Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play

Crytek CEO tells Videogamer.com that Crytek is moving towards developing only free-to-play games. "Right now we are in the transitional phase of our company, transitioning from packaged goods games into an entirely free-to-play experience," he told them at E3. "What this entails is that our future, all the new games that we're working on, as well new projects, new platforms and technologies, are designed around free-to-play and online, with the highest quality development."

View
83 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >

83. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 12, 2012, 01:41 Quinn
 
Thanks for answering that one for me StingingVelvet.

So yeah, Jerykk, what I meant with that illusion of freedom is that Crysis 2 had huge areas with places you absolutely didn't ever bother to go to because it didn't make sense AND in many cases I think you even couldn't go everywhere even though it gave you the impression that you could. What you got was ridiculously and unnecessarily big areas which were one of the reasons Crysis ran like crap on a futuristic PC.

In Crysis 2 it's undeed more confined. But what you get in return is very -- very! -- solid gameplay and much more detailed areas.

I'm sorry I thought you implied C2 sucks. But honestly, if you haven't tried C2 yet.. there's one pearl of a game still waiting for you to be played!

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2012, 04:33.
 
Avatar 57334
 
"Moo," she said.
And I trembled.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 11, 2012, 15:43 StingingVelvet
 
Jerykk wrote on Jun 11, 2012, 12:31:
I never said Crysis 2 sucks. I said I haven't bothered trying it yet because Crysis was underwhelming and I have no real interest in Crysis 3. I do have to question your "stupid illusion of freedom" statement. Does that mean that Crysis 2 offers genuine freedom? Or that it offers no freedom at all and doesn't even pretend to? Everything I've seen and read suggests that C2 is a much more linear game than the first one.

Crysis 2 is not more linear because both Crysis and Crysis 2 are very linear games. Crysis 2 has smaller areas, which a lot of people seem to associate with being "more linear," but that is not what that term is really about.

The reason I and many others love Crysis is because it has tactical freedom (different ways to handle different linear goals and objectives). Crysis 2 has that same freedom, just in more confined spaces.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 11, 2012, 12:31 Jerykk
 
You haven't even tried Crysis 2, Jerykk, so what are you saying? I didn't like Far Cry that much. I fucking hated Crysis. I freaking LOVED Crysis 2. It's solid, it doesn't give you that stupid illusion of freedom Crysis did, and the engine is a whole other sweet baby. Crysis 2 looks gorgeous and runs with a solid 60fps on my 3 year old machine.

I suggest you try first, before throwing in opinions based on absolutely nothing.

I never said Crysis 2 sucks. I said I haven't bothered trying it yet because Crysis was underwhelming and I have no real interest in Crysis 3. I do have to question your "stupid illusion of freedom" statement. Does that mean that Crysis 2 offers genuine freedom? Or that it offers no freedom at all and doesn't even pretend to? Everything I've seen and read suggests that C2 is a much more linear game than the first one.

Free-to-play is a good model for casual online multiplayer, but it leaves a massive portion of the market behind.

I wouldn't say that F2P only works for casual multiplayer games. MOBA games like LoL, HoN and DotA2 are anything but casual. Tribes: Ascend is definitely not casual either. Conversely, traditional retail games like CoD are about as casual as it gets.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 11, 2012, 10:32 Verno
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 11, 2012, 05:54:
Singleplayer-only gamers like me are not some rare breed of shut-in game companies can ignore. Why do you think Call of Duty has a 6 hour big budget campaign every year? Free-to-play is a good model for casual online multiplayer, but it leaves a massive portion of the market behind.

Agreed 100%. Look at the astronomical sales of something like Skyrim. Sure there is a lot of brand power there but I think it still speaks to the value of singleplayer games. Publishers perceive less risk with online functionality and they like the control they get over the experience both in terms of revenue and in sunsetting. It's frustrating because most of the time if you just focus on creating a good experience then gamers will go for it, you don't need this draconian bullshit we're seeing more and more in the market.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Everquest Next Alpha, Diablo 3, Bravely Default
Watching: Evidence, Longmire, Chained
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 11, 2012, 07:46 Quinn
 
Jerykk wrote on Jun 10, 2012, 03:11:
Getting back to free-to-play, I don't see a company moving to an all-F2P development strategy as anything but completely bad. The Crysis games were far and away better singleplayer games imo, so Crytek is basically dead to me once they do this.

I'm generally more of an SP guy myself, but the last Crytek game I really enjoyed was Far Cry. Crysis didn't really do much for me and I haven't even bothered trying Crysis 2 yet. I'm not really excited about Crysis 3 either. Now, if Obsidian went F2P, I'd be devastated.

