Wargaming "helped" Microsoft realise the business model's importance.
"Free to play on Xbox" is not free.
"But I have a Gold membership so this shouldn't be an issue to anyone else huehuehue"
Exactly, as long as "F2P" games are put behind the pay wall, they aren't F2P at all. Hopefully Microsoft sees the wisdom in allowing F2P games be truly F2P.
World of Tanks is a multiplayer game, so I guess you'd need to pay for PS+ if it came to PS3/PS4. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
dirigiblebill "World of Tanks is a multiplayer game, so I guess you'd need to pay for PS+ if it came to PS3/PS4. Just thought I'd throw that in there." Wrong. PlanetSide 2, DC Universe Online, Warframe and Blacklight: Retribution are all free to play online games, none require a PS+ subscription to play. Besides, PS3 and Vita multiplayer will remain free, only PS4 needs PS+ for buy to play multiplayer games.
@dirigibilebill Guess what? Planetside 2 is multiplayer, DC Universe is multiplayer, Warframe is multiplayer, Blacklight is multiplayer. Now guess what they all have in common? Hint: you're wrong.
Lol. WRONG WRONG WRONG etc. Calm down, darlings - I apologise profusely for intruding my ignorance upon your spotless understanding of such matters.
^ Right. - In all honesty, yes, F2P seems to be the future and it also seems as horrible as possible. Imagine Demon's Souls 2 with the Candy Crush life limit. ... Profit. - Time for Sony to save the gaming industry again saying: It seems we will be the only big console with complete games (thus forcing MS to make their 7th 180º).
Well free to play is not free to play any anything really. You buy a PS3 you had to pay for the PS3 so it was not free. Same with free apps on phones you have to pay for the phone it just all depends on how you look at it as most things that are free in life are not free.
Please don't try to be technical, you're doing it VERY wrong.
I know right? I mean you also have to pay for your internet, electricity, a keyboard, a mouse, a controller, a TV, etc. Yeah it's not free at all!
Dear Lord, I don't think your argument could get any thinner.
lol nice sarcasm. You were being sarcastic, right?
@Blitz0623 Don't forget about the house you gotta buy to put all of those things in. Now we're looking at around 100k- whatever k just to get that damn F2P game.
Sony has better F2P games available right now. @Cleft5 Actually I was talking about DC universe, Planet Side 2 and Everquest. I meant games owned by SOE.
I am really loving Tekken Revolution on the ps3. I wasn't really into Tekken before that game, but I really enjoy playing as Asuka and the overall feel of that game in general. I will definitely buy the next major Tekken game that is released.
Isn't it going to be the same case with ps4 now that Sony introduced a paywall too? Or are the free to play games gonna be free for all members with an internet connection? If its not the latter then i think both MS andd Sony should receive backlash.
Free to play games on PS4 are free to play.
Free-to-play games on PS4 won't require a PS+ subscription for online play.
It's AN answer not THE answer. This person obviously doesn't comprehend the difference. EX: Where can we get food ? There are thousands of places. Does that mean McDonalds is THE answer ? Nope, there are much better choices.
Free-to-play my behind. You are being remeinded all the time that you should buy this and buy that. And in the end you have to pay up to be competitive and end up paying way more then a standalone game. Developers are not launching these F2P games because they want to be nice and give free stuff around. They know people will end up using more money then normal. F2P is cancer in the gaming industry.
Yeah you just described a bad F2P game, good F2P games don't give paying customers a competitive advantage. And GOSH! do you actually think a developer wants to go home with a pay check?!? D:
League of Legends. Everything can be bought with in game currency, except for skins, and we all know skins are OP /s.
Dunno why people have a problem having to pay for live it is totally worth it and only costs £25 a year. I feel sorry for poor people when it's time for next gen releases.
Yea, these are the same folks that spend $5 on starbuck everyday like it is nothing but complains that 4-5 is too much per month on a hobby that they are heavily invested into. I got mine every year for $35 at Amazon and have been enjoying a service that I love for years now.
I agree mate, you wanna know what the real problem is? The fact it is MS and that's the reason to moan about it, it's ok now tho Sony is doing the same thing. That, or they can only afford one console (cheapest one).
I just canceled my XBL subscription and I am not going to renew it again. The only reason I paid for XBL Gold was to play my games online, I never felt like it was worth it. It was a price I had to pay to get the full use out of my games. I solved that problem by no longer buying mp games for the 360. Meanwhile, I love paying for my PS+ subscription because it is truly of value to me.
