Crytek no longer making PC exclusives, blame pirates.

Source

"Crytek were probably the last great dev team devoted solely to making PC users feel inadequate about their system specs. No longer. In an interview with PC Play, Crytek president Cevat Yerli has said that thanks to both "huge piracy" and the small returns PC games bring in compared to console titles, the company will no longer be making games exclusively for the PC market. They'll still make games for the PC, of course, just...not only for the PC."

Click here to read the full story

Thoughts?

Personally, I get the whole "piracy" issue, but didn't Crysis sell over a million copies? And if so, how many did it need to sell in order to be a success for Crytek? :?

Edit: Fixed spelling error in topic title. Grr...

The funny thing is, they sold over a million, but there's like 5 million pirated copies of it out there. That's a LOT of money that they didn't get because of piracy. I really think these sites need to be shut down permanently and have more effort being put into doing so. There really aren't that many big pirating sites. And due to being an ex-pirater, I know that. There are really only a few major ones that would have to be shut down. THen, if others pop up, get rid of em too. We need a dedicated team of website hackers to go around shutting these sites down permanently. :DDemonsoul98

As I've already been over this twice, once in PC Games and once in SW I will keep it short.

Crytek needs to stop crying about piracy and find out WHY they are having problems with it and FIND a solution to those problems. Be like Stardock or Blizzard or VALVe and DO something about it instead of just sitting back, crying and expecting the quick fix to work and make some effort like VALVe, Blizzard and Stardock have by giving incentive to the pirates to buy the games instead of just pirating them.

Blizzard with pay-to-play for WoW, VALVe with a good, non-invasive copy-protection and registration system and Stardock with them practically giving the game away for free with no DRM or copy-protection giving only paying, non-pirates the ability to get updates, patches and additions.

Stop crying Crytek, you've sold how many copies of a super-niche (only a fraction of the entire market can run the game) game already? Nearly 2 million? Suck it up and give some more incentive to those damned pirates. Crying ain't going to stop them.

[QUOTE="Demonsoul98"]The funny thing is, they sold over a million, but there's like 5 million pirated copies of it out there. That's a LOT of money that they didn't get because of piracy. I really think these sites need to be shut down permanently and have more effort being put into doing so. There really aren't that many big pirating sites. And due to being an ex-pirater, I know that. There are really only a few major ones that would have to be shut down. THen, if others pop up, get rid of em too. We need a dedicated team of website hackers to go around shutting these sites down permanently. :Dfoxhound_fox

Yeah, there is some truth to what you say, but I think the truth is in between. People will pirate games, even on consoles. However, if the solutions were really as easy as you say they are, then Crytek would be very dumb to not go along with them.

Yeah, there is some truth to what you say, but I think the truth is in between. People will pirate games, even on consoles. However, if the solutions were really as easy as you say they are, then Crytek would be very dumb to not go along with them.AtomicTangerine

As I've already been over this twice, once in PC Games and once in SW I will keep it short.

Crytek needs to stop crying about piracy and find out WHY they are having problems with it and FIND a solution to those problems. Be like Stardock or Blizzard or VALVe and DO something about it instead of just sitting back, crying and expecting the quick fix to work and make some effort like VALVe, Blizzard and Stardock have by giving incentive to the pirates to buy the games instead of just pirating them.

Blizzard with pay-to-play for WoW, VALVe with a good, non-invasive copy-protection and registration system and Stardock with them practically giving the game away for free with no DRM or copy-protection giving only paying, non-pirates the ability to get updates, patches and additions.

Stop crying Crytek, you've sold how many copies of a super-niche (only a fraction of the entire market can run the game) game already? Nearly 2 million? Suck it up and give some more incentive to those damned pirates. Crying ain't going to stop them.

foxhound_fox

Crytek found a solution: stop making PC exclusives.

Problem solved.

And your talk of incentives for thieves is priceless. People are stealing, stealing and stealing some more but you blame the developer of one of the most critically acclaimed shooters of 2007.

If your mentality represents the average PC gamer it's no wonder so many developers want nothing to do with the PC market as it exists today.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

As I've already been over this twice, once in PC Games and once in SW I will keep it short.

Crytek needs to stop crying about piracy and find out WHY they are having problems with it and FIND a solution to those problems. Be like Stardock or Blizzard or VALVe and DO something about it instead of just sitting back, crying and expecting the quick fix to work and make some effort like VALVe, Blizzard and Stardock have by giving incentive to the pirates to buy the games instead of just pirating them.

Blizzard with pay-to-play for WoW, VALVe with a good, non-invasive copy-protection and registration system and Stardock with them practically giving the game away for free with no DRM or copy-protection giving only paying, non-pirates the ability to get updates, patches and additions.

Stop crying Crytek, you've sold how many copies of a super-niche (only a fraction of the entire market can run the game) game already? Nearly 2 million? Suck it up and give some more incentive to those damned pirates. Crying ain't going to stop them.

Grammaton-Cleric

Crytek found a solution: stop making PC exclusives.

Problem solved.

