So its gonna be free2play...

(rorgoroth) #41

Just youtube his/her name and look yourself, beats waiting for nothing or excuses from people 90% of the time.

(Ruben0s) #42

I would prefer if they have some kind of donate button instead of artificial things, as I will never buy them. Things that I could live with is if they ask, lets say X euro a month to show your server in the serverlist.

(Hundopercent) #43

You can search it on youtube with my name (I would like to keep this thread on top and not derail.) I took some of them down as a request from PWE (I think some of the people caught were friends of the publisher)

(jazevec) #44

Have you heard about Quake 3 Fotress ? Made by Splash Damage. It was a very popular mod back in the day. It had the same classes, slightly different weapons, and various handgrenades.

You’re conveniently forgetting Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory started as a commercial expansion pack for RTCW. It was also meant to have a single-player campaign. However, they didn’t manage to pull it off, and decided to release it for free. It was damage control.

Second, W:ET was heavily based on RTCW, which was id Software’s Game of the Year. It’s not very difficult to get a lot of hype when you release game of the year’s multiplayer component for free. Watch this RTCW video:


Now say with a straight face it’s fundamentally different from W:ET. Moral of the story: give credit where it’s due, to id Software and Nerve.
(snugglezhenya) #45

My main problem with free to play is that it encourages game design decisions based on economic model rather than on what makes for a strong game. A game which sells boxes and expansions has to be a good game and the quality of the game is the only thing that needs to be considered. But when F2P emerges as the price model, you inevitably have to make game design decisions for non-game design (economic) reasons. I’ve seen this hurt game after game.

Just look at Tribes 2 v. Tribes: Ascend for example. In Tribes 2 you had everything available for 50 bucks (the cost of the box), unlimited customizability within the restraints of the game mechanics. Tribes: Ascend came out and suddenly you have to buy/unlock things per “class” (classes themselves being introduced as a way of selling things with their free to play model). New guns had to be constantly released in order to have a consistent for of income, which meant that balance was subordinated to economics. That doesn’t mean they went in with the idea of releasing OP guns for money. But it is clear that even if you have a good, solid, balanced game, but you are on a free to play model, you have to keep adding new stuff to keep the shop going. Decisions should be made with the GAME in mind, not the game’s store.

There have been a few games who have managed to do it right, DOTA 2 is my current candidate for best F2P model, but overall I find that the model brings with it many problems for game designers.

(Reddeadcap) #46

While free to play, letting people who are curious, but dont want to spend much time on the game are able to play it when they want to have a break from another game they spend more time and/or money on.

The main page shows us titles to pay for, I dont see any sort of xp boost or ingame cash bonus and no information is being given about a cash-shop or ingame currency so I’m thinking there isnt going to be much besides the current weaponry shown if you see the Founders Mercs and gameplay videos; These founder titles seem to just be there to show off and serve no advantages, the higher price titles imo are really nice since they give you the ability to promote the game and offer unique clothing.

(acutepuppy) #47

I’d really like to see it behave like a demo. The complete game with 2 maps for free.

Unlock all maps - Some set amount
Server hosting/Clan options - Cheap per-month
Character models/cosmetics - Whatever

Do not give 6 variants of the same weapon for $2 a piece, or make defibrillators take 10 game hours to unlock, with a pay option. That’s just frustrating, unrewarding, and overall I’d rather pay to say GOOD JOB I LIKE THIS GAME, not “Man, I wish I had a slightly higher ROF in trade for 7% damage! I better load up my DIRTY E GOLDPOINTCREDDITS.”

At least it’s impossible to get Brink’d in this situation.

(Runeforce) #48

[QUOTE=acutepuppy;418090]I’d really like to see it behave like a demo. The complete game with 2 maps for free.

Unlock all maps - Some set amount
Server hosting/Clan options - Cheap per-month
Character models/cosmetics - Whatever

Do not give 6 variants of the same weapon for $2 a piece, or make defibrillators take 10 game hours to unlock, with a pay option. That’s just frustrating, unrewarding, and overall I’d rather pay to say GOOD JOB I LIKE THIS GAME, not “Man, I wish I had a slightly higher ROF in trade for 7% damage! I better load up my DIRTY E GOLDPOINTCREDDITS.”

