Free-to-Play Dust 514 Will Require "Cover Charge"

[Andy Chalk]

Free-to-Play Dust 514 Will Require "Cover Charge"

CCP, developer of free-to-play online shooter Dust 514 [http://www.amazon.com/Dust-514-Playstation-3/dp/B0050SXTA0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310403976&sr=8-1], is redefining the concept of "free" by charging for it.

I remember a day when "free" meant there was no charge, no monetary transaction required. Free. Gratis. Take it and get out. But now it seems that in some corners, and in some ways, the concept has changed. Consider Dust 514, the free-to-play shooter for the PlayStation 3 that will tie in to the EVE Online [http://www.amazon.com/Eve-Online-Commisioned-Officer-Pc/dp/B003VJID7E/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1310404015&sr=1-1] MMO, as an example. It's free, but you're going to have to pay for it.

"In the beginning you have to pre-buy credits, so you pay something like $10 - $20 to enter the game and you get the equivalent number of credits in the game once you do that," CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson told GamesIndustry.biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-07-11-dust-514-requires-cover-charge-from-ps3-players]. "We call this the 'cover charge'."

"You're really getting the game for free but you have to pre-buy credits in the beginning," he continued. "We might go fully free-to-play down the line, but in the beginning we have a cover charge just to manage the initial launch of it."

Pétursson said the idea of a "cover charge" emerged from CCP's desire to build a solid foundation for its games in a "slow and predictable way." Without that managed growth, he explained, it's tough to put together a "cohesive" community. "By growing it at the beginning we help to make a healthy environment initially," he said.

I have no problem at all with an up-front charge for an online game, especially one that can be played indefinitely for no extra cost. After all, the comparably-priced became "free" [http://www.amazon.com/Team-Fortress-2-Pc/dp/B00140S21O/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1310404082&sr=1-1]] is one of the best gaming values on the market. I'm just not sure that calling it "free" is really fair or appropriate.

Dust 514 is slated to come out in the spring of 2012, exclusively for the PlayStation 3.


Permalink

 

[Epona]

Free-to-Play Dust 514 Will Require "Cover Charge"

CCP, developer of free-to-play online shooter Dust 514 [http://www.amazon.com/Dust-514-Playstation-3/dp/B0050SXTA0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310403976&sr=8-1], is redefining the concept of "free" by charging for it.

I remember a day when "free" meant there was no charge, no monetary transaction required. Free. Gratis. Take it and get out. But now it seems that in some corners, and in some ways, the concept has changed. Consider Dust 514, the free-to-play shooter for the PlayStation 3 that will tie in to the EVE Online [http://www.amazon.com/Eve-Online-Commisioned-Officer-Pc/dp/B003VJID7E/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1310404015&sr=1-1] MMO, as an example. It's free, but you're going to have to pay for it.

"In the beginning you have to pre-buy credits, so you pay something like $10 - $20 to enter the game and you get the equivalent number of credits in the game once you do that," CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson told GamesIndustry.biz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-07-11-dust-514-requires-cover-charge-from-ps3-players]. "We call this the 'cover charge'."

"You're really getting the game for free but you have to pre-buy credits in the beginning," he continued. "We might go fully free-to-play down the line, but in the beginning we have a cover charge just to manage the initial launch of it."

Pétursson said the idea of a "cover charge" emerged from CCP's desire to build a solid foundation for its games in a "slow and predictable way." Without that managed growth, he explained, it's tough to put together a "cohesive" community. "By growing it at the beginning we help to make a healthy environment initially," he said.

I have no problem at all with an up-front charge for an online game, especially one that can be played indefinitely for no extra cost. After all, the comparably-priced became "free" [http://www.amazon.com/Team-Fortress-2-Pc/dp/B00140S21O/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1310404082&sr=1-1]] is one of the best gaming values on the market. I'm just not sure that calling it "free" is really fair or appropriate.

Dust 514 is slated to come out in the spring of 2012, exclusively for the PlayStation 3.


Permalink

I am absolutely sure that calling something free that has a cover charge is nothing but a lie.

 

[Wicky_42]

That's just silly :/ If you have to pay to play, it's not free to pay - and buying fake money counts as a payment!

 

[Super Shell]

I don't mind paying cover fees for "no subscription required" MMOs, Guild Wars used the same system and I loved that.