And your talk of incentives for thieves is priceless. People are stealing, stealing and stealing some more but you blame the developer of one of the most critically acclaimed shooters of 2007.

If your mentality represents the average PC gamer it's no wonder so many developers want nothing to do with the PC market as it exists today.

You might want to read Stardock's response to what people call the PC Piracy problem- http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

Basically, Stardock's CEO said that while Piracy is a bit of a problem, its not the primary problem. Crysis's problem that he hit on was the fact that Crytek made a game that the system requirements to run the game reasonably shrank their potential customer base down so far, that their actual customer base would have never made their game profitable. He also hits on the fact that most Pirates (while not all) that never buy your game, would have never bought the game in the first place.

Hmm, it's alright I guess. I also get the piracy thing. Wiping Piracy completely from the face of the Earth - we'll never get to see that day. Maybe EVER.

I think it's kinda good that they will be releasing versions for the consoles too. They have to shell out a lot of money in producing, though. But since they make good games, there will be no problem with the money as their games might make a great impact on the gaming console industry, no doubt.

Stop crying Crytek, you've sold how many copies of a super-niche (only a fraction of the entire market can run the game) game already? Nearly 2 million? Suck it up and give some more incentive to those damned pirates. Crying ain't going to stop them.foxhound_fox

Giving incentives to pirates is like negotiating with terrorists. How about this incentive for them? Stop pirating the game because it's against the law. Like Grammaton said, if this is the sentiment that represents most PC gamers, that an incentive is needed to convince people to not pirate, then you just fully justfied their move away from PC exclusives.

Probably the reason there are so many pirated copies are because PC gamers were too afraid of the chance that they'd buy the game and be unable to play it on their not-quite-perfect rigs. With the recommended specs as high as they were, the game became more of a novelty item to see who could run it.morph_basic

You know I have no problem with a PC developer looking at how much games sell on consoles and saying "gee, why aren't WE getting in on that?" But this whole "PC gamers, this is your fault for being pirates! Waahhhh!!" is getting more than a bit old.Teufelhuhn

Good point, Teuf. I think they just saw the $$$s other companies were making in the console market and wanted a way of justifying the switch without hurting their supposed hardcore PC image.

Crytek found a solution: stop making PC exclusives.

Problem solved.

And your talk of incentives for thieves is priceless. People are stealing, stealing and stealing some more but you blame the developer of one of the most critically acclaimed shooters of 2007.

If your mentality represents the average PC gamer it's no wonder so many developers want nothing to do with the PC market as it exists today.

Grammaton-Cleric

I made that same point before. Going to console and increasing sales of your product 3 - 4 times sounds like a great solution to me.

let's look at your solutions Fox:

1. Do what Valve did: Do you mean either give Valve a percentage of sales to throw their game up on STEAM or invest money in their own form of digital distribution and become direct competition with STEAM? Hmmmm doesn't sound like a sure thing.

2: Do what Blizzard did: You actually think someone will pay a monthly charge to play a regular FPS or are you saying that Crytek should start making MMORPG's?

3: Do what Stardock did: You're asking Crytek to either stop making highly anticipated blockbuster hits or hope and pray no one wants to pirate the games and in return Crytek will let them patch their game.

I don't know... Going Multiplatform still sounds like a better deal. A lot of PC gamers act like these companies owe them something thus they have to stay PC exclusive at all costs. I say go where the money is and if you churn out crappy products after doing so, then you'll go belly up that way.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]You know I have no problem with a PC developer looking at how much games sell on consoles and saying "gee, why aren't WE getting in on that?" But this whole "PC gamers, this is your fault for being pirates! Waahhhh!!" is getting more than a bit old.sonicare

Good point, Teuf. I think they just saw the $$$s other companies were making in the console market and wanted a way of justifying the switch without hurting their supposed hardcore PC image.

And that is the truth of the matter. They're moving to consoles for more money and are using piracy to justify the change to their existing fanbase.

You might want to read Stardock's response to what people call the PC Piracy problem- http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

Basically, Stardock's CEO said that while Piracy is a bit of a problem, its not the primary problem. Crysis's problem that he hit on was the fact that Crytek made a game that the system requirements to run the game reasonably shrank their potential customer base down so far, that their actual customer base would have never made their game profitable. He also hits on the fact that most Pirates (while not all) that never buy your game, would have never bought the game in the first place.

Brain3000

Good call. I'm not a PC gamer, but even I can see that making your game so demanding that most average people can't even run it on the lowest settings isn't a recipe for record sales. When "Crysis" has become a byword for PC perfection, there's no need to look elsewhere for your sales problem.

I wonder how many copies they sold that are just sitting unopened because someone with a less than top notch PC received it as a gift?

You know I have no problem with a PC developer looking at how much games sell on consoles and saying "gee, why aren't WE getting in on that?" But this whole "PC gamers, this is your fault for being pirates! Waahhhh!!" is getting more than a bit old.Teufelhuhn

Agreed. Just tell it straight up like it is - we want to get in on the highly lucrative console market. Completely understandable. But getting on the piracy bandwagon is insulting to me.