You haven't even tried Crysis 2, Jerykk, so what are you saying? I didn't like Far Cry that much. I fucking hated Crysis. I freaking LOVED Crysis 2. It's solid, it doesn't give you that stupid illusion of freedom Crysis did, and the engine is a whole other sweet baby. Crysis 2 looks gorgeous and runs with a solid 60fps on my 3 year old machine.

I suggest you try first, before throwing in opinions based on absolutely nothing.
 
Avatar 57334
 
"Moo," she said.
And I trembled.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 11, 2012, 05:54 StingingVelvet
 
Prez wrote on Jun 10, 2012, 15:53:
Who are you kidding?

I expect no one, since I'm not attempting to. Whatever you thought of the quality of Quake 4, it was designed the way it was (instead of a flashier Quake 3) because Quake singleplayer was vastly more popular than its multiplayer according to id themselves. And while multiplayer purists always claim that the singleplayer portions of Unreal Tournament games are nothing more than training for online, the fact of the matter is (again according to the developer themselves) is that the vast majority prefer to play them singleplayer against bots. Why do you think Epic spends so much effort on making quality bots? UT's bots are the best in the business by a country mile, and for me playing against bots that you can tweak to give you a perfect match every time is way more preferrable than dealing with the unpredictability of real people.

Again, I only point this out to illustrate that despite the industry's moving more and more to F2P (which are multiplayer-only devoid of an offline component), many gamers aren't thrilled at the loss of even more singleplayer games that such a move causes. Crysis is predominantly a singleplayer series, and I still want to vomit when I think of Mechwarrior Online, given how incredibly awesome the trailer released a while back looked. That trailer screamed "singleplayer". Planetside and Tribes going F2P is all very well; those were already multiplayer games. It's the games like MW and Crysis that were better at being singleplayer going F2P that I find so damn discouraging.

Indeed.

Many multiplayer-focused games are played in singleplayer only. I remember Demigod, which had no real singleplayer at all, having only 20-something percent of players even try multiplayer ONCE.

Singleplayer-only gamers like me are not some rare breed of shut-in game companies can ignore. Why do you think Call of Duty has a 6 hour big budget campaign every year? Free-to-play is a good model for casual online multiplayer, but it leaves a massive portion of the market behind.

I suspect like LOTRO and TOR though what these companies really want is to combine single and multi into one thing and force it into an online service. I won't go for it, but I bet may do.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 15:53 Prez
 
Who are you kidding?

I expect no one, since I'm not attempting to. Whatever you thought of the quality of Quake 4, it was designed the way it was (instead of a flashier Quake 3) because Quake singleplayer was vastly more popular than its multiplayer according to id themselves. And while multiplayer purists always claim that the singleplayer portions of Unreal Tournament games are nothing more than training for online, the fact of the matter is (again according to the developer themselves) is that the vast majority prefer to play them singleplayer against bots. Why do you think Epic spends so much effort on making quality bots? UT's bots are the best in the business by a country mile, and for me playing against bots that you can tweak to give you a perfect match every time is way more preferrable than dealing with the unpredictability of real people.

Again, I only point this out to illustrate that despite the industry's moving more and more to F2P (which are multiplayer-only devoid of an offline component), many gamers aren't thrilled at the loss of even more singleplayer games that such a move causes. Crysis is predominantly a singleplayer series, and I still want to vomit when I think of Mechwarrior Online, given how incredibly awesome the trailer released a while back looked. That trailer screamed "singleplayer". Planetside and Tribes going F2P is all very well; those were already multiplayer games. It's the games like MW and Crysis that were better at being singleplayer going F2P that I find so damn discouraging.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2012, 16:09.
 
Avatar 17185
 
Goodbye my Monte boy. May you rest in the peace you never knew in life.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 14:20 Quinn
 
There goes the quality that makes me enjoy proper games. Free-to-play sucks. Period. Drew that startling conclusion from countless of free-to-play games since the last 10 years. Shallow, pointless, uninspired crap.

*sigh*
 
Avatar 57334
 
"Moo," she said.
And I trembled.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 13:30 MadBoris
 
gsilver wrote on Jun 10, 2012, 11:41:
Even if Tribes:Ascend is good, if you do sink $60 into it (the same as a "normal" game) over half the weapons are still locked.

"you can buy them with XP" is kind of silly when you consider that it can take a dozen hours to unlock one gun.

The next patch is changing things a lot, there will not be any spending XP on weapon upgrades anymore, and they are changing weapon unlocking, so that all weapons are available(if I remember correctly).

