Top
110°

Gears of War Creator Defends His Next Game's Free-To-Play Model

Today at PAX East, Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski defended his next game's use of free-to-play as its business model. Speaking during a panel presentation, Bleszinski assured fans that Project Bluestreak won't be anything like Game of War or Candy Crush.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot1853d ago

I'm sorry I just can't justify it.

I'd rather just have the full game because whether you like it or not, they will try and tempt you a lot to buy for stuff Micro transaction wise. What you earn yourself won't be as much as you would get in a full retail game. It will lack stuff so you'll be more likely tempted to buy more stuff

1853d ago Replies(5)
joab7771853d ago

Ppl don't understand when they scream and yell that subscription models are horrible. They don't come close to the horror of f2p. I spent 50x on DCUO what I did on FF14. And FF14 wasn't f2p.

I honestly believe that 99% of f2p models are b/c devs are trying to compete w/ other games b/c it always ends up with 20% paying for the other 80%. It keeps the player base high, but its a mirage. Then, they nickel and dime you.

Now, I have faith in Cliffy, and there are games that do it right like Dota 2 and LoL, but they are gargantuan games that could earn more from ad revenue than most games. So, I dunno.

I get sick everytime I see starter packs for $149, or card packs for $99. Wtf! I would love to see a game like the mentioned Mobas stand on their own merits b/c that's the only time f2p works...when it's overwhelmed by gamers b/c it's that good!

Volkama1853d ago

Devs (or in most cases publishers) don't go free to play to compete with other games in terms of player count or anything like that.

They go free to play because the moneymen believe they will make more modey with that model. That is really all it comes down to.

Get a big audience by removing the biggest barrier to entry (having to buy the game), then try to persuade that big audience to spend as much as possible.

As long as the net result is 'more money than if they asked people to buy the game upfront' the model isn't going anywhere. It's a shame when it plagues a game you were otherwise looking forward to, which is all to common at the moment.

3-4-51852d ago (Edited 1852d ago )

F2P is kind of arrogant in a way.

It's like saying....Our game isn't a $60 game.

It's a $100 game.

* Well....no it's not, it's not even worth $60, so stop trying to take another $40 on top of that.
EX:

* What I can get via full games at $60, would be a lot more than what I'll mostly likely get for $60 worth of micro-transactions.

* Welcome to Ocarina of Time. Want to go to lon lon ranch? Pay $20 !

Rachel_Alucard1853d ago

Of course he'd defend it he's the one who made the decision.

In the West, most people like it when its a one and done deal, the F2P model is only really successful in the east due to the amount of arcades, pachinko, and pay to play models that already exist. In an MMO I would rather pay monthly and get everything vs. paying seperately for everything effectively quadrupiling the price of what I would have paid if I had just done monthly.

joab7771853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

I don't know how anyone could disagree with you unless they havnt experienced f2p in all its glory. This is the perfect example. DCUO vs. FF14.

Now, one game is f2p, but your money is capped, the number of times you can run content is capped, you cant partake in any of the dlc, which now there is 12 or more. For example, you will run a raid, your equipment will break and you can't afford to fix it. Your inventory is tiny and half of it is taken up with items to sell so you can repair. Now, you can spend real money and buy each and every dlc, unlock more inventory, cash, increase your movement speed etc. By the time you've done that, you could have subbed for quite some time, and you are well past $60, try $200+. And you still have many restrictions, including the most important one...running instances to level gear. So, you are forced to sub, b/c it's a damn good game, and once you level cap, you will want to play more, but not under those restrictions. And its worth $15 to play as much as you will.

But b/c it was sub only at 1 x, even when you sub and remove many restrictions, there still exist a million microtransactions including the ability to reset raids. So, if you have money and lots of it, you can play a raid over and over until you get what you want. Just think about that for a minute. So, 5 of your friends spend tons of money to replay instances and power level (which has become the way ppl level), now you have to too, or you fall behind, and it's no fun anymore. If ypir frienda are raiding 10x in a wk, it would take you 10 wks to catch up unless you are lucky...and yeah rng rules the day (though they did add class gear) Well, now you are spending about $50/week...minimum. Oh, you want a rare aura. For $40 a pack, you can get the chance of getting one..the chance. But atleast you got replay badges for your money...at discount lol! It's amazing how ppl will drop $300 on these packs, or spend $300+ dollars when dlc drops to gear up as fast as possible. The travesty is that it's a great game with amazing mmo combat. They need to nix replay badges and redo loot drops.