Crysis was one of last year's most anticipated games - and they're surprised by high piracy rates? It still sold over a million in less than two months time and as more people upgrade to be able to play this very taxing game, it will surely keep selling well - I don't know what's their definition of success, but that sounds pretty good to me.

That's a LOT of money that they didn't get because of piracy.Demonsoul98

The thing is, there's no real evidence whatsoever that they would get that money if piracy didn't exist.

Do you mean either give Valve a percentage of sales to throw their game up on STEAMsmerlus

I think you're seriously overestimating how much money Valve takes. If I had to guess, they probably take less than retail stores and they sure as hell don't take anywhere near as much as EA took - read: most of it.

I wish Crytek would've choosen just to drop EA as a publisher and pick up someone else so they can put their next game on steam with its 15 million customers. And follow Stardock's example and make free updates as their copywright protection. Chris Taylor learned and is now working with Stardock to publish his next game Demigod. But then again I don't know how much EA funded the development of Crysis. But I'm sure if Crytek thought about it they could've come up with something to keep making killer blockbuster pc exclusives.

Piracy is a problem but it's not undeafatable.

Another thing concerning Crytek's future games especially Crysis 2 - as I said plenty of times, I'm a big proponent of multiplatform releases, but at the same time, I fear that Crysis 2 will be dumbed down if it's developed for consoles in mind. First off, a lot of the CryEngine 2 features will be made unusable - the levels will have to be much smaller, the level of interaction will be severely limited and the game just won't look as good as it could've. This is no PC elitism, these are simply my genuine concerns as a fan of the original game. In reality, these are not mere concerns, these are the compromises that will have to be made. If however, Crytek means that it will release a seperately-developed console version...well, then this news is irrelevant to me.

But then again I don't know how much EA funded the development of Crysis.Roris0A

I don't think EA financed the actual development (going by the fact that EA signed Crysis very much late in the development process and that Crytek managed to negotiate a deal in which they reserved all rights on the IP), but they probably invested quite a bit into advertising and distribution.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]But then again I don't know how much EA funded the development of Crysis.UpInFlames

I don't think EA financed the actual development (going by the fact that EA signed Crysis very much late in the development process and that Crytek managed to negotiate a deal in which they reserved all rights on the IP), but they probably invested quite a bit into advertising and distribution.

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]But then again I don't know how much EA funded the development of Crysis.UpInFlames

I don't think EA financed the actual development (going by the fact that EA signed Crysis very much late in the development process and that Crytek managed to negotiate a deal in which they reserved all rights on the IP), but they probably invested quite a bit into advertising and distribution.

Ah you're probably right then.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]Do you mean either give Valve a percentage of sales to throw their game up on STEAMUpInFlames

I think you're seriously overestimating how much money Valve takes. If I had to guess, they probably take less than retail stores and they sure as hell don't take anywhere near as much as EA took - read: most of it.

aren't you the one that told me that Valve isn't a publisher? Crytek would still need money to fund their projects, still need money for advertisement so they would be paying EA for those things and Valve for STEAM.

Furthermore I think it's funny how egotistical most PC gamers are in this topic. Some of you actually believe that Crytek, and the half dozen other big name PC developers that are jumping ship, are making up or embelishing stories about how piracy is cutting into their profits and they have to tell us these lies because they're so ashamed or embarassed that they are working on consoles games.

Get real. This is a company of adults here, not little five year olds that got caught with their hands in a cookie jar. Hoenstly, why would all these companies make up lies just to make games on consoles?

aren't you the one that told me that Valve isn't a publisher? Crytek would still need money to fund their projects, still need money for advertisement so they would be paying EA for those things and Valve for STEAM.smerlus

I didn't imply that Steam would be able to take over publishing duties, I just guesstimated the percentage of royalties Valve takes in comparison to retailers and publishers - since you seemed to imply it was a significant amount. But Crytek would definitely need a different publisher since EA will never go to Steam - at least not until their own service crumbles.

Get real. This is a company of adults here, not little five year olds that got caught with their hands in a cookie jar. Hoenstly, why would all these companies make up lies just to make games on consoles?smerlus

I am real and in the real world companies lie all the time for a multitude of reasons and some high-ranking officials act like complete idiots, so I don't see your point.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]aren't you the one that told me that Valve isn't a publisher? Crytek would still need money to fund their projects, still need money for advertisement so they would be paying EA for those things and Valve for STEAM.UpInFlames

I didn't imply that Steam would be able to take over publishing duties, I just guesstimated the percentage of royalties Valve takes in comparison to retailers and publishers - since you seemed to imply it was a significant amount. But Crytek would definitely need a different publisher since EA will never go to Steam - at least not until their own service crumbles.

Get real. This is a company of adults here, not little five year olds that got caught with their hands in a cookie jar. Hoenstly, why would all these companies make up lies just to make games on consoles?smerlus

I am real and in the real world companies lie all the time for a multitude of reasons and some high-ranking officials act like complete idiots, so I don't see your point.

So... Crytek has to look for a different publisher, then work out a deal with Valve to put their games on STEAM... or they can just stick with EA and make cross platform games.