But that won't change anything for the people that find reasons to complain because they just won't like the game.

As an aside: this next patch is going to be pretty huge. It'll have the most balance adjustments since we changed the system to be weapon unlocks in Beta (many focused on better comp play), as well as a couple of other pretty huge features around improving the unlocking experience.

Still one of the better F2P models so far.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 11:41 gsilver
 
Even if Tribes:Ascend is good, if you do sink $60 into it (the same as a "normal" game) over half the weapons are still locked.

"you can buy them with XP" is kind of silly when you consider that it can take a dozen hours to unlock one gun.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 11:24 m0deth
 
Who are you kidding?

Raven called for and made the changes in Q4 multiplayer...and they paid the price for their suckage, so did Id.

In fact, the single player game sucked as well, and everyone knew the MP was the odd man out, getting the crap treatment as the tack on.
Then, when they had the chance to fix it, after listening to what was said by the fan-base....they did the exact opposite, and it immediately died thereafter.

I think the real point here is....the warning signs that Raven/Id no longer know how to make an appealing game were there then. Their track record of continual declines on successive titles shows the slow alienation of their once mighty fan-base.(btw, I did a little dance when I played Rage at a friends house, the "I'm glad I didn't give Id any more money!@" dance.

As far as SP in the previous titles mentioned, everyone knew they would be little more than a training mode for these combat action shooters, considering how much focus was on the multi component.

The problem we have now...is the all or nothing mentality. There is no reason why devs/pubs cannot make a compelling SP game with no multi, and within the same IP make an all MP game targeting those players.

Trouble is, when they do....it ends up like BF Heroes, or COD free, or BF free, or well, name any F2P modeled suckfest that hasn't a clue on how to make it work. If these devs stopped translating F2P into Free Flowing Cash, and worked a little integrity into their models, these games might look different, and would be more popular than they are.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 03:11 Jerykk
 
Getting back to free-to-play, I don't see a company moving to an all-F2P development strategy as anything but completely bad. The Crysis games were far and away better singleplayer games imo, so Crytek is basically dead to me once they do this.

I'm generally more of an SP guy myself, but the last Crytek game I really enjoyed was Far Cry. Crysis didn't really do much for me and I haven't even bothered trying Crysis 2 yet. I'm not really excited about Crysis 3 either. Now, if Obsidian went F2P, I'd be devastated.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 01:00 Prez
 
I think you'll find that the majority of people who play CoD do so for the multiplayer, not the single-player.

Undoubtedly, since the singleplayer portions were so generally ham-fisted and short. Me, I still play BF2 and BF2142, because they have singleplayer features that mirror the multiplayer without the annoyance of playing with other people who half the time are WAY better than you or just complete jerks. With a few tweaks, a coop server with a few friends against a team of a bots over a LAN can be had easily as well. BF3 doesn't allow it, so I stayed away.

Getting back to free-to-play, I don't see a company moving to an all-F2P development strategy as anything but completely bad. The Crysis games were far and away better singleplayer games imo, so Crytek is basically dead to me once they do this.

This comment was edited on Jun 10, 2012, 01:19.
 
Avatar 17185
 
Goodbye my Monte boy. May you rest in the peace you never knew in life.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 10, 2012, 00:08 Jerykk
 
I think back to the famous PC Gamer interview in which one of the designers of Quake 4 (I think it was Willits but I can't remember) was asked why they were bothering with a singleplayer portion for Quake 4 when Quake 3 was so popular as a mp-only game. His answer was that by a huge margin, Quake 2 was their biggest seller, and data they collected from their players proved that this was because the vast majority of gamers played it in singleplayer. Also, Epic revealed something around 90% of UT3 players never played online at all. I can easily see that myself - I think I may have gone online once for about 20 minutes. Playing against bots was by far the preferred mode of choice for almost everyone. Even Quake 4's multiplayer was canned for not having the option to play against bots.

I don't really consider bots to be a full-fledged single-player component, so I don't have a problem with them being added to an otherwise multiplayer-only game. UT, UT2004, Tribes 2, Quake 3, etc, all had bots. Quake 4 is a pretty good example of trying to cater to both single-player and multiplayer and failing in both regards. The SP was brief and forgettable and the multiplayer had a short lifespan. Had Raven focused entirely on either SP or MP, the game would have been better for it. Doom 3's another example. The MP was a joke and might as well have been left out entirely.

