“I think the notion of a single-player experience has to go away,” Yerli confidently declares. “However, I’m not saying that there will be no single-player experiences ... it could be it’s called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead.”
“Online and social can reignite single-player in a new type of context and provide benefits that will make you want to be a part of a connected story-mode rather than a disconnected story-mode. Sure, if the technology forces you to play a traditional single-player game online, that doesn’t make sense but if it’s offering actual benefits to be online then you want to be part of it.”
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/28/crytek-reveals-the-many-faces-of-free-to-play?
----------------------------------
Loath as I am to link to IGN, they are the original source, so it is a necessary evil...
It would seem as though he's pushing towards a Demon's/Dark Souls sort of setup, which by itself would be perfectly fine, however does that kind of approach have to mean the death of the traditional single player experience altogether? Can both not exist? I've always been focused on the single player experience, so naturally I'd be against any such complete shift. In fact with comments like this, and previous Crytek comments about reviving Timesplitters as a 'social' F2P game, I find myself thinking that I am diametrically opposed to the direction Crytek wishes to take.
VGChartz