Hmmm one of these options sounds so much easier and more profitable and some PC people still can't/won't understand that.

And of course you don't see my point because it's common sense. You'd rather believe some straight up dumb belief that Epic, Crytek and a bunch of others devs HAVE to lie to us for no apparant reason.

Can one single pro PC person in here tell me what the point is about "making up" this piracy "lie"? Most of these companies are already saying "We want to make more money so we're doing console games now too." So why would they tack on this lie and turn it into "Due to our product getting stolen, we want to make more money so we're doing console games now too." for the fun of it?

I read the interview. Yerli still says that Crysis still isn't coming to the consoles. So those who are hoping a Crysis port to the PS3 or 360 should't raise their hopes up.Pirate_X

We have plenty of FPS to choose from as is, one less won't hurt anyone.

And of course you don't see my point because it's common sense. You'd rather believe some straight up dumb belief that Epic, Crytek and a bunch of others devs HAVE to lie to us for no apparant reason.smerlus

I'm not sure why PC-related topics consistently make you so hostile, but I am dropping this discussion if you're so intent on insulting my intelligence.

I expect it and don't mind it from random posters, but not from people I consider friends.

The funny thing is, they sold over a million, but there's like 5 million pirated copies of it out there. That's a LOT of money that they didn't get because of piracy.Demonsoul98

[QUOTE="smerlus"]And of course you don't see my point because it's common sense. You'd rather believe some straight up dumb belief that Epic, Crytek and a bunch of others devs HAVE to lie to us for no apparant reason.UpInFlames

I'm not sure why PC-related topics consistently make you so hostile, but I am dropping this discussion if you're so intent on insulting my intelligence.

I expect it and don't mind it from random posters, but not from people I consider friends.

Awww come on buddy!

I don't mean to sound like a prick it just comes out when things seem illogical for me. Companies only lie to get out of trouble or to advertise/promote something. Crytek isn't doing any of these. They're not trying to raise stock prices, hide funds, advertise or promote a game that doesn't exist. They are simply stating where the company is headed and they gave two reasons, more money and less problems.

I don't see why people would suggest other ways out that would cause them more hassle or money, and call them liars in the process besides the fact that PC gamers think PC only devs owe them some great debt.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]And of course you don't see my point because it's common sense. You'd rather believe some straight up dumb belief that Epic, Crytek and a bunch of others devs HAVE to lie to us for no apparant reason.smerlus

I'm not sure why PC-related topics consistently make you so hostile, but I am dropping this discussion if you're so intent on insulting my intelligence.

I expect it and don't mind it from random posters, but not from people I consider friends.

Awww come on buddy!

I don't mean to sound like a prick it just comes out when things seem illogical for me. Companies only lie to get out of trouble or to advertise/promote something. Crytek isn't doing any of these. They're not trying to raise stock prices, hide funds, advertise or promote a game that doesn't exist. They are simply stating where the company is headed and they gave two reasons, more money and less problems.

I don't see why people would suggest other ways out that would cause them more hassle or money, and call them liars in the process besides the fact that PC gamers think PC only devs owe them some great debt.

I think learning from stardock, finding a new publisher and getting on steam is a lot easier and cheaper than getting the extra manpower to go mult-platform :P

And really is that a fact? You take a small group of people who act the same and make them into a whole group.. And I think that's how this somehow evolved into your "fact". How big is this group of pc gamers? I'm not trying to over-analyze anything but I just hate when people group individuals for really superficial reasons.

Really no one thinks Crytek owes them anything. They're just voicing their concern from a consumer standpoint. Crytek has been the last big graphical pusher for the PC and with them going console they may not have enough recources to make another great pc encentric experience like Crysis was. And for because of piracy. Which I don't think is a "lie". But it's definitely not an un-beatable fight for reasons I've already explained. So basically many individuals feel there isn't a neccissity for them to go to consoles. And finally yes it will be more profitable for them to mult-plat but as a customer of theirs I'm concerned about that.

I don't mean to sound like a prick it just comes out when things seem illogical for me. Companies only lie to get out of trouble or to advertise/promote something. Crytek isn't doing any of these. They're not trying to raise stock prices, hide funds, advertise or promote a game that doesn't exist. They are simply stating where the company is headed and they gave two reasons, more money and less problems.

I don't see why people would suggest other ways out that would cause them more hassle or money, and call them liars in the process besides the fact that PC gamers think PC only devs owe them some great debt.smerlus

Well, I don't think Crytek is straight-up lying, I just don't see the rationale behind jumping on the piracy bandwagon - especially their claim about being surprised by it. I mean, what the hell? When you make a high-profile game, it's going to be pirated - it doesn't matter if it's PC or console. Everyone talks about PC piracy, but ignores the fact that Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV were all over the Internet days before release - and those are just the ones that were reported due to their incredible popularity.

