants their own entry and MS doesn't really have anything like this yet, so I can see why if they're funding development they'd want the trademark too.
I think it's a very fun game on both medium and hard. It's a little too punishing on the top difficulty as Nomad is really weak, but on medium you can openly engage enemies and toy with them, and on hard you need to be a bit more cautious with the combat. The 'maximum cloak' aspect does get a bit tiring (I've spend a huge amount of time hiding in bushes waiting for the energy to recharge), but it's probably the closest any game has come to giving us the feeling of being Predator.
People need to stop using of instead of have.
And I don't understand why anyone would want to go into the game industry at this point. Among the shittiest job security for professionals I've seen.
ValeYard
Member
I agree 100 percent. It seems unlikely that MS will jump in the longer we don't hear anything, right? I though Crytek worked with MS on the design of Xbox One, so it would be nice if MS could help, I guess.
LurkerPrime
Member
Cinematic-action-thriller - the thrill in the game is derived from the cinematic action.
NotSaladin
Neo Member
As you state yourself, it wasn't unsuccessful - however it wasn't the huge success story that MS had hoped for, but that is not to say that the series does not have potential.
Why force Crytek into giving up the IP? Unless they were not happy with the job Crytek had done previously. MS (don't blame them) would have wanted more control so that they could avoid, what happened the first time round - and by mitigating risk from funding what could have been one of their own IP's.
Again, just my opinion. Now they have an easy opportunity to get what they wanted at a much cheaper price and get a different 1st party team on it.
Edit: Concerning your other point, with other 'unsuccesful' IP's - note that the success is based on internal KPI's in this regard - my understanding is that giving control to studios with their IP's was a fairly new tactic being used in order to secure exclusivity (e.g. Insomniac).
Pure speculation on my part and could be a stretch, but could also be a clever tactic if even slightly true.
Steverulez
Member
Whilst reviews were disappointing MS haven't disclosed sales numbers but Phil Spencer said it sold very well or something, for all we know the title could have met expectations for sales and in that way been the success they had wanted it to be. Imo, you don't make a AAA new IP at launch for a console and not accept that it will likely have lower sales on a smaller install base with the view to it having a decent tail in sales - you set it up for long term potential in sequels and I'm sure MS aren't stupid enough to have expected unrealistic sales on a launch title in 8 months.
Crytek are seemingly in the shitter financially, MS have a vested interest in the IP and were seemingly willing to do a deal to get a sequel but I would think its a sensible business move to ensure that given that situation there wasn't the risk that a third party could buy the company and get an IP that MS have invested significantly in (see Mass Effect).
To me, this shows that Microsoft have learnt since Bioware/Mass Effect. They don't want to keep the IP for a game like Sunset Overdrive because they wanted to work with the developer who wanted to keep the IP and they are in a completely different situation in wanting to remain independent and not being in a difficult financial situation. If Insomniac and any other developer they are working with aren't in a seemingly fairly terrible situation like this, I don't see why MS would want the IP if they let them own it in the first place when they can just keep making new deals for sequels (Gears of War for example).
We don't know the exact details around MS wanting the IP, whether it was an option in the future or to acquire it now (much more likely admittedly), were they prepared to pay for development of a sequel and more for the IP (a more reasonable deal depending on the costs involved I guess) or were they trying to get the IP with the funding for the sequel.
There is probably a lot more to this than just "forcing Crytek to sell the IP" if you were Microsoft you'd want assurances on your investment especially when they're interested in investing more in it.
Im not trying to paint MS as some sort of hero here btw, but theres several sides to this. If this situation wasn't going on with Crytek, I don't see specifically why MS would want the IP when they let Crytek keep it in the first place and wanted Crytek to make the sequel.
NotSaladin
Neo Member
All fair points. The main very valid point you make is that we do not know the full content of the discussions and what was being proposed. It certainly would have had many layers to it, still a disappointment and I hope that the IP is revived in some way since a sequel has potential.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
A part of me is hoping that this all one big elaborate ploy to throw us all off and make us think that there's little to no hope for a sequel, and then Ryse 2 gets announced at Gamescom in Germany, which I think is where Crytek main HQ is located.
LurkerPrime
Member
No one will ever try the "we're closing down" angle for free publicity again, not after Good Old Games was thoroughly raked over the coals for trying it.
But Crytek wouldn't be able to account for the backlash with the gog.com stuff, because their con started in 2008 when they started posting losses every year.
Putting their games on Steam is going to what, cover 5 days of operational costs?
They're over 800 people. Their burn rate is astronomical. They need actual publishers or tremendous f2p revenue.
I'm sorry, but that won't ever happen.
Fornaximus
Member
That's insane. Bloated like Ubisoft.
Yeah, except Ubisoft pump out quality games that actually sell. It's a shame what's happening at Crytek but they vastly over extended their reach.