The point is, evidence suggests that even games that are viewed as largely multiplayer games but have a dedicated singleplayer portion are more successful as singleplayer games. Admittedly these are older games, and I don't have any data for current generation games, but I know for me personally if I ever buy a Call of Duty game again, it will be for about 5 to 7 bucks tops for when I'm in the mood for some mindless terrorist whack-a-mole in the super-short singleplayer portions. I'll never touch the multiplayer side.

I think you'll find that the majority of people who play CoD do so for the multiplayer, not the single-player. Same with Battlefield 3. Most modern games have both single-player and multiplayer components, but very rarely do both aspects receive equal attention. One component is usually half-assed and forgettable. See multiplayer in Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2 or single-player in CoD and BF3. Personally, my favorite games have always been either completely single-player or completely multiplayer.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 23:58 Jerykk
 
Hiding vehicles behind credit walls rewards the better players, which only further imbalances the game. At least in T2 everybody had an equal chance with the vehiclse. If vehicles aren't balanced then that should be addressed directly, even if it means vehicles are limited to transportation / mainly defensive.

I'm not really sure you can balance vehicles in a game with infantry. You either make the vehicles really weak so they can be destroyed with any weapon (ala T1) or you force infantry to carry specific anti-vehicle weapons (ala T2 and T:A). Since you have a two-weapon limit in T:A and only a specific heavy class can carry the homing missile launcher (which fires missiles that are slower than Shrikes and easily avoided), that kinda screws infantry over.

In my opinion, vehicles really have no place in any Tribes game. Infantry already has great speed and mobility thanks to skiing, along with massive firepower in the form of mortar launchers, disc launchers, grenade launchers, etc. Throwing in vehicles just ruins the game's balance.

If you enjoy vehicles more than regular combat then it would be considered grinding. To be fair I much preferred the support vehicles in T2, like the HAVOC Gunship Transport or the Jericho Mobile Point Base.

I think it's safe to say that T:A just isn't your cup of tea. T2 was easily the most vehicle-focused Tribes game, as Dynamix was trying to force their original vision for the series upon players. It was overcompensation for how vehicles were mostly ignored in T1. If you want vehicle-centric gameplay, you're better off waiting for Planetside 2.

I know, but I dislike the entire concept of unlockables. To me it cheapens the entire game and rewards the players who put in the most time or have the most skill by giving them advantages over lesser players. Rewards should be cosmetic, in which case I would highly favour rewarding the better players. The game itself should be what keeps people playing, not getting the next unlock or being able to use vehicles.

I agree completely. Cosmetic unlockables are fine but having to unlock classes, weapons, items, perks, etc, in a competitive multiplayer game is just stupid. Unfortunately, it seems to be the popular trend right now and exists in almost all modern multiplayer games, F2P or not. However, if you find the fundamental gameplay enjoyable, having to unlock things is less of an issue because you're having fun in the process.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 23:09 theyarecomingforyou
 
Jerykk wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 20:50:
Secondly, the use of credits to limit how often players can get vehicles is supposed to be a balancing mechanic. Vehicles were overpowered in T2 and they're still overpowered in T:A. A single Shrike with a decent pilot can effectively defend an entire base.
Hiding vehicles behind credit walls rewards the better players, which only further imbalances the game. At least in T2 everybody had an equal chance with the vehiclse. If vehicles aren't balanced then that should be addressed directly, even if it means vehicles are limited to transportation / mainly defensive.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 20:50:
Finally, if you enjoy a game, playing it should not be considered "grinding." Grinding is when you repeatedly do something tedious or mundane solely for the sake of gaining XP, unlocking stuff or getting loot.
If you enjoy vehicles more than regular combat then it would be considered grinding. To be fair I much preferred the support vehicles in T2, like the HAVOC Gunship Transport or the Jericho Mobile Point Base.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 20:50:
Few issues here. Firstly, unlockables are not limited to F2P games.
I know, but I dislike the entire concept of unlockables. To me it cheapens the entire game and rewards the players who put in the most time or have the most skill by giving them advantages over lesser players. Rewards should be cosmetic, in which case I would highly favour rewarding the better players. The game itself should be what keeps people playing, not getting the next unlock or being able to use vehicles.

I enjoyed what I played of T:A but the F2P model put me off. It just cheapened the game experience. I'd much rather pay asking price for a full game and have everything available to me. There are F2P games that break free from this - like TF2 and Dota 2 - and I'm sure there will be many more. Warface actually looks pretty promising. But in general I actively avoid F2P games.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 21:22 Prez
 
Conversely, the best single-player games are the ones that focus exclusively on single-player. If you're going to make a single-player game, make it single-player-only. If you're going to make a multiplayer game, make it multiplayer-only. When you try to cater to both, you end up satisfying neither.

