Homefront Development Snatched From Crytek, Given to New Studio - Update

| 30 Jul 2014 23:20

Tired of financial difficulties, Deep Silver finds a new home for its game.

Update: According to Kotaku, Crytek has experienced an exodus of its senior staff over the past week. Also, its American studio has been downsized, and its upcoming F2P co-op shooter Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age has been moved to its Frankfurt, Germany office.

Meanwhile, composer Graeme Norgate, along with many other ex-Crytek UK employees, has landed on his feet at the new studio. As he puts it, "Good bye Crytanic, hello Deep Silver Dambuster Studios!"

Original Story: It's been a tough time for developer Crytek. The story involves a high-ranking producer leaves, skipped paychecks, and bankruptcy rumors. Now, developer Deep Silver, apparently tired of waiting for Crytek to get their act together, has acquired all the rights and assets for the in-development Homefront: The Revolution, giving it instead to its newly-formed Dambuster Studio.

"We strongly believe in the potential of Homefront: The Revolution," said Deep Silver CEO Dr. Klemens Kundratitz, "and trust in the new team to continue the path they have been walking in the last years."

Woe seems to follow Homefront wherever it goes. The first game was originally developed by the ex-modder team Kaos Studios and published by THQ. After both entities went up in flames, the rights were purchased by Crytek for a paltry $500,000. Even better, the Homefront sequel was being handled by Crytek UK, which was composed of rescue-hires when Haze developer Free Radical went under in 2009. Already in dire financial straits, this cannot be good news for the ailing developer.

At this point, the history of this game seems to be a secession of shipwrecks, with each new rescue vessel sinking, one after another. Hopefully Dambuster doesn't follow suit.

Source: Joystiq

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

Man, Deep Silver just keeps ending up with THQ's old properties, don't they? Funny how this ol' world works.

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 3 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

If you were making a PC exclusive game, you'd be avoiding cryengine 3 just like all the other indies. Its expensive and outdated.

Sure you can say "oh but we streamlined this" but the fact of the matter streamlining doesn't mean shit. They failed to refine and expand their engine and they paid the price. Anyone can make a simple efficient engine to do basic things but does it have the flexibility to do what indies want?

The answer is no. They nerfed their engine instead of build on it.

Cryenegine 3 is a shitty engine that can't do what it was meant to and fails to go beyond the bog standard. And that's a bad thing in an age where engines constantly improve.

console engines have experience with efficiency. They have fame. Cryengine doesn't have either. It was already a lost battle to take them on. Once they began focusing on trying to win over a locked market, they lost their own market.

Cryengine 2 was a competitive engine. Cryengine 3 isn't.

Ohh ...

Here it is simple:

1. You say Crysis 1 was great in many ways and its GRAPHICS helped gameplay.
I agree.

2. You say Crysis 1 was the best of the Crysis series.
I partly disagree. Crysis 2 had a better storyline.

3. You say CryEngine 2 (CE 2) was great for it innovated gameplay via its graphics, and it was arrogant and in your face about how powerful it was.
I agree.

4. You say CE 2 is more of a PC engine then CE3.
I agree.

5. You say that CE 2 is better then CE 3.
I disagree. It is MORE ambitious, it was a BIGGER step up then what CE 3 did, but as an actual engine Cryeingine 3 is simply BETTER then CryEngine 2.

Get it now? :P

Ok, so Far Cry 1 on the pc in 2004 and then the Crysis series. Two IPs in a decade that were ever worth nothing.

We're really not justifying their laundry list of other titles they screw up. They're practically a one-horse show and almost no one likes what they've been doing with Crysis lately. Solid games in my opinion but... meh.

Why do people think this makes them a good studio? People take their IPs and make them better. I think that they've got great engine developers and good initial concept people (which may or may not still be there) but every other part of the team is garbage.

Crytek would make a FAR better graphics engine company.

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Where are those Nvidia games? Surely they'd have the best shrubbery. Anyway I'm not sure they're comparable with each other.

Nope didn't say it was corrupted by shrubbery, just your emphasis on their important was wrong as there are elements much more important. Shrubbery makes a nice frame, the rest is the painting you are actually viewing.

What? Where are you getting this PC bad, console good nonsense from? Where did I ever say such a thing? I think you're letting your views on certain groups dirty your thoughts.

