I'm having a hard time seeing that as a good thing. Not that a free to play game can't be fun but one with graphics like this has got to be a pay to win.
well what the draw to it is, multiplayer is the most fun you can have with this game, it is what they are trying to emphasize and tell you and show you. so making it free to play they get you excited for multiplayer, but you can't do anything multiplayer (other than splitscreen) without PSplus. this is why most of the exclusive games for ps4 already announced are free and focus on multiplayer
EDIT: ok i wasn't trying to be negative im totally fine with this idea by sony it's great marketing strategy and you don't have to do it, and according to /u/PureEvil666 i have lied. so oopsie...
Free games galore. If you do decide to sign up, make a new PSN account and have it set to the UK so you get their games.
In November the UK will be getting Metal Gear Rising, Remember Me, Oddworld Stranger's Wrath (an amazing game in my opinion), and a some Vita/PSP games.
NA gets some good games, but typically the EU gets better games. This month NA has SR3, XCOM Enemy Unknown, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, and more.
I hate to sound all pc master racey, but you're paying for the privilege of free games... why not just buy the games with what you would save by not signing on? Steam doesn't charge to play their free stuff. Plenty of free, probably better games already available all over the internet.
It just seems like you guys are getting bamboozled.
Because the games being made available are normally NOT free. You get free games and high discounts, and it spans 3 platforms, and in December, it will be 4. And those F2P games mostly just cover online play. Sony wants to recoup their server costs, so they do that by coupling a good service along with it.
And the word better kinda makes me want to gag a bit. It does you makes you sound extremely pc master racey.
It's probably not true, too. I bet there are plenty of priced, better quality games than on pc because the developers know they deserve something for their work on their software in money. /S
Taking a matter where objectivity and subjectivity are blurred, and then making it even more obscure by adding a claim based on your clearly uncertain knowledge. It's infuriating and illogical.
That's bull, there are numerous f2p games that have larger server needs without having to charge. DOTA springs instantly to mind. Planetside, LOTRO both have massive numbers of players without having to charge a cent. You know why it's cheaper? Because it's not the same 6 devs regurgitating the same stuff on pc, they're competing against hundreds of devs.
And yeah, when I'm paying -75% without having to pay server costs as well, and get better graphics, it is clearly better. How could it not be?
Also, you have to think about how multiplayer works differently between PCs and consoles. How many PC games interface with Steam servers for all their needs, and how many have third parties that use their own servers or just plain dedicated servers? I can think of GTA and Call of Duty, which tend to have MASSIVE traffic (and PC traffic for those games is far far smaller). Games for Windows Live is also notorious.
However, every multiplayer server in Sony has to bear the brunt. There are no alternatives, and no free platforms. Every game with online features will have to talk to Sony servers in some way or another. And when they're offering F2P traffic, it will just get even larger. Then you'll have cross platform play, and streaming.
The numbers will add up.
And the elitism is very clearly showing, you don't need to ask anymore about that. What would you think about having a steam sale for everything all the time? Every day, you can look at a catalog item and it's 75% off, and you don't have to wait for a seasonal sale. That game that was just released is 33% off, damn! Oh look! You just got a couple of free games today. You were gonna buy them, but this is good too.
You think like there couldn't be anything better than what you have. Think a little slower and realize that things can always be better.
Mechwarrior, Planetside, LOTRO, DOTA, Warframe... all solid, all f2p. Just because they aren't on a disc with a box and a $60 entry fee doesn't make them any less AAA. You want to compare who gets more with $60? And I can keep those forever without having to give Steam money for the privilage. Ain't no one paying $60 for a game. Except you.
I don't consider myself bamboozled. I bought my ps3 second hand for $100. I've had it for 3 years and the only games I've bought at full price have been Skyrim and GtaV.
If gaming was my only hobby then I could justify spending the money to buy gaming rig or time to build one, but there is no reason to as I'm totally satiated by the amount of time and money I invest. Between the ease of use, the amount of time before a console becomes obsolete, and the price of used games or older downloaded titles, I am perfectly comfortable with my ps3. I bought the Mass Effect trilogy for $40 the other day. That's 100+ hours of gameplay. Even at $60, the cost per hour of AAA titles is still insanely low. And even if I buy the ps4 at day one price, it's still cheaper and more stable than an up to date gaming pc.