Piracy is just a convenient excuse for lots of things and I hate it. Make console games, make console-only games - fine. But don't whine about piracy especially when your game sells over a million in less than two months. It's just pathetic. There are so many variables concerning piracy that it is simply impossible to determine in what and how big a way it is affecting sales. And please, for the love of all things, don't say you lost X amount of money due to piracy because it is just straight up bull**** - each and every time.

Developers who are genuinely concerned about piracy have implemented measures to combat it. Whining and saying we're going to consoles is an easy way out - they're basically saying we give up. Fine, give up, but then at least have the courtesy of not whining about it if you're not going to do anything about it. As a PC gamer who buys original games, that's what they do owe me.

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]And of course you don't see my point because it's common sense. You'd rather believe some straight up dumb belief that Epic, Crytek and a bunch of others devs HAVE to lie to us for no apparant reason.Roris0A

I'm not sure why PC-related topics consistently make you so hostile, but I am dropping this discussion if you're so intent on insulting my intelligence.

I expect it and don't mind it from random posters, but not from people I consider friends.

Awww come on buddy!

I don't mean to sound like a prick it just comes out when things seem illogical for me. Companies only lie to get out of trouble or to advertise/promote something. Crytek isn't doing any of these. They're not trying to raise stock prices, hide funds, advertise or promote a game that doesn't exist. They are simply stating where the company is headed and they gave two reasons, more money and less problems.

I don't see why people would suggest other ways out that would cause them more hassle or money, and call them liars in the process besides the fact that PC gamers think PC only devs owe them some great debt.

I think learning from stardock, finding a new publisher and getting on steam is a lot easier and cheaper than getting the extra manpower to go mult-platform :P

And really is that a fact? You take a small group of people who act the same and make them into a whole group.. And I think that's how this somehow evolved into your "fact". How big is this group of pc gamers? I'm not trying to over-analyze anything but I just hate when people group individuals for really superficial reasons.

Really no one thinks Crytek owes them anything. They're just voicing their concern from a consumer standpoint. Crytek has been the last big graphical pusher for the PC and with them going console they may not have enough recources to make another great pc encentric experience like Crysis was. And for because of piracy. Which I don't think is a "lie". But it's definitely not an un-beatable fight for reasons I've already explained. So basically many individuals feel there isn't a neccissity for them to go to consoles. And finally yes it will be more profitable for them to mult-plat but as a customer of theirs I'm concerned about that.

What exactly would you like them to learn from Stardock? Does Stardock have a 'free stuff to piracy ratio' or chart that tells devs roughly how much things they should give out for free so that people don't steal their games or is it the fact that Stardock doesn't make hugely popular blockbuster titles and a few other factors are involved?

Ditching the leading publisher to look for one with less capital and pull in the industry isn't a smart move especially now that Crytek has announced that they're going multiplatform and more than likely EA would be willing to pony up any extra money hiring console devs would cost.

so no. none of those are easier, smarter or will have as large a payout as going multi platform.

actually I didn't want to put the effort into type PC elitest... I actually play PC games myself so i'm using the "if the shoe fits..." rule when posting.

lastly, you forget that it's just not piracy but also the lure of more profits that has them interested in going the console route. So yes they could possibly do any of those things listed, they just choose to make more money and not care about antipiracy as long as they can make money elsewear

[QUOTE="Roris0A"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]smerlus

I think learning from stardock, finding a new publisher and getting on steam is a lot easier and cheaper than getting the extra manpower to go mult-platform :P

And really is that a fact? You take a small group of people who act the same and make them into a whole group.. And I think that's how this somehow evolved into your "fact". How big is this group of pc gamers? I'm not trying to over-analyze anything but I just hate when people group individuals for really superficial reasons.

Really no one thinks Crytek owes them anything. They're just voicing their concern from a consumer standpoint. Crytek has been the last big graphical pusher for the PC and with them going console they may not have enough recources to make another great pc encentric experience like Crysis was. And for because of piracy. Which I don't think is a "lie". But it's definitely not an un-beatable fight for reasons I've already explained. So basically many individuals feel there isn't a neccissity for them to go to consoles. And finally yes it will be more profitable for them to mult-plat but as a customer of theirs I'm concerned about that.

What exactly would you like them to learn from Stardock? Does Stardock have a 'free stuff to piracy ratio' or chart that tells devs roughly how much things they should give out for free so that people don't steal their games or is it the fact that Stardock doesn't make hugely popular blockbuster titles and a few other factors are involved?

Simply that cd-protection doesn't work and replacing it with free updates will curb piracy by quite a bit. Free Updates also serve as a way to check if the game is legit or not. No stardock doesn't have any ratios but it has certainly worked. And really how would stardock get data like that?

There have also been many more people attracted to them becaues of the ease of installing thier games. And they've built up a solid rep like no other. Galactic Civilziations sold 300k in it's lifetime and now Sins has easily surpassed that in just a few months. No doubt their System requirments were a factor too. But the fact is all of these people who pirated Crysis had an adequate rig to run it otherwise it the downloads wouldn't be so high. And that's what Yerli was complaining about.

Also CEO and creative director Chris Taylor of GPG had a change of heart about piracy in pc gaming and is now working with Stardock to help publish his next game. He seems to agree and see their vision. And his game is on a much higher budget than probably all of Stardock's games put together.