I think back to the famous PC Gamer interview in which one of the designers of Quake 4 (I think it was Willits but I can't remember) was asked why they were bothering with a singleplayer portion for Quake 4 when Quake 3 was so popular as a mp-only game. His answer was that by a huge margin, Quake 2 was their biggest seller, and data they collected from their players proved that this was because the vast majority of gamers played it in singleplayer. Also, Epic revealed something around 90% of UT3 players never played online at all. I can easily see that myself - I think I may have gone online once for about 20 minutes. Playing against bots was by far the preferred mode of choice for almost everyone. Even Quake 4's multiplayer was canned for not having the option to play against bots.

The point is, evidence suggests that even games that are viewed as largely multiplayer games but have a dedicated singleplayer portion are more successful as singleplayer games. Admittedly these are older games, and I don't have any data for current generation games, but I know for me personally if I ever buy a Call of Duty game again, it will be for about 5 to 7 bucks tops for when I'm in the mood for some mindless terrorist whack-a-mole in the super-short singleplayer portions. I'll never touch the multiplayer side.

Developers WANT us to only want multiplayer games for a number of reasons - the big ones being no tricky AI to code and rendering piracy a non-issue - but I am not so sure that jives with what the majority of gamers want.
 
Avatar 17185
 
Goodbye my Monte boy. May you rest in the peace you never knew in life.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 20:56 Jerykk
 
Prez wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 09:13:
If it weren't for F2P, we would have significantly fewer multiplayer-only games.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is a bad thing if you like multiplayer games. The best multiplayer games are the ones that are multiplayer-only. CS, Tribes, Q3, UT, etc. These days, multiplayer is either tacked on or has to split resources with single-player, which leads to generic and forgettable multiplayer experiences.

Conversely, the best single-player games are the ones that focus exclusively on single-player. If you're going to make a single-player game, make it single-player-only. If you're going to make a multiplayer game, make it multiplayer-only. When you try to cater to both, you end up satisfying neither.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 20:50 Jerykk
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 14:44:
eunichron wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 14:07:
Uh, the "credits" needed to use vehicles in T:A are the credits that you earn in-game by scoring kills, repairing the base, capping/returning flags etc. The same credits that are used for supply station drops, tactical and orbital strikes. It has absolutely nothing to do at all with purchasing anything.
But it's part of the whole grind-to-win philosophy that pervades every design decision in F2P games. In T2 I didn't have to deal with any of that nonsense and it was a better game for it. I could spawn a carrier vehicle, wait for team mates to fly in and go storming off into enemy territory - now I have to kill some people or repair stuff to earn fictional points before being able to do anything.

As I'm not familiar with it, can you purchase those credits? If so then you're rewarding people for paying, which was exactly my point. If not it's still a tedious grind that I don't have any patience for.

Few issues here. Firstly, unlockables are not limited to F2P games. Pretty much every multiplayer game now has leveling and unlockables. Secondly, the use of credits to limit how often players can get vehicles is supposed to be a balancing mechanic. Vehicles were overpowered in T2 and they're still overpowered in T:A. A single Shrike with a decent pilot can effectively defend an entire base. However, in T:A, at least the credit requirement delays the vehicles from appearing until later in the game. Finally, if you enjoy a game, playing it should not be considered "grinding." Grinding is when you repeatedly do something tedious or mundane solely for the sake of gaining XP, unlocking stuff or getting loot. If you removed the loot and leveling from MMOs, nobody would play them because the fundamental gameplay is not compelling. Same applies to Diablo and other hack 'n slash games. However, if you removed the loot and leveling from Tribes, people would still play it because the fundamental gameplay is compelling.

And no, you can't purchase the credits. They are solely earned through gameplay accomplishments and are reset between matches. The idea is that you actually have to be useful and contribute to your team before you can hop in a vehicle and annoy the other team.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 2012, 21:03.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: Crytek Going Entirely Free-to-Play Jun 9, 2012, 19:25 Dmitri_M
 
JaguarUSF wrote on Jun 9, 2012, 07:21:
Dmitri_M wrote on Jun 8, 2012, 22:13:
Who plays Free to Play games? I do not pay attention to anything that's free to play. My basic presumption is that they're rubbish titles. Especially the shooters.

Tribes Ascend is not rubbish.
When did mentioning "F2P" become a muster to the Tribes fanboys to rear their pimpled heads in defense. I SAID earlier in this thread that Tribes might be good and that exceptions obviously exist. Some of you need it spelled out letter by letter?
 
Avatar 22350
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo