150°

PS4 & Xbox One 'Must Embrace Free-To-Play To Stay Relevant'

"Speaking at Gamescom, Warface senior producer Wim Coveliers has told NowGamer that he believes it is vital that the PS4 and Xbox One take free-to-play seriously.

"I think its essential for PS4 and Xbox One to embrace free-to-play if they want to stay relevant," said Coveliers."

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
golding893898d ago

Wouldn't free to play mean no more xbox live and ps plus subscriptions?

If that's the case, not going to happen.

ExPresident3898d ago (Edited 3898d ago )

No, it wouldn't, considering Sony has already said you can play F2P games on the PS4 without a PS+ subscription.

n4rc3898d ago

Gonna be pretty interesting when they tell EA and Activision that THEIR customers have to pay Sony a sub to play THEIR games.. But not these guys.. They are special and can play for free.

Lol

AsimLeonheart3898d ago

I do not trust this F2P format. I think F2P is just the next DLC. DLC allowed game companies to sell a $60 game for even more than $100. For example, I calculated the price of the DLC for FFXIII-2 and it was worth $60. It means that SE was able to sell a $60 game for $120. Now F2P will give them even more chances to squeeze extra money. For example, Killer Instinct for Xbone is F2P but only contains ONE playable character and you will have to $5 to download a single character! It means that you will be paying more than $100 if you want the full features of a F2P game!

MysticStrummer3898d ago

@n4rc - EA and Activision will be making that call for their own games, not Sony.

ExPresident3898d ago

@AsimLeonheart

Save the cries. You control the fate of those companies by your wallet. If people think the format is crap then don't buy it. I'd tell Microsoft where they could stick $5 per character for Killer Instinct.

Don't support shitty policies.

n4rc3898d ago

@mysticstrummer

how so?

buy any game from them and want to play it online? gotta have ps+

unless you are f2p.. then you can have your customers not have to pay extra to play it..

if cod didnt require ps+ then more people would buy it (in theory). how is this not a big FU to activision?

its makes zero sense to me quite honestly..

Hicken3898d ago

The hell are you talking about, n4rc?

Loki863898d ago

KI is $20 for all 8 characters including DLC. If you go the demo route and only add 1 or 2 characters then you can do that as well. It is called options people.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3898d ago
Roper3163898d ago

the only f2p games locked behind a pay wall are on the XB1 / 360, Sony has stated several times that F2P is just that and PS+ is not needed to enjoy the,.

Maybe one day you will tell it like it is instead of spreading BS, you're either flat out right lying about it and know the truth or are just are one misinformed person who speaks when he doesn't know what he is talking about.

MS = F2P behind a paywall

PS4 = F2P not behind a paywall

Nothing worse than a fanboy who is a liar / misinformed on top of being a fanboy.

golding893898d ago

lol Angry rant from a sony supporter. Sheesh dude..don't kill me.

MysticStrummer3898d ago

"Angry rant from a sony supporter."

I guess the truth = angry rant now

smh

first1NFANTRY3898d ago

"Wouldn't free to play mean no more xbox live and ps plus subscriptions?

If that's the case, not going to happen."

dude the amount of false information you spread on this site is incredibly tiring. do you live on this site or something? you're always the first to spread nonsense.

HammadTheBeast3898d ago

To people crying over the F2P model, just look at games like League of Legends and Planetside and Tekken Revolution to see that, if implemented right, it is pretty sweet.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3898d ago
dktxx23898d ago

I hope that free-2-pay, excuse me, free-to-play never, ever crosses the minds of Sony, Microsoft, or any talented developer ever. We get nickel and dimed enough already.

WorldGamer3898d ago

But you are not forced to buy anything really, so it's really up to the individual how much they would like to put into the product.

I wouldn't say all gaming should go this route, but some might like it. At the least it is a good way to gauge if you like the game, but I definitely see your point.