Ditching the leading publisher to look for one with less capital and pull in the industry isn't a smart move especially now that Crytek has announced that they're going multiplatform and more than likely EA would be willing to pony up any extra money hiring console devs would cost.

so no. none of those are easier, smarter or will have as large a payout as going multi platform.

EA just has more cash for advertising and thats it. if Crytek moved away from them they could put their next game on D2D, steam, gamersgate, gametap, etc I'm pretty sure that would be much better than sticking with EA downloader and seeing that Crysis pretty much advertised itself I don't think they would need that much of a budget for advertising. It seems like they need more places to sell their game.

I don't think changing their mind after the announcement would hurt anything. And I think Crytek funded most of the game themselves - which I'm not quiet sure about to be honest, so they would probably hire new developers themselves. And that takes a lot of time and space either way. So I don't think it would be easier than just staying with their current developers and focusing on the pc.

Also I never said staying on the pc platform would be more profitable.

actually I didn't want to put the effort into type PC elitest... I actually play PC games myself so i'm using the "if the shoe fits..." rule when posting.

lol now they are pc elitists? what I'm trying to say is you're the only one who's putting these guys into an ugly group.I could go put anyone in this forum into some superficial group and get irriated at them, but would just be stupid.. You basically ignored my reasoning behind it.

lastly, you forget that it's just not piracy but also the lure of more profits that has them interested in going the console route. So yes they could possibly do any of those things listed, they just choose to make more money and not care about antipiracy as long as they can make money elsewear

Yes the lure of bigger profits because of piracy. It wasn't soley because of more profits on a console. If they had that attitude they could've went to consoles at the beginning of this generation like every other pc developer. So I'm quite sure it's becauase of piracy. Which leads me to believe I don't think they're looking at the whole picture on pc gaming with stardock's strategy.

I have a feeling this could go on forever..

Stardock's strategy is untested on blockbuster titles plain and simple.

This is like having a lottery machine, putting two balls on it and guessing which one comes up. "Hey I have a 50 - 50 chance at winning, if I put more balls in it, I'll still have a 50 - 50 chance at winning the lottery!"

So far this theory has worked for only one company that puts out games with small followings and no other group. I think some further testing is in order before we declare this THE solution to piracy.

The grouping i did was, once again, on a "If the shoe fits..." basis. It didn't apply to me so I wasn't offended by it.

Cryteks deal with EA is pretty good. They get to keep the Crysis IP unlike their venture with Ubisoft and the Far Cry deal. You see not many publisher are going to put up money on an untested IP and then if it is successful, hand that IP over to you once you're done with it. There's only a few more words with with cry in it that are catchy and can be used in a title so I don't think "Oh just shop around for another deal and do the Valve thing which further cuts into their profits" is a good deal.

It really seems like your cutting my responses little by little and not really countering me at all.. So this is going to my last reply if you don't start to take me seriously.

Stardock's strategy is untested on blockbuster titles plain and simple.

This is like having a lottery machine, putting two balls on it and guessing which one comes up. "Hey I have a 50 - 50 chance at winning, if I put more balls in it, I'll still have a 50 - 50 chance at winning the lottery!"

So far this theory has worked for only one company that puts out games with small followings and no other group. I think some further testing is in order before we declare this THE solution to piracy.

You're only looking at the example of who's succeeded. Lets look at the whole picture - the logic behind it.

Replacing copy-write protection with updates that not only adds new content but also checks to see if the game is legit or not. I think that applies to all games.. not just smaller games. Also these "followings" came after the games and the strategy Stardock used.

And again, Chris Taylor sees the logic and his game definitely doesn't have a small budget.So does it really matter if the game has a small budget or large one?

The grouping i did was, once again, on a "If the shoe fits..." basis. It didn't apply to me so I wasn't offended by it.

lol it's not that you were offended it's just an ugly thing to do imo. You take a small amount of information from a small group of people and then just label them. I've seen most of them post. They're not elitist to their personal computers that they like to game on.

Cryteks deal with EA is pretty good. They get to keep the Crysis IP unlike their venture with Ubisoft and the Far Cry deal. You see not many publisher are going to put up money on an untested IP and then if it is successful, hand that IP over to you once you're done with it. There's only a few more words with with cry in it that are catchy and can be used in a title so I don't think "Oh just shop around for another deal and do the Valve thing which further cuts into their profits" is a good deal.

No doubt their deal is pretty good, I just said it's not good for the situation Crytek is in with their piracy complaints. I don't think Crytek would have a lot of trouble getting another publisher to agree to let them keep their IP. Maybe when they were with Ubisoft because they were a new developer which is also probably why they lost their IP. Now they're definitely up there with ID, Valve and so on.And have a little talking power now.

And do the valve thing? Putting your pc game in as many digital retail sites possible would boost your profits by a lot. Everyone is doing it and having much success from Ubisoft, Epic, Sega, to Capcom and so on.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

It really seems like your cutting my responses little by little and not really countering me at all.. So this is going to my last reply if you don't start to take me seriously.