Instincts was a "cutdown" version that ran on the original Xbox. Anyway you are kind of going against yourself there. They put no effort in, yet the hardware is solely to blame and not you know...their no effort. It just doesn't mesh.

I'm sorry but its getting ridiculous now. Have Crytek never created a game? Are they all shrubbery simulators meant to selflessly forward the advancement of graphical effects? Why do you attribute all these grand causes to their videogames?
I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit.
Don't think because X feature is created for a game, that the game resolves around it completely.

Nvidia has Nvidia gameworks. Its been incorporated into multiple engines. Basiclaly any game with nvidia physx uses patants by Nvidia.

Which is what Crytek should have been doing. Now Nvidia has the market locked down after it took it from crytek.

Companies spend money creating solutions to problesm that devs can't afford to create themselves.

Need lots of foliage for your game without needing lots of power? A company figured it out.
Need physics? figured it out.
Need dynamic lighting? Figured it out.

Crytek sells solutions that other devs buy to implement in their games. Its a very competitive business. You have to refine everything while also creating new solutions.

Their games showcase their hard work and their engines. Just like Half Life 2 showcased Valve's source engine that worked 6 years on.

The game is only 50% of the profit. Since engines are so expensive its is IMPORTANT to sell your engine too. Its just good business. The funds from selling licenses would then fund more R&D and the cycle repeats.

Every company that makes their own engines try to use their games to sell the engine too. Standard practice. Other developers just buy the license.

It is a lot of work, but it pays off big time. Its why Nvidia has so much leverage with devs that they can demand whatever they want, because they own so many solutions.

"I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit."

You don't understand because you follow the overly simplistic 1970s mentality when a developer created everything they needed from scratch. That mentality no longer exists.

Making games is not the only industry there. Just like movies is not the only industry there.

movies need camera companies. It needs supporting companies to make it run and make it evolve.

Gaming need technical companies to evolve the medium by selling patented solutions to developer problems. It saves money for the dev and saves time too. Just like console companies need hardware manufacturers to cut down on building factories and designing architecture.

Crytek was a technical company that was meant to sell patent licenses.

Technical companies are very important to the modern video game industry. They do the hard work that other companies are too lazy or cant afford to do.

They were too lazy to cater to console hardware because they jumped ship long after the boat sailed. It didn't help that their hardware was shit by the time they got to the consoles. That's why they wanted next gen consoles so badly.

Its like a 100 year old learning to drive a car for the first time. Its way too late to be learning how to do that.

So instead of learning, they just start cutting until it fits. Its a low effort port compounded by old hardware. Which is directly the opposite of where console devs were going because they bothered to learn.

The gaming industry is much more complex than it used to be. It has spawned supporting industries that help prop up the games.

Ultratwinkie:

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Where are those Nvidia games? Surely they'd have the best shrubbery. Anyway I'm not sure they're comparable with each other.

Nope didn't say it was corrupted by shrubbery, just your emphasis on their important was wrong as there are elements much more important. Shrubbery makes a nice frame, the rest is the painting you are actually viewing.

What? Where are you getting this PC bad, console good nonsense from? Where did I ever say such a thing? I think you're letting your views on certain groups dirty your thoughts.

Instincts was a "cutdown" version that ran on the original Xbox. Anyway you are kind of going against yourself there. They put no effort in, yet the hardware is solely to blame and not you know...their no effort. It just doesn't mesh.

I'm sorry but its getting ridiculous now. Have Crytek never created a game? Are they all shrubbery simulators meant to selflessly forward the advancement of graphical effects? Why do you attribute all these grand causes to their videogames?
I suppose Duke Nukem (insert other X game) was also made with the purpose of technical advancement too eh? The purpose of a videogame is to make money, to entertain (to better make money), or for some to simply fill their habit.
Don't think because X feature is created for a game, that the game resolves around it completely.

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 3 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

If you were making a PC exclusive game, you'd be avoiding cryengine 3 just like all the other indies. Its expensive and outdated.

Sure you can say "oh but we streamlined this" but the fact of the matter streamlining doesn't mean shit. They failed to refine and expand their engine and they paid the price. Anyone can make a simple efficient engine to do basic things but does it have the flexibility to do what indies want?

The answer is no. They nerfed their engine instead of build on it.

