Last edited by a moderator:
Crytek may go bankrupt
- Thread starter fellix
- Start date
They are putting this all on Ryse? I think the fact that precious few companies are licensing their engine had a lot to do with it, with Ryse perhaps tipping them over the edge. They have had years now to get others to use their engine with seemingly minimal success. I don't think this can all be thrown on Ryse although I;m sure their article title is just click bait.
Billy Idol
Legend
I also heard that their F2P approach wasn't that successful either.
And that they have nearly 800 employees!!
And that they have nearly 800 employees!!
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Argh! Just make TimesSplitters! 
If Ryse didn't sell enough as a platform exclusive (launching on a platform with a zero install base) and that's affected their viability, they didn't negotiate well enough with MS. Either MS should have ensured it was going to be a profitable venture, or they shouldn't have gone exclusive. To limit oneself to a single platform with no certainty of worthwhile sales in what is obviously a competitive marketplace (PS4 was launching at the same time so next-gen audience was going to split somewhat) is bad management. Especially when you're wanting to push your cross-platform middleware! A showcase title on every platform is what CryEngine needed; not a niche 3rd person combat adventure on a single machine.
It makes me really sad to hear this, Crytek has been one of a relatively few studios to make big-budget flagship, triple-A titles for the PC, and I hope they can salvage the situation.
If Ryse was a problem for them, I'm sure it didn't help that xbone saw a relatively limited launch compared to what MS initially planned. The console still isn't out in places like scandinavia for example (I could have mentioned japan too, but since previous xboxes have done so poorly there it almost doesn't matter.)
Maybe port Ryse to the PC. I'm sure there's a market for the game there.
If Ryse was a problem for them, I'm sure it didn't help that xbone saw a relatively limited launch compared to what MS initially planned. The console still isn't out in places like scandinavia for example (I could have mentioned japan too, but since previous xboxes have done so poorly there it almost doesn't matter.)
Maybe port Ryse to the PC. I'm sure there's a market for the game there.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Ryse actually sold pretty well despite the shoddy reviews. This Gamestar piece is already being discussed in an other thread btw.
I've never understood how they are a viable business anyway. How the sale of Far Cry 1+franchise and Crysis 1 could really financed 10 year development of their engine+games? Crysis2+3 sales were afaik below expectation. Why they didn't just make some Crysis1-3 port to next generation I've never understood. Low investment with easy ROI.
Cost and tools in a competitive marketplace is my guess. IIRC CryEngine 3 had a $1 million licensing fee. That's one helluva up-front cost. Now they've changed to a monthly fee + maybe royalties/'pro' price like everyone else, but they are behind others in popularity. Crytek seem to have spent buckets on their engine before securing a market for it, and they weren't producing enough themselves to pay for it (unlike Unreal), and now they haven't the grass-roots userbase to pay for its maintenance.
[strike]Yeah I'm curious why developers feel Unnreal engine 3/4 is superior to Cryengine3/4* has, so much so that there is a 10x licenses for that engine. I'm sure a google search would answer that.[/strike]
The industry would be smart to support a variety so these enginemakers have to compete with one another and give licensees a better deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know how accurate this is, but reports from employees are not good:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Crytek-Reviews-E347451.htm
Crysis team is disbanded?
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Crytek-Reviews-E347451.htm
Crysis team is disbanded?
That doesn't make much sense. Are a selection of developers supposed to pay more for a license they'd rather not have just to keep the competition healthy? Developers will go with the best product for their money. They're not going to support anyone out of charity, no more than any other business. The industry will naturally select who survives according to the rules of business, which will inevitably lead to fewer, bigger players as is the way with free-market capitalism.
Freemantle
Newcomer
Yeah I don't see why devs should feel the need to be charitable at all, it makes much more sense they go the route which makes both financial sense, but equally as import offers them the tools and framework to get the job done. Epic's Unreal engine has been a huge success and clearly delivers on said fronts. Hell it could be a case of it ain't broke don't fix it.
Crytek seem to be a modern day id software, impressive technology showcased by rather weak games, both of which never really got many licensees.
Crytek seem to be a modern day id software, impressive technology showcased by rather weak games, both of which never really got many licensees.
To be fair, much of that could be said for many other development houses.
I disagree (not played ryse) but their other games were great
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- PC Industry