MestreRothN4G3898d ago (Edited 3898d ago )

Yes, the gamer always has the choice to never play any full Little Big Planet game again. Sad still.

F2P are the most expensive games. If you pay 60 bucks for them, you'll have less than half the content. Note: usually average content due to the "free" excuse.

There is no free to play today. It is pay to win or free to griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i nd.

But, since those are the cheaper and most lucrative games, yes, say goodbye to 60 USD retail "full" games. They're dying.

ABeastNamedTariq3898d ago

@Roth

That was a little excessive, don't you think?

And, okay Mr. Analyst, $60 games are dying. /s

ExPresident3898d ago

I agree with you to an extent, but if its done right - ala League of Legends, then I'm ok with it. They have a great F2P model.

Deadpoolio3898d ago

Ummm Micro$haft has already locked Free 2 play behind a pay wall...While Sony has already stated several times that you can play free 2 play games without a plus subscription

UnHoly_One3898d ago

I hate the free to play model. Absolutely hate it.

If they move towards this, I hope they at least offer games both ways, so you can pay your 60 bucks and just get the whole game without any nonsense.

Ashlen3898d ago

While i'd like to agree with you, and I used to have the same opinion. These days I am of mixed mind on F2P. I have played a lot of really good F2P, and I know a lot of gamers who really like F2P games.

If you haven't had much experience with F2P most of the games have some sort of method to obtain everything with out paying cash which really eliminates the Pay 2 Win factor.

Personally i'm hoping Guild Wars 2 and Neverwinter will make it on to console. Both of them were designed with interfaces that would easily translate to consoles. (set number of abilities seems to translate to set number of buttons on console)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3898d ago
WorldGamer3898d ago (Edited 3898d ago )

Well, the PS4 is already embracing this so I guess they are on the right track. Not to mention you don't need PS+ to play the F2P games.

I can't wait.

Edit:

Phantom disagree without a well thought out response, gotta love it. It's a good conversation to have, sad that whoever chose to disagree didn't have anything productive to say. Here is hoping they will share a nugget of wisdom on the subject.

avengers19783898d ago

My thoughts are the same as yours... Playstation already is embracing F2P games, and they did this outside of plus subscriptions, so they truly are FREE to play.

Your always gonna get disagrees, no matter how sound your logic is

ABeastNamedTariq3898d ago

DCUO, Planetside 2, FFXIV. Yeah they're off to a great start! Hopefully Everquest and other F2P games like that come to PS4. I don't know about XB1 since ALL online things require Gold. F2P game developers (such as Square Enix) are shying away from putting their games on XB1 because of that.

Deadpoolio3898d ago

Micro$haft has already said that yes you have to be a gold member to even think about playing free to play games

DarkBlood3898d ago

Its fine to embrace it but to think that it needs them to be relevant is not the right idea in my opinion.

josh143993898d ago

I'm not a fan of free to play games but I'm not a fan of online multiplayer either

Show all comments (38)
70°

Disney Dreamlight Valley teases part two of paid expansion

Disney Dreamlight Valley devs have officially teased the second part of the paid expansion titled The Spark of Imagination.

70°

Best Stardew Valley Farm Names – 100 Funny, Nerdy, Cute Ideas and More

Starting out a new farm, but need help choosing a name? Check out this article for a 100 farm name ides for Stardew Valley.

180°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot12h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

RaidenBlack56m ago(Edited 55m ago)

@KyRo
So, by 15 years, you mean Fallout 3 was the last great game Bethesda made?
You don't consider Skyrim a good game, which came out 13 years ago?
I'd consider Fallout 4 a pretty decent game as well. It's Story & RPG elements were a bit downgrade from New Vegas but the exploration and shooting on the other hand, were upgrades.
FO76 was disappointing and Starfield could've been better at launch I'll agree.

Duke196h ago(Edited 6h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke192h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

mandf3h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

Skuletor5h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave4h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor2h ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

Duke192h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai4h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris3h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (19)