Stormgate

sharknice

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,757


Basically StarCraft 3. A new RTS from a bunch of ex-blizzard employees. They started Frost Giant Studios about 2 years ago.

UE5, free to play, not pay to win.
1v1 multiplayer, campaign, 3 player coop, and a special 3v3 multiplayer.

Beta in 2023
https://playstormgate.com/
 
Free to play? Welp, it’ll be riddled with microtransaction nonsense and I bet the SP will end up being barebones crap with everything trying to direct players to MP where they can further impose the feeling of FOMO and sell cosmetic garbage.
 
Derangel said:
Free to play? Welp, it’ll be riddled with microtransaction nonsense and I bet the SP will end up being barebones crap with everything trying to direct players to MP where they can further impose the feeling of FOMO and sell cosmetic garbage.
Click to expand...
Nah. It's definitely a multiplayer focused game, but they're making a full on campaign like SC2 has. And they're going to have a lot of coop and going to continually release new content.

Free to play is the only way to keep multiplayer games alive. It forces the devs to continually make new content to continue to make money and the new content keeps an active player base. Pay once multiplayer games with no DLC/microtransactions don't last anymore.

There are some good interviews with the devs from WinterStarcraft

 
sharknice said:
Free to play is the only way to keep multiplayer games alive. It forces the devs to continually make new content to continue to make money and the new content keeps an active player base. Pay once multiplayer games with no DLC/microtransactions don't last anymore.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. BF4 has an active player base and that is what, 9 years old almost?
 
sharknice said:
Nah. It's definitely a multiplayer focused game, but they're making a full on campaign like SC2 has. And they're going to have a lot of coop and going to continually release new content.

Free to play is the only way to keep multiplayer games alive. It forces the devs to continually make new content to continue to make money and the new content keeps an active player base. Pay once multiplayer games with no DLC/microtransactions don't last anymore.

There are some good interviews with the devs from WinterStarcraft

Click to expand...


So, you're saying it's a free to play live service game. That doesn't make things more comforting. The developers can claim whatever they want, but until they actually prove it I will remain doubtful. There is absolutely nothing about the free to play or live service market that should make anyone buy into bold claims without solid proof.
 
Derangel said:
So, you're saying it's a free to play live service game. That doesn't make things more comforting. The developers can claim whatever they want, but until they actually prove it I will remain doubtful. There is absolutely nothing about the free to play or live service market that should make anyone buy into bold claims without solid proof.
Click to expand...
"Free-to-play" and "live service" are always giant red flags.
 
Armenius said:
"Free-to-play" and "live service" are always giant red flags.
Click to expand...

You guys are nostalging the 90s/2000s. If a multiplayer game isn't "Free-to-play" in the 2020s it's a red flag. It means the game sucks so they need all your money up front. or they plan on releasing paid DLC or an entire new game in a year (COD, FIFA), or they double dip and have paid season passes and lootboxes even though you paid full price for the game, or the game ends up being a flavor of the month then bleeds out the playerbase because the developers have no motivation to add anything. Then in desparation to keep the game from dying they end up converting it to F2P anyways.
 
sharknice said:
You guys are nostalging the 90s/2000s. If a multiplayer game isn't "Free-to-play" in the 2020s it's a red flag. It means the game sucks so they need all your money up front. or they plan on releasing paid DLC or an entire new game in a year (COD, FIFA), or they double dip and have paid season passes and lootboxes even though you paid full price for the game, or the game ends up being a flavor of the month then bleeds out the playerbase because the developers have no motivation to add anything. Then in desparation to keep the game from dying they end up converting it to F2P anyways.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like a bad thing that we want games that don't contain abusive, anti-consumer, bullshit. Fuck free to play, fuck live service, fuck every single god damn developer and publisher making those games. I would rather games didn't get made than see this shit continue.
 
Derangel said:
You make it sound like a bad thing that we want games that don't contain abusive, anti-consumer, bullshit. Fuck free to play, fuck live service, fuck every single god damn developer and publisher making those games. I would rather games didn't get made than see this shit continue.
Click to expand...