But they are the same now mate, ps+ is needed to play online unless your happy with just planetside 2 which is good but I have played that to death on my pc for ages. You must of missed out on alot of great mp games, talk about bite your nose off. So your in the same boat again. Ps+ is good on the ps3 because of the free games but there will not be free good games on the ps4 for a long time because they are not going to give away games like bf4 when it has only just came out. Like I said its £25 a year, that's nothin! Some people are cheap tho. Am going to have both like have already now
DriveClub, Outlast and Don't Starve on day one, along with PlanetSide 2, DC Universe Online, Warframe and Blacklight Retribution. Most of those look pretty great. Especially Outlast, man can't wait for that. There will be good to great games every month on Plus. And don't forget that this is a cross-platform subscription. It's value out the ears. - I've said this stuff for years. Breaking down your subscription to dollars per year or cents per day makes absolutely no difference on principals and how a company treats its consumers. You'll still be supporting a company that insults by charging for free-to-play games, free apps and has charged for Peer to peer online connectivity for years. There is no value in that - none. All I'm seeing here is corporate apologetics. I mean do you even want me to list the ridiculous number of apps that are behind the paywall to prove how unreasonable MS are? To be fair, both companies can ask for a charge for online now because their online infrastructures are offering higher-bandwidth solutions and are providing dedicated servers across the board. In fact, Sony has been using dedicated servers on its PS3 games for years, and you didn't see them charging for them.
It's easy, if MS wants to sell hardwear they must have some games like WORLD OF TANKS to be playable with XboxLive silver and they can keep games like COD or BATTLEFIELD remain the same.
Im sure that is what the devs of this game want too. They have said this much. I dont think it would hurt MS to do that with a few games. Some of those people may find themselves more tempted to buy the full gold sub, so they can see what other games they like playing online...that copy of forza 5, bf4 etc. And the moment they make some online friends..thats it..a new active, paying cutomer. that they were not planning on playing online may suddenly become more tempting.
How is it "free to play" when the games are locked behind a paywall? If I'm a casual gamer planning on getting a next gen console, I'm looking for one that's gonna save me the most money. There are lots of people who have no plans for buying Xbox live gold or PS+ right away. What can they use on the console without having those? Sony's business model is very compelling to the everybody consumer. Basic features shouldn't be locked behind a paywall. If I'm already paying for Hulu, Netflix, Crunchyroll and basic internet, I should be able to use those apps, not have to pay for xbox live gold. Anyway, its not free to play that gamers hate. Its' Pay TO Win that we hate. The way warframe does it, is fair and not intrusive to the overall game.
Do you honestly believe that the average person is going to buy a next gen system (xbox or playstation) without getting one of the paid subscriptions?? There are not to many people nowadays that play video games without going online. I personally only know of one person who doesn't have xbox live, and that is because he simply does not care to game online. It kills me that you guys try to pretend like we we are paying for these apps twice. I get xbox live to play multiplayer games, everything else is just extra. All of those other apps a services are available on my tv, cable box, pc, and cell phone. Who cares about the pay wall. You are paying to game online.
Why are you responding to me? I have no intention of responding to you unless I ask for an opinion. I don't care for your opinion, thank you.
"Do you honestly believe that the average person is going to buy a next gen system (xbox or playstation) without getting one of the paid subscriptions??" remember this is N4G we are talking about. nobody hear (except x360 owners) is going to pay play online. I guess i will be in the minority of people that will be paying for a PSN+ sub. These are the same people that are going to play destiny by themselves. Run through KZ4, 4 times and NOT bother with the multiplayer. Because they dont play online. and the only multiplayer games they care for are warframe ( which is a pretty average game. Oh, I know. I downloaded it on steam, and im sorry but I dont see what all the fuss is about), and planetside2. To hell with XBLG/PSN+. they just want the free shit.
Get off it mate, lots of people game offline, just because they have their consoles connected online doesn't mean they want to play online. Accessing psn and xbl for dlc or digital titles is what offline gamers use it for. There are lots of gamers who are not competitive and like to have solo gaming experiences. It must boggle your mind that such gamers exist! "All of those other apps a services are available on my tv, cable box, pc, and cell phone." Yet, MS is marketing the Xbox One as an all in one entertainment box. Difference is on all other hardware devices, those apps are freely accessible. Yes, people will buy next-gen and not purchase a subscription. And the more features a console touts but all those features are hidden behind a paywall makes it more undesirable, regardless of how good the online service is. Having 3rd party apps, available everywhere else behind no paywall, but having it behind a paywall on the Xbox shows just far MS is testing their install base, the more they accept these practices the more MS will increase such shoddy business practices. And whoever has the whole just deal with it attitude, users will deal it, they will either game on a pc without any online fees, paywalls or restrictions, or move on to the ps4, where yes, to play online requires a ps+ sub, but apps and free to play titles are not hidden behind any paywall.
47 million people are subscribed to XBOX LIVE. There is 75-79million install base. That quite alot of people without XBOX LIVE.
i got to keep reminding lames that EVERYBODY DOES NOT HAVE STABLE OR ANY INTERNET IN THE WORLD so that would make xbox gold pointless no matter how much money they have. but i guess microsoft is pushing people towards ps4
@grim, dcj, and lawrence, I am not going to argue with you, I know what the reality is, the amount of people that pay for xbox live today and the fact that sony is now charging to game online, is enough to prove my point. You guys can stay in your little bubble and complain about nonsense if you want to, have fun.
And on all your other devices, they are free. On EVERY other device, Netflix is free to use, provided you have a subscription to Netflix. I can use it on my phone, my laptop, my desktop, my Vita, and my PS3(and my PS4, soon enough), all without paying anyone but Netflix. But if I wanted to use this same service that I'm already paying for on an Xbox-branded device, I'd first have to pay Microsoft. Why is that? Why is that okay with you? Yeah, you CAN play it elsewhere, and that's great. But why in the hell would Microsoft include it as part of their system if they were going to do the bass-ackwards practice of making you have to pay to use it? Maybe it's no big deal for all the kids out there with 360s, but I'm an adult with bills to pay; I've got a roof to keep over five heads. Every now and then, we may go without something unnecessary like cable, or PS+. I'll cut corners where I can anyway, if only because I don't like spending money. Why would I add another bill to the list, especially when this bill just lets me use stuff I already have bills for? I mean, just imagine if LG made you pay a fee to use the TV you'd already bought to watch the TV you were already paying for. Or if Samsung made you pay monthly to make calls on the phone you already had service on. Or if HP charged you for a year of using internet service you'd already paid for on a PC you already bought from them. That would be pretty stupid, and pretty damn greedy. And it's exactly what MS is doing, and all the fanboys are sitting there shouting, "It's totally cool! Take my money!"
@Hicken I'm sorry but do you own an xbox? I find it hard to believe that you do based on your statement. And I hate to sound insensitive to your situation but if I had to cut corners with 5 heads to take care of, I wouldn't give 2 sh**s about Ps4, ps+, netflix, xbl, or xbox one. Just saying! And if I just HAD TO HAVE a gaming console in my house while in that situation, I would probably choose a playstation, simply because it is cheaper. My point is this, all of these Sony fans are trying to make it sound as if you are paying twice for apps but in reality xbl users initially got xbl in order to game with friends and family online not so that they could watch hulu or netflix. All of that other crap is just extra. IMO this is just a mute point. Sony fans are trying to make a big deal out of something that xbl users don't really care about. Do you know of an xbox user who doesn't have live? I don't! If you do not plan on getting an xbox and its policies do not appeal to you and your family then don't buy it. You will not find me in playstation articles complaining about having to now pay to game online.
Free-to-Play should be renamed Free-to-Pay.
"free to play" on a platform that requires 60$ per year for any online connectivity whatsoever. sounds legit
Its cheaper than $60 if you shop around. Its no wild goose chase either to get XBL xheap. Start with amazon. It gets cheaper from there. Like $45 and blow , cheap..I dont know anybody that pays that much for live.
Not really the point though.
"Not really the point though." really? lets go over that again... "on a platform that requires 60$ per year" Its cheaper if you look online. He is saying it cost $60. I am telling him that in reality, nobody pays that much for live. "for any online connectivity whatsoever." given that I can send messages and start a "private" chat" even with a silver account. you dont pay for that. So what exactly is the point he was trying to make, seeing as you know what arbitor is saying better than he is saying it? He says its cost $60. I KNOW for a fact that it does not cost that onb amazon etc, or have ever paid that much for it. The bottom line is people pay to play online anyway to play halo, cod, gears etc. Do you honestly think ANY x360 owner is going to complain because a "free to play" game is not available if your account is silver? complete and utter nonsense.
The point is the fact that there is a price, not what the price is. It's pretty simple to understand in the context of the topic, that being free to play games. Relax.
I have never paid more than $35 for Live and the last 3 months have been free. It's definitely easy to find. Also if you let your account go silver there is always a special to get you back gold like 1 month free or 2 months for $2 to hold you over until you find one that cheap.
On Xbox the whole principle behind free to play is defeated since you need Xbox live to access it. Barrier to access is not what free to play is about.
I'm sure trading standards would have a field day with all this "Free-To-Play" nonsense. If you gotta pay to play then it ain't FREE. Call it something else. Sony could so easily of followed suit by putting it all behind the pay wall. Glad they did not. If you want to buy your kid a console for christmas you should not have to add subscription fees straight away. I really like PS+ and have got so many great games from it but for new gamers I like that they can download and play these free games online for free from day 1. Even the developers love this fact.
I've come to the conclusion people need something to complain about. Even if ms made it free to play people will still complain. I don't care about Netflix, or any social network on xboxlive or Psplus. I have a tv cell phone, lap top, computer, and tablet that has all that already. So I can view that, and don't give me that hog wash about " what about that poor poor kid in west bubble [email protected] Look nothing has changed about live. I still have to pay to play, it's not like they raised the price @
So you basically control a tank and drive on an open field with other tanks and keep shooting each other until you explode. Wow, sounds real fun...who the hell plays games like this?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.