Cryenegine 3 is a shitty engine that can't do what it was meant to and fails to go beyond the bog standard. And that's a bad thing in an age where engines constantly improve.

console engines have experience with efficiency. They have fame. Cryengine doesn't have either. It was already a lost battle to take them on. Once they began focusing on trying to win over a locked market, they lost their own market.

Cryengine 2 was a competitive engine. Cryengine 3 isn't.

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 2 is shitty for any platform.

Except I am not saying that Cryengine 2 is bad, I am saying that from a simple techpoint CryEngine 3 is superior.
If tomorrow I have to make a PC exclusive game, it would be on Cryengine 3. Not 2.
Don't get what else you are arguing

Charcharo:

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

And thats the issue there. Its an engine constrained by consoles.

DX 11? useless for consoles, they use Direct X 9 and OPENGL. Standard on PC.
AA? nonexistent on consoles. standard on PC.
better weather? could have just done that on cryengine 2.
memory leaks are fixable.
Better physics? Compared to what? Crysis 2's physics were highly constrained.
multi core is useless on consoles. again standard on PC.

So the added stuff is already bog standard for PC. And useless for consoles. It was meant to centered around consoles.

So consoles gain nothing from cryengine. and neither does PC. Cryengine 2 was cutting edge when it debuted and did new things. Cryengine 3 is a bad and outdated engine that does nothing new. At least cryengine 2 was appropriate for its platform, cryengine 2 is shitty for any platform.

Ultratwinkie:

Charcharo:

Lightknight:
Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

Ultratwinkie:

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Aha...

DX11; better physics; more AA types; better structure of the engine; better weather; NO memory leaks (Cryengine 2 :P); better use of Multi core.

Its just superior. So what if it does not show itself off as much?
CryEngine 2 showed us a lot. CryEngine 3 never did show us as much with Crysis 2. Neither that, nor the fact that they unfortunately started making console games changes the fact.
Cryengine 3 > Cryengine 2.

Charcharo:

Lightknight:
Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

Ultratwinkie:

Aiddon:
man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.

Crytek made its own bed by believing in fairy tales.

Lightknight:
Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Far Cry 1 was much better recieved on PC...

And no game that can play like this is poor in my book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg&list=UUJzNlOaBUctnBpVxdvkZpyw#t=80

ALso, Free to play =/= trash...

Ultratwinkie:

Aiddon:
man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2.
So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Rozalia1:

Ultratwinkie:

Crytek did make it personal.

They cried about how crysis 1 wasn't making COD levels of money. So they called PC gamers pirates.

When they got to consoles, they whined about how they still aren't making huge money. They called console gamers a bunch of pirates too. In fact, the CEO went on record and called console gamers impatient, entitled, and out of touch.

Every single time Crytek fucks up, they put the blame on others. About how its not their fault. How its the world that is conspiring against them.

When consoles were made to their EXACT desires, they still found a reason to bitch about how its not enough and how the world was holding them back from greatness.

The only common denominator in their problems were them. Crytek is the one at fault, not the consumer they hate so much.

Crysis 1 was the best selling in the franchise. It was PC exclusive. They found a fanbase that wanted games catered to PC limitations over consoles using cryengine which was cutting edge at the time. They could have made money from their fanbase and their engine. Crysis 1 did the marketing for it and any indie dev studio would kill for crysis on the cheap.

but they insulted indies too.

Crytek scrapped their engine for a much less advanced one and started peddling bog standard console shooters that do absolutely nothing that other console shooters don't already do better. Their engine was going to be the hot new thing in game development but they had to scrap it because it wasn't "cool."

Right, because if you are making money it must be cool money or it don't count. idiots, I guess big pharma must be broke because its not selling ipads.

Crytek is at fault for everything. It wasn't the world, it wasn't the gamers, it wasn't their "unfaithful" employees, and it wasn't some conspiracy.

and no, innovation does not have a wall. It does not stop with the year. They could have made engines that opened up new ways to expand gaming but they decided to take the lazy route of low effort shooters and a 4 hour long quick time event for 60$.

And before you say shrubbery its was consoles that bankrupted them. Their shrubbery was the best selling shrubbery ever. They abandoned PC gaming in 2008-9, so graphics didnt kill crytek.

They thought console gamers would open their wallets up to low effort COD clones. They were wrong.