At least it’s impossible to get Brink’d in this situation.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But I think (and hope) you are selling yourself too cheap. SD has previously stated that they distest the pay-2-win scheme. Expect more than the average!

(Dysfunkshion) #49

Ugh, I hope they don’t force us to pay for new maps. I wouldn’t mind donating or paying for cosmetics…

(acutepuppy) #50

For sure, it’s not necessarily gameplay balance I’m worried about, Just removing the straight-forward gameplay I really am looking forward to. T:A is balanced, but the game development feels way too mingled with adding money-based in-game features.

(acutepuppy) #51

I wouldn’t mind a single unlockable map pack, or a one-time for new maps to be added (it’d act just like a demo), but microtransacting for map-packs ala Battlefield 2142 will segregate the community for sure.

(jazevec) #52

You know who loves free to play ? Cheaters. It will probably be very easy to get a new cdkey or player id whenever you’re banned.

Map packs that are not available to all are a great way to fragment the community. The community doesn’t need to be fragmented.

(Dysfunkshion) #53

Yes, this is also one of my concerns. The same problem arises if SD wants to add other gamemodes. (Something I’m not really fond off)

A one time payment to unlock all future maps would be acceptable imo, however, in that case you’re still stuck with the fragmented playerbase.

(Floris) #54

[QUOTE=snugglezhenya;417230]My main problem with free to play is that it encourages game design decisions based on economic model rather than on what makes for a strong game. A game which sells boxes and expansions has to be a good game and the quality of the game is the only thing that needs to be considered. But when F2P emerges as the price model, you inevitably have to make game design decisions for non-game design (economic) reasons. I’ve seen this hurt game after game.

Just look at Tribes 2 v. Tribes: Ascend for example. In Tribes 2 you had everything available for 50 bucks (the cost of the box), unlimited customizability within the restraints of the game mechanics. Tribes: Ascend came out and suddenly you have to buy/unlock things per “class” (classes themselves being introduced as a way of selling things with their free to play model). New guns had to be constantly released in order to have a consistent for of income, which meant that balance was subordinated to economics. That doesn’t mean they went in with the idea of releasing OP guns for money. But it is clear that even if you have a good, solid, balanced game, but you are on a free to play model, you have to keep adding new stuff to keep the shop going. Decisions should be made with the GAME in mind, not the game’s store.

There have been a few games who have managed to do it right, DOTA 2 is my current candidate for best F2P model, but overall I find that the model brings with it many problems for game designers.[/QUOTE]

I never played DOTA 2, what its F2P model like?

For RAD Soldiers it seems one of the ways SD earns money is by selling single player maps. I think that’s a really cool way of making money on a game and I’d say it would be a fine addition to Dirty Bomb in my opinion. I’m also not a really big fan of the “release free game as a demo”-approach, as that would really split the community up. I remember there were entire communities built around people playing the RtCW demo (also around the various W:ET versions; 2.55 and 2.60, but that’s a different topic).

Perhaps they could add a donation option (or use an existing unlock), and allow servers to filter out players who haven’t donated at least an X amount :stuck_out_tongue: (or have the unlock).

(Raide) #55

I haven’t played it in a while, but I believe it’s just a cash shop with additional skins and other cosmetics. I don’t think there are any gameplay changing items in the shop at all.

(acutepuppy) #56

I would be so elated to see the cash shop be cosmetics, server hosting, and clan features. If we all have the same content and can play on the same maps from the get go, that’d be fantastic. There would be cash flow from casual players, competitive players, and constant back-bone support.

And heck yeah, paying for exclusive single player missions and challenges would be rad too.

(Raide) #57

Pun. Intentional, or not?

(Cep) #58

Damn straight, not getting stiffed again on pre-order bonuses or other such like “one” off content.