Stardock's strategy is untested on blockbuster titles plain and simple.

This is like having a lottery machine, putting two balls on it and guessing which one comes up. "Hey I have a 50 - 50 chance at winning, if I put more balls in it, I'll still have a 50 - 50 chance at winning the lottery!"

So far this theory has worked for only one company that puts out games with small followings and no other group. I think some further testing is in order before we declare this THE solution to piracy.

You're only looking at the example of who's succeeded. Lets look at the whole picture - the logic behind it.

Replacing copy-write protection with updates that not only adds new content but also checks to see if the game is legit or not. I think that applies to all games.. not just smaller games. Also these "followings" came after the games and the strategy Stardock used.

And again, Chris Taylor sees the logic and his game is definitely doesn't have a small budget.So does it really matter if the game has a small budget or large one?

The grouping i did was, once again, on a "If the shoe fits..." basis. It didn't apply to me so I wasn't offended by it.

lol it's not that you were offended it's just an ugly thing to do imo. You take a small amount of information from a small group of people and then just label them. I've seen most of them people post. They're not elitist to their personal computers that they like to game on.

Cryteks deal with EA is pretty good. They get to keep the Crysis IP unlike their venture with Ubisoft and the Far Cry deal. You see not many publisher are going to put up money on an untested IP and then if it is successful, hand that IP over to you once you're done with it. There's only a few more words with with cry in it that are catchy and can be used in a title so I don't think "Oh just shop around for another deal and do the Valve thing which further cuts into their profits" is a good deal.

No doubt their deal is pretty good, I just said it's not good for the situation Crytek is in with their piracy complaints. I don't think Crytek would have a lot of trouble getting another publisher to agree to let them keep their IP. Maybe when they were with Ubisoft because they were a new developer which is also probably why they lost their IP. Now they're definitely up there with ID, Valve and so on.And have a little talking power now.

And do the valve thing? Putting your pc game in as many digital retail sites would boost your profits by a lot. Everyone is doing it and having much success from Ubisoft, Epic, Sega, to Capcom and so on.

Roris0A

You're acting like Copy-write protection is what causes piracy. Crysis works on: buy our game, we have a bit of protection on our CD that doesn't mess with anything and you won't have to worry about updates. Stardock works on: We don't care if you buy our game or not, but if you buy it, you'll get to update your game.

There's really only a small difference between the games and that is when the game checks to see if it's a pirated copy. When you install it or when you update it. You're trying to tell me that video game pirates are so upset about a game that checks authenticity at install that they are pirating it left and right but one that checks on updates only is cool with them and they don't mind it...so they buy the game.

to me that doesn't sound logical at all and will need proof in the form of a blockbuster game to see if it works or not.

And it doesn't matter if Chris Taylor jumped on the bandwagon. GPG jumped on the Stardock sack, Epic and Crytek jumped on the multiplatform sack... it doesn't mean either is correct but I know which group will make more money.

as for the grouping... it's at how you look at it. If someone called me a negative term and it didn't apply to me, I wouldn't be upset.

Lastly you're not looking at the big picture. Shopping around for deals is a waste of time when you're already in the corner of the biggest publisher and have a great deal worked out. To top this sweet deal off, they are going multi platform and can make games that will reach everyone that owns a PC... just like the last two games they made and now can reach the an extra 25 million gamers that own next gen consoles. That is an increase in profits, not "I hope the people that didn't buy our games last time because they didn't like it, and I hope the people that pirated the game last time decide to buy it this time around..."

[QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

=

smerlus

You're acting like Copy-write protection is what causes piracy. Crysis works on: buy our game, we have a bit of protection on our CD that doesn't mess with anything and you won't have to worry about updates. Stardock works on: We don't care if you buy our game or not, but if you buy it, you'll get to update your game.

There's really only a small difference between the games and that is when the game checks to see if it's a pirated copy. When you install it or when you update it. You're trying to tell me that video game pirates are so upset about a game that checks authenticity at install that they are pirating it left and right but one that checks on updates only is cool with them and they don't mind it...so they buy the game.

to me that doesn't sound logical at all and will need proof in the form of a blockbuster game to see if it works or not.

No stardock's strategy is all about focusing on the people who would buy their games by treating them like customers (no copy-write protection) and maybe bring a few pirates over, I should've stated that before.ButPirates do have more of a incentive to buy when theres updates and they need a legit copy to get them. I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on copy-write protection but is a big factor. No one likes to keep entering their dvds in their drive when they want to play. Also you're ignoring the updates are free content.

And again using this strategy Stardock has proven it works. This strategy would apply to all games, I don't see how one having a larger budget would be any different.

And it doesn't matter if Chris Taylor jumped on the bandwagon. GPG jumped on the Stardock sack, Epic and Crytek jumped on the multiplatform sack... it doesn't mean either is correct but I know which group will make more money.