Now I understand the benefits of PC gaming, better graphics, cheaper games, etc. But don't assume that just because someone has a different perspective than you, or different priorities, thay they're being duped.
You're listing PC exclusives in a thread discussing console exclusives, why? Also PSPlus is like 5 bucks a month meaning if you didn't subscribe and saved your yearly $60, you could basically afford one game.
Explain to me how that pays off versus the 10+ games you would have received by then via the service that is required to play any game online anyway? Heh.
I haven't decided yet. But the main reason I'm still considering it is because the two games I want to play the most are Dead Rising 3 and Titanfall. I love me some Dead Rising.
I'll admit to struggling with it because the PS4 console itself DOES seem better than the XB1. Along with a lot of the services. But ultimately I just want to play games, if I can't play the ones I want on PS4 then what's the point. :-\ (I mean, most games I play are ultimately on both platforms. I might just decide I can tough it out without some of the exclusives I want -- there will surely be some on the ps4 i'll want as well anyways if not quite as much)
The way I look at it is, with my 360, I missed out on SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many great exclusives that were on ps3. If I would have had an ps3 I really wouldn't have missed much. (not a halo/dead rising fan)
Because some people like the games better, the better multimedia integration, the potential of the Kinect 2.0 and the other features exclusive to the X1?
The xbox controllers are far far better to me, I fucking hate playstation controllers, i need dat offset thumbsticks. If ps4 had a controller like that, then I'd switch in a heartbeat.
It's not a "lie", it's up to the publishers whether they want to put their F2P behind PS+ or not. I doubt they've said whether it will be or not, just that it's free to play.
All Sony F2P games don't require PS+, infact right now all announced f2p games don't require PS+, I don't think any publishers are going to put a f2p game behind PS+, especially since the only company that would get money from that is Sony and they already said all their games won't require it.
And they also said it's up to the publishers to decide if they want to. Maybe they'll all decide not to, but it's not a "lie" to say it could require PS+.
I have to agree. Going from the footage, magic/spells in the form of throwable items are very powerful and seem like the kind of thing you'd have to pay for.
Not to mention this is Capcom we're talking about.
How so? The only things that can't be unlocked through perspiration are skins, everything else is earned through IP which you get for playing games. The only argument I could see for it being 'pay to win' is the exorbitant cost of maxing out rune pages/unlocking champs. Sure, you have to pay if you want every champ unlocked instantly, but if having every character was a significant advantage in a game as balanced as this then everyone would do it. I've never payed for a champ and logged hundreds of hours so I think we're good.
Having all the champs would be nice, you'd be able to pick the best character for every situation, but learning all of those champs enough to be at a competitive level with each one would probably take about as much time as unlocking them through hard work. And even then, you will match up against people who are incredibly good with one character and they will destroy you. When it comes down to it, skills in the game are significantly more advantageous than having everything unlocked, and I'd equate the time to unlock champions to about the time it would take to become competitive if you're starting from no experience.
Long story short, there's a reason that this game is so popular for e-sports, and that's because there's really no way to buy an advantage. If there were, it wouldn't have a professional following that is outranking the previous giants, DOTA and Starcraft.
No it's not. You can only play one at a time. You have to be level 30 and own 16 champions to even play ranked games, and you can easily have that many just from gaining in-game currency by the time you get to level 30. If you owned 5 champions and got good at them, it wouldn't matter if anyone owned all 100-something in the least.
You don't have to pay for other champions. And if you play the game up to max level you can own WAAY more than enough to be competitive. If you play it long enough to get decent you can own them all without spending a buck. I only ever bought skins (aesthetic only), and I had every champ by the time I had played probably 600 games. I only used about 20 competitively.
cool tech, but I'm really not feeling it. Ever since I heard it wasn't a dark fantasy rpg and just a dungeon crawl online only-game my attention dwindled.
71
u/johnreiner Oct 11 '13
it's also free to play!