Tribes: Ascend Also Going Free-to-Play

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to this news post at Shacknews, Tribes: Ascend is going Free-to-Play. Here's how the company plans to make money:

In Riot's game, new "champions" are made available for purchase every two weeks, for about $5-10. Tribes: Ascend will, instead, allow players to buy entire loadouts. One loadout may give players more engineer-type attributes, while another may focus more on stealth. Developer Hi-Rez is hoping to create new loadouts on a regular basis, in addition to making cosmetic enhancements available for purchase as well.
Click to expand...
 
aw man this sucks. And I'm a hardcore tribes fan.:(


I think it will create different classes that are not balanced.

Why can't they just give me tribes 2 with a graphics update and tribes 1 physics.:mad:
 
topcat989 said:
aw man this sucks. And I'm a hardcore tribes fan.:(


I think it will create different classes that are not balanced.

Why can't they just give me tribes 2 with a graphics update and tribes 1 physics.:mad:
Click to expand...

B/c it would not suck and make sense. We can't have that.

Doing boneheaded marketing driven bullshit desperation money grabs rules the day.

Make a good game and sell it for $29.99 w/ online focused multiplayer. Done deal.
 
Seeing what they done to Global Agenda... This game isn't gonna be fun unless you pay up.... :-\ Fucking Pay to Win games. :rolleyes::eek::mad:
 
aaannnnnddddd.....

All hope I had for this game is now officially over, I can at least go ahead and move on...

Dammit I am really saddened. Tribes 2 was one of the best times I've had at a keyboard.

So no Hosting games, no modding, and you get the pleasure of buying this "FREE TO PLAY" game in many pieces...... geez, and we thought Crytek hated us......:rolleyes:
 
Soyo13 said:
Seeing what they done to Global Agenda... This game isn't gonna be fun unless you pay up.... :-\ Fucking Pay to Win games. :rolleyes::eek::mad:
Click to expand...

This is a no brainer, Don't play don't pay. best message you can give the gaming industry.
 
I don't care if something is free up front or costs money, but I will never, NEVER play a game that either requires me to pay a periodic subscription fee, or makes purchasing in-game items important to the game play.

I have no problem with games selling voluntary "cool hats" or whatever for characters, but as soon as the gameplay is affected by whether or not someone can afford to or has bought the latest accessories, I'm out.
 
Works for me. Run and gun shooters generally suck anyway, so I probably wouldn't spend much time on the game whether I paid for it or not. Though this one does look a lot more interested than Call of Duty.
 
i had very high hopes for this. I loved playing T1 and T2 with my groups and scrims. But this.... this just reeks. Thats part of the fun of tribes, is tailoring your loadouts based on what the enemy was doing.
I mostly ran as a capper in some of our scrims, weapons all stayed the same, but my pack changed depending on what the enemy was doing defensively and what my team was able to do offensively. If we were playing now, they got rid of the turrets and I would switch to an energy pack, uh oh.... no energy pack. I didnt buy that MT. fuck.......my ass just got tore up.

Some of you might get that point, others wont.

This game had roughly 9 basic loadouts.

-Light offensive (fast hitting annoyances at enemy base, flag bringer-homer)
-Light defensive (Fast hitting annoyances at home base, chases down enemy flag carrier)
-Light Sniper (self explainitory)
-Medium Offensive (Midfield to enemy base havoc)
-Medium Defensive (midfield to team base havoc)
-Medium Deployer (places turrets, repairs crap, slight extension of Med D)
-Heavy Offsensive (Mortar Love, rapes enemy bases)
-Heavy Defensive (Mortar Love, destroys incomming enemies/outgoing enemies from team base, Also stands on team flag with shields and concussive grenades)
-Heavy Deployer (Heavier version of Medium Deployer)

Thats pretty much it. I dont see how they can create new "champion classes" without losing functionality of those previous classes. If you take away functionality, you are gimping the game.