Crysis 1 meant they were tarred with the view that all they could do was graphics, when the common man to your own fans think all you can do is shrubbery what way is there to go? You may disagree, but I don't believe they could innovate to such a large level as you said they did with Crysis 1 every year, so they fail and than bam they're "betraying" their "fans". They had the choice of appealing to fickle people, or try to grab a wider more easy audience.

Well I'll say this, the games weren't the problem. I've played Crysis 2 and found its online to be fine, in fact properly one of the FPSs I've had the most on in multiplayer (it helps I was actually pretty damn good at it I suppose).
So whatever you think of Crysis 2 its quality wouldn't have been the reason it failed, unless you think the "hardcore fans" have that large an influence which would be irrelevant they were purposely throwing them away.

Strazdas:

i think the idea is Crytek Titanic. as in, its sinking.

Oh, yeah that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ultratwinkie:
Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact.

I haven't played Far Cry 1, however I did play instincts over a friends when I was a youngin. So while accurate that it did come 10 years later, you fail to mention that the reason was consoles got their own version in instincts. If instincts wasn't made they would have ported it over (though cut down yes before you say it).

I've not played Far Cry 1 on consoles but looking online...how is it "heavily cut down"? 720 and 30 frames, and pop ins seem to the most common complaints I'm seeing and that isn't "heavily cut down" to me. Heavily cut down would imply they outright took out levels/stages/areas, weapons, characters, enemy types, powers, and the like.

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Ultratwinkie:

Crytek did make it personal.

They cried about how crysis 1 wasn't making COD levels of money. So they called PC gamers pirates.

When they got to consoles, they whined about how they still aren't making huge money. They called console gamers a bunch of pirates too. In fact, the CEO went on record and called console gamers impatient, entitled, and out of touch.

Every single time Crytek fucks up, they put the blame on others. About how its not their fault. How its the world that is conspiring against them.

When consoles were made to their EXACT desires, they still found a reason to bitch about how its not enough and how the world was holding them back from greatness.

The only common denominator in their problems were them. Crytek is the one at fault, not the consumer they hate so much.

Crysis 1 was the best selling in the franchise. It was PC exclusive. They found a fanbase that wanted games catered to PC limitations over consoles using cryengine which was cutting edge at the time. They could have made money from their fanbase and their engine. Crysis 1 did the marketing for it and any indie dev studio would kill for crysis on the cheap.

but they insulted indies too.

Crytek scrapped their engine for a much less advanced one and started peddling bog standard console shooters that do absolutely nothing that other console shooters don't already do better. Their engine was going to be the hot new thing in game development but they had to scrap it because it wasn't "cool."

Right, because if you are making money it must be cool money or it don't count. idiots, I guess big pharma must be broke because its not selling ipads.

Crytek is at fault for everything. It wasn't the world, it wasn't the gamers, it wasn't their "unfaithful" employees, and it wasn't some conspiracy.

and no, innovation does not have a wall. It does not stop with the year. They could have made engines that opened up new ways to expand gaming but they decided to take the lazy route of low effort shooters and a 4 hour long quick time event for 60$.

And before you say shrubbery its was consoles that bankrupted them. Their shrubbery was the best selling shrubbery ever. They abandoned PC gaming in 2008-9, so graphics didnt kill crytek.

They thought console gamers would open their wallets up to low effort COD clones. They were wrong.

Crysis 1 meant they were tarred with the view that all they could do was graphics, when the common man to your own fans think all you can do is shrubbery what way is there to go? You may disagree, but I don't believe they could innovate to such a large level as you said they did with Crysis 1 every year, so they fail and than bam they're "betraying" their "fans". They had the choice of appealing to fickle people, or try to grab a wider more easy audience.

Well I'll say this, the games weren't the problem. I've played Crysis 2 and found its online to be fine, in fact properly one of the FPSs I've had the most on in multiplayer (it helps I was actually pretty damn good at it I suppose).
So whatever you think of Crysis 2 its quality wouldn't have been the reason it failed, unless you think the "hardcore fans" have that large an influence which would be irrelevant they were purposely throwing them away.

Strazdas:

i think the idea is Crytek Titanic. as in, its sinking.

Oh, yeah that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ultratwinkie:
Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact.