 

[Alon Shechter]

So you only need to pay to keep the developers going so they use your own money to supply you with a 'free' service.
I think by this logic everything in the entire world is free, you just pay a little to keep it free!

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

From the sound of it, they're trying a smaller version of how you can buy time with in-game currency in EVE. Usually, you're going to have to spend a few months training skills to the point that you can produce enough ISK (the in-game currency) to actually buy the time cards off the market.

In this case, they may be using a similar system that is meant to serve both the interests of the players and the company. I expect that it will be similar to the multiplayer-passes many other games have with the exception of in-game rewards as the hook.

Then again, this kind of stuff is still nine months out, so they could easily change their minds.

 

[Wicky_42]

I am absolutely sure that calling something free that has a cover charge is nothing but a lie.

I think their angle is that the cover charge is temporary and 'reimbursed' by the in-game money, just to get the game earning out of the game with the idea being to drop the required purchase later. Of course, that's the wrong way of doing it; if people need to pay then you absolutely can't advertise it as free to play until you've dropped your annoying 'cover charge' crap.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm pretty sure I'm stating the blatantly obvious here, but it's not free if you pay for it, CCP.

 

[Wicky_42]

I don't mind paying cover fees for "no subscription required" MMOs, Guild Wars used the same system and I loved that.

Oh yeah, Guild Wars had no subs, but they didn't pretend that the whole thing was free. Whenever an MMO has been F2P they've always given the client away for free too, and made the money off of item sales. CCP seems to be pretending that you're not buying the client, rather that you're being made to purchase some in-game money so you can get access to the free stuff - it makes no sense, especially as I'm sure people would have been happy to buy the client in the first place if they'd just been up-front about it.

 

[Lost in Hyrule]

It sounds like there's no subscription fee to play, but that's decidedly not the same as free to play.

 

[esplode]

I wouldn't mind paying a 'cover charge' for a game, but that would mean that it wasn't free. This is not free.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think this is the result of the huuuuge backlash surrounding the item shop that came with EVE's Incarna expansion.

My guess is that they wanted to make a pretty extensive item shop in Dust 514, but after all the drama surrounding EVE's item shop, I think they'll make it quite a bit smaller.

And of course, they still have to make money from this somehow, so they give it a fee instead. Honestly, I'd be cool with it if it means we can do without an economy-breaking item shop.

 

[saregos]

Ok... hypothetically, what's the difference between this and a game that costs $10 and gives you 1000 "credits" when you purchase it... then you can purchase additional credits at 1 cent per credit.

Answer - nothing, which means it's NOT FREE! Words mean something, you can't just re-purpose them to mean their exact opposites.

/rant

 

[Roserari]

EXTRA, EXTRA! CALL OF DUTY WILL BE FREE TO PLAY! It's going to cost 60 bucks to buy a copy of the disc, but actually playing the game will be free of charge.

... Stop calling it free to play, dingbats. >_>

 

[gigastar]

Just get Team Fortess 2, it will probably be much better than this and it truly is free.

 

[Smooth Operator]

So they are simply lying? Well it's nice to know what sort of company it is before you actually bite into it.

And we can simply wait a month or two when they start going down the drain and it all becomes free.

 

[Bretty]

Meh, whatever. This game will probably be better than most of the games you pay $60 for.

Should CCP take a look at their language, yeah.

 

[teknoarcanist]

Oh just cut through the crap.

Whatever the minimum absolute pre-buy is...that's the cost of the game.

Don't obfuscate shit by calling it a "cover-charge". Just say, "The game will cost $10 minimum to start, with more money being exchanged via in-game credits, and will become free-to-play down the line."

Goddamn corporate doublespeak infesting my video games....

"Hey, I got you this free car! Actually, I got you infinite access TO a car, but you have to buy half of it to start. You can buy more, too, actually, and I'll redeem your money for "car points", which enhance the features of the car and make it more fun to drive. So yeah. It's free, you just have to pay some for it. We'll call it 'rust-proofing expenses'."

 

[Epona]

I am absolutely sure that calling something free that has a cover charge is nothing but a lie.

I think their angle is that the cover charge is temporary and 'reimbursed' by the in-game money, just to get the game earning out of the game with the idea being to drop the required purchase later. Of course, that's the wrong way of doing it; if people need to pay then you absolutely can't advertise it as free to play until you've dropped your annoying 'cover charge' crap.

Agreed, trading real money for fake money isn't free.