Zarathustra[H]
I have no problem with games selling voluntary "cool hats" or whatever for characters, but as soon as the gameplay is affected by whether or not someone can afford to or has bought the latest accessories, I'm out.
Click to expand...
that is exactly the point. And again, if they were leaving the game as is, but doing MTs for stupid little hats like in TF2, you are completely undermining the original integrity of the game. it was a war between competing tribes. Savage, bloodthirsty war. We dont need foofy pansy hats with glitter. TF2 was made with a comedy and cartoonish style. Tribes was made with a future-realistic vibe. Dont take away from it
 
FML

I was so looking forward to this. Oh wells....this looks to be the future of gaming....paid hats, taunts, other miscellaneous bullshit
 
No intention of playing any game where micro-transactions affect gameplay. As awful as I'm sure most people think it is I actually enjoyed crimecraft until they recently added micro-transactions. Clothing choices are great an all but when people buy all the best guns its nearly impossible for you to earn its just no fun to play.
 
if you look at it from the other direction though... instead of charging people $60 up front, you get to play the game for as long as you want as a demo. then, if you decide you like it, you can pay as much as you feel the game is worth to you. if you dont want to pay anything for any reason you dont have to. you are then free to stop playing the demo any time you want.

remember, most video games retail for 50 or 60 bucks. so lets assume that is their target average for sales. that works out to 5 to 10 "champions" plus some gear. if you only buy one champion and maybe some gear, you would have paid $10-15. thats pretty much like finding the full online game in the bargain bin 4 years down the road... and you can still play the full game for the rest of your life.

i think this is one of the more honest methods for a game maker to make some profit. 3rd party MMO servers have used this method for 15 years. you can play the full game for free, but most of those servers also sell in game items from their website. if the server admins made the purchasable items way too powerful, people would stop playing the game. if they were well balanced in stats and didnt too unfairly tip the balance, it encouraged people to buy them without alienating people without money or who just didnt want to spend money to support running the server.

if tribes is a good game or not, depends on how evenly the items are balanced. if they do a bad job at it, it will fail on its own, so its in their interest to get it right... at least you can decide while you play the game for free for as long as you want.
 
i only will play free to play games if i can buy everything in the game for ~$40.

tribes 2 was my favorite game for a long time.
 
Disappointed, I'd rather pay $40-50 for a full game without ever the need of any DLC or paid upgrade crap.

Being a LONG time Tribes player I will surly check it out. But the second I start to notice these paid enhancements taking an effect, I'm out.

I like paying a set price for my games. Not buying into an endless money pit that ends with the developers greed.

BTW video of the demo just came out today. Doesn't look TOO bad, but the weapons for one look fricken huge. Would be nice if there was an option for smaller weapons for people who would rather see more of the gameplay. Also I'd be down for some mega indoor bases like Tribes 1 and 2 had. The TV structures where pitiful.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/06/27/tribes-ascend-gameplay-teaser-trailer?objectid=103016&show=HD
 
I'm just waiting for the microtransaction thing to take off and branch out to everything and almost completely get rid of private ownership of anything.. You just micro-rent from some huge conglomeration that owns the country.
 
Yeah that's where things are going.

Gunbound did it years ago, League of Legends has been doing it and the second Valve started with TF2, everyone took this seriously and they're joining in. Valve knows about keeping clients and making money long-term with their games, unlike 99% of American devs and publishers who only focus on the first month of sales and don't give a crap about their game after that.

This'll force people to think long-term and actually try to make a product better and better, which should be good for us.
 
I don't really see a problem with this. I've played plenty of F2P games, even some where the purchasable items gave a rather big boost to the buyers, but that never stopped me from enjoying the game. Companies do have to pay somehow for the game costs, as long as the advantage is not too big I don't mind.
 
BurntToast said:
Disappointed, I'd rather pay $40-50 for a full game without ever the need of any DLC or paid upgrade crap.

Being a LONG time Tribes player I will surly check it out. But the second I start to notice these paid enhancements taking an effect, I'm out.

I like paying a set price for my games. Not buying into an endless money pit that ends with the developers greed.

BTW video of the demo just came out today. Doesn't look TOO bad, but the weapons for one look fricken huge. Would be nice if there was an option for smaller weapons for people who would rather see more of the gameplay. Also I'd be down for some mega indoor bases like Tribes 1 and 2 had. The TV structures where pitiful.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/06/27/tribes-ascend-gameplay-teaser-trailer?objectid=103016&show=HD
Click to expand...

I don't mind DLC as level addons or potentially new tribes you can play as (sortof like they have done in Civ 5.) It works, and it doesn't really shift gameplay to anyones advantage.

the way this has been described - however - where different capabilities have to be purchased is just pure evil and absolutely ruins any game.
 
UrielDagda said:
I'm just waiting for the microtransaction thing to take off and branch out to everything and almost completely get rid of private ownership of anything.. You just micro-rent from some huge conglomeration that owns the country.
Click to expand...

Well, thats pretty much the way it is - and has been for 30 years - when it comes to software, just without the micro.

Even back in the day whenyou bought a game on a floppy, or cartridge, or more recently when bought on CD's or downloaded from Steam, games (and pretty much all other software) has never been something you owned. If you read the EULA's it's very clear your payment grants you a single use license to use the software, but all ownership rights remain with the publisher.