Actually it does matter, Epic has had insane success by going multi-platform. They were corrrect in their decision in going multi-plat and suppling their next gen engine to everyone. And I'm sure Chris Taylor will have great success too with Stardock. He see's the logic behind stardock's strategy that has worked both times.

as for the grouping... it's at how you look at it. If someone called me a negative term and it didn't apply to me, I wouldn't be upset.

And so that negative term didn't apply to those people now? lol

Lastly you're not looking at the big picture. Shopping around for deals is a waste of time when you're already in the corner of the biggest publisher and have a great deal worked out. To top this sweet deal off, they are going multi platform and can make games that will reach everyone that owns a PC... just like the last two games they made and now can reach the an extra 25 million gamers that own next gen consoles. That is an increase in profits, not "I hope the people that didn't buy our games last time because they didn't like it, and I hope the people that pirated the game last time decide to buy it this time around..."

Lastly you're not totally reading what I have to say. Crysis does want to make pc exclusive games or else they would've went mult-platform a long, long time ago like everyone else as I have said before but because of piracy they don't feel it's worth it. But if they truly wanted to fight against piracy, they would ditch EA get on more digital download sites and you know.... ...

It really seems to me we've hit a wall, you keep looking at this from a pure buisness standpoint on what is absolutely the best for Crytek despite their pc preference and me from a customer and fan's view of Crytek and things I've learned from the pc industry. We bascially just keep repeating the same things. Shall we call it a night?

[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Roris0A"]

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

=

Roris0A

You're acting like Copy-write protection is what causes piracy. Crysis works on: buy our game, we have a bit of protection on our CD that doesn't mess with anything and you won't have to worry about updates. Stardock works on: We don't care if you buy our game or not, but if you buy it, you'll get to update your game.

There's really only a small difference between the games and that is when the game checks to see if it's a pirated copy. When you install it or when you update it. You're trying to tell me that video game pirates are so upset about a game that checks authenticity at install that they are pirating it left and right but one that checks on updates only is cool with them and they don't mind it...so they buy the game.

to me that doesn't sound logical at all and will need proof in the form of a blockbuster game to see if it works or not.

No stardock's strategy is all about focusing on the people who would buy their games by treating them like customers (no copy-write protection) and maybe bring a few pirates over, I should've stated that before.ButPirates do have more of a incentive to buy when theres updates and they need a legit copy to get them. I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on copy-write protection but is a big factor. No one likes to keep entering their dvds in their drive when they want to play. Also you're ignoring the updates are free content.

And again using this strategy Stardock has proven it works. This strategy would apply to all games, I don't see how one having a larger budget would be any different.

And it doesn't matter if Chris Taylor jumped on the bandwagon. GPG jumped on the Stardock sack, Epic and Crytek jumped on the multiplatform sack... it doesn't mean either is correct but I know which group will make more money.

Actually it does matter, Epic has had insane success by going multi-platform. They were corrrect in their decision in going multi-plat and suppling their next gen engine to everyone. And I'm sure Chris Taylor will have great success too with Stardock. He see's the logic behind stardock's strategy that has worked both times.

as for the grouping... it's at how you look at it. If someone called me a negative term and it didn't apply to me, I wouldn't be upset.

And so that negative term didn't apply to those people now? lol

Lastly you're not looking at the big picture. Shopping around for deals is a waste of time when you're already in the corner of the biggest publisher and have a great deal worked out. To top this sweet deal off, they are going multi platform and can make games that will reach everyone that owns a PC... just like the last two games they made and now can reach the an extra 25 million gamers that own next gen consoles. That is an increase in profits, not "I hope the people that didn't buy our games last time because they didn't like it, and I hope the people that pirated the game last time decide to buy it this time around..."

Lastly you're not totally reading what I have to say. Crysis does want to make pc exclusive games or else they would've went mult-platform a long, long time ago like everyone else as I have said before but because of piracy they don't feel it's worth it. But if they truly wanted to fight against piracy, they would ditch EA get on more digital download sites and you know.... ...

It really seems to me we've hit a wall, you keep looking at this from a pure buisness standpoint on what is absolutely the best for Crytek despite their pc preference and me from a customer and fan's view of Crytek and things I've learned from the pc industry. We bascially just keep repeating the same things. Shall we call it a night?

fair enough

No stardock's strategy is all about focusing on the people who would buy their games by treating them like customers (no copy-write protection) and maybe bring a few pirates over, I should've stated that before.ButPirates do have more of a incentive to buy when theres updates and they need a legit copy to get them. I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on copy-write protection but is a big factor. No one likes to keep entering their dvds in their drive when they want to play. Also you're ignoring the updates are free content.

And again using this strategy Stardock has proven it works. This strategy would apply to all games, I don't see how one having a larger budget would be any different.Roris0A

There isn't some sort of "respect" for what Stardock is doing in the pirate community. These are people who just refuse to buy games when they can just get them for free. It really doesn't matter how "worth it" developers make these games. Stardocks stuff (including patches) is just as readily available for download on these torrent sites and newsgroups as any other game. I think the idea that the Sin's success had anything to do with the type of copy protection they use is silly.

There are far more PC developers who do use copy protection and are more successful than Stardock. Both strategies are "proven" to work.