I like multiplayer games that I can play for years. And that's especially important for multiplayer games with deep gameplay and a high skill ceiling such as RTS games.

And I disagree about it being anti-consumer when it's done right. I've spent hundreds of hours playing F2P games without spending any money at all. I can spend as much money as I like on them. I can get my friends to play with me because people can try them without any worries of wasting $50 on a game they don't like. The games remain popular and retain players by releasing new content, and they actually grow bigger as more players discover them instead of bleeding out like games that have no updates.
I've tried a bunch of games for a few hours or minutes and decided they weren't for me, and since they were F2P they didn't cost me anything. If those were paid games I would have just wasted $60, or felt obligated to get my money's worth and suffer through the rest of the game not really having any fun.
That's all PRO-consumer to me.

Of course there are shitty pay to win games too, and a lot of those aren't even F2P, they make you pay for the base game then double dip on gambling loot boxes. Those are anti-consumer, and I simply don't play them because I'm not a dumbass that does something I hate and constantly complains online about it.
 
sharknice said:
I like multiplayer games that I can play for years. And that's especially important for multiplayer games with deep gameplay and a high skill ceiling such as RTS games.

And I disagree about it being anti-consumer when it's done right. I've spent hundreds of hours playing F2P games without spending any money at all. I can spend as much money as I like on them. I can get my friends to play with me because people can try them without any worries of wasting $50 on a game they don't like. The games remain popular and retain players by releasing new content, and they actually grow bigger as more players discover them instead of bleeding out like games that have no updates.
I've tried a bunch of games for a few hours or minutes and decided they weren't for me, and since they were F2P they didn't cost me anything. If those were paid games I would have just wasted $60, or felt obligated to get my money's worth and suffer through the rest of the game not really having any fun.
That's all PRO-consumer to me.

Of course there are shitty pay to win games too, and a lot of those aren't even F2P, they make you pay for the base game then double dip on gambling loot boxes. Those are anti-consumer, and I simply don't play them because I'm not a dumbass that does something I hate and constantly complains online about it.
Click to expand...

The whole idea that a game needs to be free to play in order to be played for years and be popular is ridiculous. F2P or paid only has so much impact on staying power and popularity. CSGo, Among Us, Starcraft 2, TF2, WoW, GTAV, Minecraft, and so on. All paid games with massive staying power. How many F2P games have failed in the time since all of those released? How many free to play RTS games have had any kind of real staying power? Exactly how to you scam players out of hundreds to thousands of dollars in a free to play RTS without locking crucial things like maps, units, entire factions, etc behind paywalls? I can certainly think of fair ways to handle doing a free to play RTS, but I highly doubt anyone making a free to play game cares about fair, instead the goal is to get as many whales attached as possible and bilk them out of as much money as possible.
 
Derangel said:
The whole idea that a game needs to be free to play in order to be played for years and be popular is ridiculous. F2P or paid only has so much impact on staying power and popularity. CSGo, Among Us, Starcraft 2, TF2, WoW, GTAV, Minecraft, and so on. All paid games with massive staying power. How many F2P games have failed in the time since all of those released? How many free to play RTS games have had any kind of real staying power? Exactly how to you scam players out of hundreds to thousands of dollars in a free to play RTS without locking crucial things like maps, units, entire factions, etc behind paywalls? I can certainly think of fair ways to handle doing a free to play RTS, but I highly doubt anyone making a free to play game cares about fair, instead the goal is to get as many whales attached as possible and bilk them out of as much money as possible.
Click to expand...

Nearly all of those games now have micro transactions, paid subscriptions/season passes, or even went F2P. They were made before F2P was king and have adapted to it. So your argument against F2P is people should have to buy the game then still pay for DLC?

You have a compltely skewed view of what F2P can be and the succesful models used in many games. And I don't think you want to know the truth because you've ignored all of the explanation I've given you, and the highly succesful games doing it right. Crucial things do not need to be behind paywalls. Many of the mos succesful games have nothing but costmetic's as paid content.
 
They reached their kickstarter goal almost instantly.

Closed beta started today, and it's open to a lot more people. They're testing 3 player coop along with 1v1 now. They're letting some people do streaming and videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top