It seems to me you are dreaming back to the good old days that never existed :p
 
Getting tired of leaving my personal information all over the damned web so dickbags like Lulzsec can root it out and paste it for everyone to see...i like the old model better. Buy game...install...play till you're bored...move on to the next...
 
yourgrandma said:
Great more Pay to Win games... no thanks.
Click to expand...

The dynamic doesn't really work that way. I play a game called 'World of Tanks'. It's possible to buy a very powerful heavy tank (the Lowe) without going through the tiers from the puniest aluminum foil vehicles to tank destroyers, arty, medium tanks, learning the feel and operation of each and gaining understanding of tactics and strategy neccessary for a team win. Thank god for semi-random distribution.

Wallet warrior + roll of the dice = 50% epic fail
 
Nasty_Savage said:
Getting tired of leaving my personal information all over the damned web so dickbags like Lulzsec can root it out and paste it for everyone to see...i like the old model better. Buy game...install...play till you're bored...move on to the next...
Click to expand...

Amen Brother. No sense in getting caught up in a bean counters dreams of riches for the company.
 
Nasty_Savage said:
Getting tired of leaving my personal information all over the damned web so dickbags like Lulzsec can root it out and paste it for everyone to see...i like the old model better. Buy game...install...play till you're bored...move on to the next...
Click to expand...

A BIG +1 to this.

Unless they move to a plan where most of the DLC is in the store ready to view on day 1, you won't even be able to guess about the game. Which means the odds of a solid online community forming and lasting to play it for very long is lower than it is now. Heck, it's currently low when you get to see what the game is really like (minus bugs and minor tweaking) on day one on the current model.

If you want to see zero care put into managing the security of a micro payment backend, go with that plan.

Valve didn't get into the free to play model to sell a game and make money. Unless I missed something and TF2 was still selling like hotcakes and they gave away all the money from selling it at $10-20 a pop. What valve did was add DLC and make the game free to fund ongoing maintenance of it.

I also suspect valve wants people to think the above is the same as F2P with micro-transactions and that that is the future. Why? because gamers as a group know enough to worry about their data being spread far and wide with careless people. Valve sells digital stuff. Valve has managed to build a track record of not causing the user problems with their information. Valve wants to be the one mediating microtransactions for the PC with steam just like Apple does with iTunes for iOS devices.

They already paid for the infrastructure, and paid for TF2 and portal which are supposed to prove the idea is good, what do they care? If it succeeds, they take their cut off the top. If it fails, they haven't fully committed any IP to that financial model yet.
 
raz-0 said:
A BIG +1 to this.

Unless they move to a plan where most of the DLC is in the store ready to view on day 1, you won't even be able to guess about the game. Which means the odds of a solid online community forming and lasting to play it for very long is lower than it is now. Heck, it's currently low when you get to see what the game is really like (minus bugs and minor tweaking) on day one on the current model.

If you want to see zero care put into managing the security of a micro payment backend, go with that plan.

Valve didn't get into the free to play model to sell a game and make money. Unless I missed something and TF2 was still selling like hotcakes and they gave away all the money from selling it at $10-20 a pop. What valve did was add DLC and make the game free to fund ongoing maintenance of it.

I also suspect valve wants people to think the above is the same as F2P with micro-transactions and that that is the future. Why? because gamers as a group know enough to worry about their data being spread far and wide with careless people. Valve sells digital stuff. Valve has managed to build a track record of not causing the user problems with their information. Valve wants to be the one mediating microtransactions for the PC with steam just like Apple does with iTunes for iOS devices.

They already paid for the infrastructure, and paid for TF2 and portal which are supposed to prove the idea is good, what do they care? If it succeeds, they take their cut off the top. If it fails, they haven't fully committed any IP to that financial model yet.
Click to expand...
There is a vast spectrum of F2P/microtransaction models. There are plenty of F2P, pay to win Korean MMOs that prove money can be made that way, but is not the greatest way to expand an IP and playerbase/community.

I think the TF2 model is one that more should lean towards. Offer a $10-20 base game with all available classes or 'kit styles' there, and then add optional/situation items that aren't overpowered, but change the playstyle slightly as options to purchase. Maybe transition to a full F2P model once the ball gets rolling.

Of course, Valve is a big developer with vast resources available. They can afford to bankroll a game like that won't bring in a ton of revenue at the beginning. Some smaller outfits may need that revenue when the game is released and not be able to count on future DLCs sustaining them.
 