I haven't played Far Cry 1, however I did play instincts over a friends when I was a youngin. So while accurate that it did come 10 years later, you fail to mention that the reason was consoles got their own version in instincts. If instincts wasn't made they would have ported it over (though cut down yes before you say it).

I've not played Far Cry 1 on consoles but looking online...how is it "heavily cut down"? 720 and 30 frames, and pop ins seem to the most common complaints I'm seeing and that isn't "heavily cut down" to me. Heavily cut down would imply they outright took out levels/stages/areas, weapons, characters, enemy types, powers, and the like.

Arnoxthe1:

kiri2tsubasa:
*sigh*...seems I am one of the few that genuinely liked the game to the point of hoping for a sequel.

What about it specifically did you really like?

Primarily it was the concept. That and it was a good 'pick up and play' type game. Simple, but it did the job. Annoyance is that it is not available on steam.

kiri2tsubasa:
*sigh*...seems I am one of the few that genuinely liked the game to the point of hoping for a sequel.

What about it specifically did you really like?

Lightknight:
Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

2012: Fibble - Flick 'n' Roll (what?)
2013: Warface (<60 metacritic on all platforms)
2013: Ryse: Son of Rome (around 60 metacritic and dubbed the Quick Time Event game that doesn't matter what you do you're still going to progress)
2014: The Collectables
2014 (unreleased): The Arena of Fate (free to play garbage)
2014 (Unreleased): Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Crysis was famous because it did something people said was impossible. People said that there was no way water physics would come last generation, no way we can render actually dense foliage, and no way to make a large scale physics engine.

Half Life 2 had physics, but it was smaller in scale. Crysis took that and made it much bigger. You had to be there to know how big of a leap Crysis was. If you are a console gamer, you wouldn't know. Same way anyone after 2004 wouldn't know why Half Life 2 was such a leap forward.

Crysis proved all of those wrong. That the 7th gen wasn't as limited as people thought. In fact, almost all of Crysis's advances in technology were adopted into the AAA and indie scene and are heavily used by Ubisoft.

On PC crytek was cutting edge and furthered the medium. On console, it was low effort cash grabs with cut down versions of their old games. Often years down the line.

Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact. Same with Crysis which wasn't even on the same engine. It was on the cut down console engine. Same with all their games.

Crytek just doesn't know how to make a game for consoles. If they stuck with PC, where the majority of their experience is, they wouldn't be bankrupt right now. They wouldn't have abandoned their patents and allowed other companies to make crytek obsolete.

Crytek died because they wasted their time on a market they had no experience in and the rest of the PC market kneecapped them over the years. Especially from Nvidia. They neglected their source of income and paid the price for it.

PunkRex:
A moment, for Free Radical/Crytek UK, if only there was a way to go back in TIME and find a good shooter for them to make...

Ouch! I think they just got buuurned!

Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)
2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

2012: Fibble - Flick 'n' Roll (what?)
2013: Warface (<60 metacritic on all platforms)
2013: Ryse: Son of Rome (around 60 metacritic and dubbed the Quick Time Event game that doesn't matter what you do you're still going to progress)
2014: The Collectables
2014 (unreleased): The Arena of Fate (free to play garbage)
2014 (Unreleased): Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Andy Shandy:
I have some exclusive footage straight from Crytek's offices.

image

In other news, Deep Silver are now doomed, thanks to the Homefront Curse. What is it that companies see in this IP? I played the original, it was a neat concept but certainly nothing revolutionary (pardon the pun)

Because it has potential. If they had some decent writers on the project and some decent effort put into the game, it could be amazing. The perfect example is looking at the single player campaigns for Call of Duty and Battlefield. With the exception of the Bad Company games, Battlefield single player stories have been weak and incredibly boring to even play. CoD on the other hand always ends up being amazing. They forsake realism for immersion and summer action film feel, especially Treyarch ones. There are so many military FPS games that came out that ended up sucking because they tried to jump onto the bandwagon instead of putting more effort into the game to polish it up. Which is why so many just feel hollow and bland.

The first twenty minutes of Homefront was pretty good. But then it quickly went boring and "Fuck yeah, America because....America!" instead of giving us interesting characters and legitimate motivations.

Continue reading 44 comments on the forums.
Recommended Games
Dota 2
categories: fantasy, moba
Forge
categories: 3d, fantasy, shooter