Command & Conquer wants to avoid 'pay to win'
Free-to-play games have been around for over a decade now, but many companies have been slow to explore the business model and even slower to make it not feel awful or exploitative. With the new Command & Conquer, it seems Electronic Arts may have the hang of it. Victory Games general manager Jon van Caneghem has detailed the sorts of things it'll sell in the free-to-play RTS, trying to avoid being "pay to win."
Free-to-play games have been around for over a decade now, but many companies have been slow to explore the business model and even slower to make it not feel awful or exploitative. With the new Command & Conquer, it seems Electronic Arts may have the hang of it. Victory Games general manager Jon van Caneghem has detailed the sorts of things it'll sell in the free-to-play RTS, trying to avoid being "pay to win."
"It's our goal to give players full access to a fun RTS game with no barrier to entry," van Caneghem--who long ago created Might & Magic, fact fans--said in a blog post. "All factions, units, maps, and game modes will be available to everyone from the start."
Monetisation, then, will come with extras and services. EA plans to sell three main things: visual and cosmetic customisation options; boosters to help you level up faster "for more choices" (presumably meaning unlocks); and alternative generals.
Generals, you may recall, are sort of sub-factions for C&C. They largely share their faction's core army but focus on a specific area, with unique abilities, units and taunts. Van Caneghem gives the example of an air-oriented general, who can get stronger and faster aircraft, and perhaps call in airstrikes, but has weaker ground units. Other generals may focus on stealth units, tanks, rushing, turtling, and so on. He insists they're "all balanced against each other" though.
Supposedly you'll be able to buy everything with either earned or paid currencies; hopefully the prices in earned currencies won't demand unreasonable amounts of grinding.
One of EA's earlier cracks at F2P, Battlefield Heroes, was condemned as pay-to-win by fans, after EA bumped the prices for items in earned currencies so high that only the most hardcore could afford them.
Command & Conquer is due on PC later this year. It'll launch with the Generals universe, but Victory hopes to add the C&C worlds of Tiberium, Red Alert and even something new later.
-
Alice O'Connor posted a new article, Command & Conquer wants to avoid 'pay to win'.
Free-to-play games have been around for over a decade now, but many companies have been slow to explore the business model and even slower to make it not feel awful or exploitative. With the new Command & Conquer, it seems Electronic Arts may have the hang of it. Victory Games general manager Jon van Caneghem has detailed the sorts of things it'll sell in the free-to-play RTS, trying to avoid being "pay to win."-
-
-
-
-
No way. PS2 is extremely pay to win. I am having lots of fun in the game, but honestly, if you paid literally nothing, you would not be able to contribute nearly as much. No boost, no bonus xp, no extra weapons (meaning it takes you 2-3 months to get one?).
Tribes:Ascend was better, in that you only had a handful of weapons to even purchase. I only put in my initial $30 and just with purely hours played have like 95% of the content (with enough XP to purchase everything else). Even that was still mildly pay-to-win, because you purchase weapons, and weapons do have clear advantages (even if only sometimes).
For a game to not be pay-to-win, it would have to be only cosmetics. Even that in PS2 though matters, because the camo can really make a difference, and those are not cheap at all ($5 for an in-game skin?).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
actually gaben specifically said it was going to be f2p
"It's going to be free-to-play -- it'll have some twists, but that's the easiest way for people to think about it"
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/4/20/2961883/dota-2-will-be-free-to-play-with-a-twist
-
-
dota2 is the only game that has done f2p correctly and it's probably because they already had an established audience to stand on which allowed them to structure their monetization strategy the way it is. it's the only game that truly has a shop with no game-affecting purchases. even the xp boost only gets you cosmetics faster.
everything else is garbage. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tribes Ascend was never different enough to not constantly remind me of the things I liked about Tribes and Tribes 2 that were missing. Especially the way it dealt with load outs for the purpose of microtransactions... nope. I loved customizing load outs.
At least Tribes: Vengeance was different enough my mind could separate it and accept it as it's own thing. Plus they did a pretty great job with the Tribes lore in singleplayer.
-
-
-
Paying definitely accelerates the rate at which you earn XP, which in turn accelerates the rate at which you can unlock new weapons/skills/etc. But if you roll with a decent squad (sup GCR) that get involved in pitched battles instead of massive zergs that steamroll everything, you'll still be able to earn at a decent rate.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think it makes a lot of sense. They tried to make a new MechWarrior game but they couldn't get funding and it failed... so they went F2P and now we have MWO which is amazing! We literally would not have a new MechWarrior game if it wasn't for that model. I think the old shitty stigma surrounding F2P comes from the early days when it was just crap games trying to pull money of people with no actual value. Now it's an actual business model which works and big games (and very good) games are coming out that way.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't necessarily assume it's bad, but i tend to avoid it. It's just not a business model i'm interested in. I'd rather pay for my game up front than worry about how much money i'm putting into it over the life of a game. i can't see myself ever getting into that genre seriously, unless all games go to that model eventually.
I'll play little android F2P games, but that's about it so far. -
-
-
-
-
-
They say they want to avoid pay to win and then say they'll sell "boosters to help you level up and unlock more things faster". Sounds like pay to win to me.
I tend to avoid any games with a levelling system. I play games to have fun, not to increase my level. Levelling systems tend to exist purely to get people hooked on a game while providing no fun.-
This.
Lvling except in MMOs most of the time only serves to hock people in and create an artificial sense of development of the players skill.
And what i fear the most about the phrase you quoted is the part about unlocking things faster.
In a strategy game that can be disastrous if the things that you can unlock are units, skills for units or thinks like that. Just take a look at the lvling and unlock system in C&C4.
-
-
-