Oh, the comparison. FF14. Rules are the same for everyone all the time, and it's $15/month. I bought the game for $10. All updates are free and substantial and often. The expansion is the size of the original game, and...go check it out. It's stunning. And, next to Wow probably the best mmo right now.

realplayer821853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

I disagree I sub to both ffxiv and dc. I only pay the $14 sub for dc and I never run out of money or inventory space. Also when you sub you get reset tokens that are going for 1-2 million when you raid reset people also you get store credit every month you sub to buy cosmetic gear. Also imo the gear you get from drops look way better. Is dc perfect? Not by a long shot but you dont need to spend more than the $14 sub fee if you do thats your fault. Also I dont know anyone who spends $50 a week to reset raids the people that do that are same one who will spend $24 for a mount or $10 for fantasia.

Volkama1853d ago

Disagreed because F2P is plenty successful in the West. If the majority of people in the West shared the view that they "would rather pay monthly" we'd be seeing a lot more subscription games...

Rachel_Alucard1853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

Well F2P has only been successful in a few games out of the dozens that failed miserably, mainly because the games just sucked. I think you have bad games and bad implementation mixed up, I can only think of 4 F2P games in the west that do well (no I'm not counting anything on facebook or an app store on a phone), the rest just faded into obscurity.

Volkama1853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

There are loads doing ok. The fact that Turbine are still able to run and re-license DDO and LotRO speaks volumes about f2p vs subscription popularity.

Personally I much prefer a subscription, but I'd struggle to name 4 subscription based games I'd call a success. Certainly easier to count the subscription based games that converted to F2P in order to survive.

And that's just looking at mmorpgs, the scales shift even more if you consider MOBAs and such.

mzupeman1853d ago

Well, we are seeing subscriptions more on consoles. Season passes ring a bell?

Also, Sony was recently quoted saying how awesome free-to-play has been for them, and how they look forward to utilizing that more in the future. In 3-5 years, was the time frame we've been given... meaning they got stuff in development now that's free-to-play. They even mentioned the possibility of free-to-play consoles in the future.

So, uh... yeah.

DeadlyFire1853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

Funny thing about that though is Sony sold their Free to Play/MMO studios Sony Online Entertainment and its now called Daybreak. Will no longer be PC+Sony platform only.

Free to play console = Cloud only gaming console. Too early for that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1853d ago
wonderfulmonkeyman1853d ago

First I'm hearing of this. Guess I'm behind on news of this type.

Wonder why he thinks he needs this kind of model...didn't Gears sell well enough for him as it was before?

Godmars2901853d ago

Gears came out at a time of skyrocketing production costs, so probably not. Even if he was tooling around in high end sports cars.

And supposedly costs have only increased since then.

wonderfulmonkeyman1852d ago (Edited 1852d ago )

So another massive-budget victim of the graphics races, eh?

Why am I not surprised...

I hope the industry gets off of this whole graphics war/realism kick soon.
It's inflating costs and isn't showing any appreciable value in gameplay compared to quite a few other titles.
You can make a great game without detailing the reflections on their damned sweat drops.XD

rainslacker1852d ago

Cliffy's money wasn't on the line for GeOW, MS money was. All he had to do was create it. Success in one IP doesn't necessarily translate to success in a new IP. Gamers know GeOW, they know Epic, only the hardcore know Cliff.

When it's you're money on the line, you do what is likely to see the most given the budget you have, and for independent games free of a publisher's advertising dollars, that's going to be F2P.

He has a big advantage given his name, but people knowing about this game are going to be limited to the hardcore without some kind of marketing budget, so if people can try some random game for free, then it has more potential to bring in money.

More on topic, I think Cliff is going to find out that despite his ego, and him "defending" things, that gamers in general aren't going to lap it up just because it's him, particularly the hardcore gamer that this game seems to target. The consumer reigns supreme, and while I think his game will do well, it doesn't mean that he will be given a free pass just because he "created" GeOW.

Fireseed1853d ago

Seeing as this is most likely going to be a multiplayer focused game F2P isn't bad. It's proven welcome with success like League and Dota, and if he understands what allowed those games to stride over abusers of the F2P business model (which he clearly does in the article) I see nothing wrong with it.

ICANPLAYGAMES21853d ago (Edited 1853d ago )

Defend all you want, still gonna take a pass. The concept might sound nice, but I haven't come across one that isn't boring or got old quickly playing for free (like many have already said, I'm fine paying the standard box prices for a complete game, otherwise I won't even give a second look).

It's funny how the quotes used in the article read like a script, that apparently most if not all f2p developers, PR guys read from.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.