I'm just glad that game developers are slowly working into our conciousness that if you have money, it is OK to vaporize poor people. :D
 
Wow, this is really unfortunate. I love the Tribes series, but looks like I won't be buying into this one now...
 
I've been a big Tribes fan for ages. I still play T2 every once in a while. It's free (tribesnext.com) and you can still find some active servers with 30 - 50 people on it. The preview looks good and more true to Tribes than Tribes Vengeance ever was.

But, apparently the game devs for T:A don't understand Tribes at all. In every game, everyone starts with the same vast combinations of loadouts. Same packs, same weapons, same armors. It all came down to skill and experience. Hours of practicing and trying different combos. Reputations were earned, not bought.

Now some yahoo can spend a few bucks and have an advantage.

If the devs want to do microtransactions they are selling the wrong things. Do something like this:
  • Llama account (free): Access to some public servers. Limited loadouts, packs, and character models (maybe just humans)
  • Paid account (maybe $10-20): Access to all servers, unlimited loadouts. Access to more models.
  • Premium account (maybe $30-$50): Access to community features (join/create clans, player pages), stat tracking, medals. Access to all models.
Then sell add-ons like character/weapon/vehicle skins, titles, mods, maps, HUD customizations, taunt animations, and other features.

Don't mess with the game play. Let the skilled players grow and evolve on their own. I can understand how microtransactions can reduce their loss of income due to piracy, but if they don't do it right they'll ruin the game.
 
Virtus said:
I can understand how microtransactions can reduce their loss of income due to piracy, but if they don't do it right they'll ruin the game.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the biggest loss of income on this one is going to be all the people who are NOT going to buy the game now that they decided to use this retarded model. Personally, if it turns out to be a good successor to Tribes 2, I would pay $50 for it no problem. However, now I'm not inclined to buy anything for it at all.
 
My first reaction was, "No way." Now I wonder though; if I would have paid $50 for it upfront, but now I get to play it a bit, choose what items/upgrades I want and end up paying $25-$50 anyway, is it really that bad?
 
But the thing is, if paying $50 doesn't get you everything the game has to offer, then it's not worth it IMO.
 
TwistedAegis said:
My first reaction was, "No way." Now I wonder though; if I would have paid $50 for it upfront, but now I get to play it a bit, choose what items/upgrades I want and end up paying $25-$50 anyway, is it really that bad?
Click to expand...
I think one problem is the new player's experience can, and will be, less than ideal. They'll fire up this cool new Tribes game, but it will suck because everyone else is better and has better equipment. They won't experience the actual gameplay. So based on that first impression, they'll move on to the next game. The T:A player base will not grow and the game will fail.

So why not give everyone the same fundamental experience and let them judge the game for what it is. Then let them pay to expand their presence and options. If the game's fundamentals are good enough it will thrive.
 
Vaelin said:
There is a vast spectrum of F2P/microtransaction models. There are plenty of F2P, pay to win Korean MMOs that prove money can be made that way, but is not the greatest way to expand an IP and playerbase/community.

I think the TF2 model is one that more should lean towards. Offer a $10-20 base game with all available classes or 'kit styles' there, and then add optional/situation items that aren't overpowered, but change the playstyle slightly as options to purchase. Maybe transition to a full F2P model once the ball gets rolling.

Of course, Valve is a big developer with vast resources available. They can afford to bankroll a game like that won't bring in a ton of revenue at the beginning. Some smaller outfits may need that revenue when the game is released and not be able to count on future DLCs sustaining them.
Click to expand...

I would just like to add that almost EVERYTHING in TF2 that can be bought can also be crafted or acquired in game somehow, with minimal effort beyond simply playing the game. There are a few exceptions, but only for vanity/special promo items.
 
Virtus said:
I think one problem is the new player's experience can, and will be, less than ideal. They'll fire up this cool new Tribes game, but it will suck because everyone else is better and has better equipment. They won't experience the actual gameplay. So based on that first impression, they'll move on to the next game. The T:A player base will not grow and the game will fail.

So why not give everyone the same fundamental experience and let them judge the game for what it is. Then let them pay to expand their presence and options. If the game's fundamentals are good enough it will thrive.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. I sure wouldn't drop anymore money if I joined a server and got the shit blasted out of me nonstop. I think this could easily be solved by having "Intro" servers, that disallow all purchased items and only allow accounts that are 30 days old or less. This lets new players jump in, get a feel for the game and see if they want to do more, and also eventually forces people into the full battlefield so they can't just sit in a "vanilla" server and play the game for free forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top