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

[Epona]

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. >_>

This is so true. I just bought a free copy of Golden Sun: Dark Dawn a few days ago. It cost me $20 upfront though.

 

[intheweeds]

What is with CPP making all these silly analogies recently? I recall being told people pay '$200' for a 'AAA' concert (whatever that is) and I remember reading some ludicrous connection being made between stupidly expensive Eve clothing and real world high-fashion prices. Now i'm being told that a 'cover' charge is still a F2P game. Concerts are not 'AAA' (nor are they $200) and cover charges are for bars and clubs.

A 'cover charge' is normally associated with bars or clubs. See F2P is like a bar with no cover, you get in free and they hope you buy alcohol while you are there. That's F2P. A cover charge is exactly what it sounds like. You pay to get in. Just charge me the damn $20 for the game and drop the stupid pretense. I feel like all these analogies are just insulting our intelligence and I am officially not going to participate in anything CPP has to offer from this point on.

 

[mattaui]

I'm quite fond of the new 'free to play' model, but they really do need to either come up with a new bit of terminology or differentiate the various sorts of games. Some really are 'f2p' as the horrible but unfortunately accepted acronym indicates, with premium options available. Others are nothing but glorified free trials that still require a base game purchase and then additional 'freemium' (ugh) options.

I suppose this was an unavoidable destination for PC games once DLC started showing up, since at some point someone realized that they could just make the entire game DLC, and provide a free framework that is nothing more than an interface to funnel money towards the game's developers.

Some make it work (I particularly enjoy LotRO) but others feel far too restrictive (EQX) and others still are nothing but gambling simulators masquerading as fantasy games (Runes of Magic).

In this case, if you've got to pay to play, there's just no way they can call it free. Even if I don't have to pay up front for the client, but I've got to pay to do anything with it, it's a distinction without a difference. Sort of like an option I saw for purchasing Rift lately, which was only $9.99, but it didn't come with a free month, so it was really $9.99 plus the immediate cost of the subscription.

 

[Furioso]

By that same logic every game is free to play, you just have to pay a cover charge to get it, seriously these people must think we are idiots

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

So....you have to pay to play

And it's free

...those 2 are complete opposites....

Sorry

No matter how you try and spin it if it requires me to pay to play

It.Is.Not.Free

As Furioso says these people must think we're idiots.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I think people in the comments section are missing something...

It's not "subscription-based". Which, technically, makes it a "free-to-play" game, as you do not have to pay a subscription in order to play the game. Yes, there is the cover charge, but, you don't have to continually pay it to play the game. So, they are correct, it is free-to-play, but, with a cover charge.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well so much for that ps3 exclusive.

well ill just wait for guild wars which is LITERALLY free to play (you buy the actual game of course)

 

[Pariahwulfen]

Time to riot in Jita/Amarr/Dodi/Rens?

Time to riot in Jita/Amarr/Dodi/Rens.

 

[nicksdrago0]

I think people in the comments section are missing something...

It's not "subscription-based". Which, technically, makes it a "free-to-play" game, as you do not have to pay a subscription in order to play the game.

I just brought GTA4 off steam recently. I payed an initial sum, then did not have to pay a subscription charge. Is that free to play?

I can see however, where they are going with this: imagine that you brought a game with DLC (Im gonna use borderlands as an example) and gearbox gave you one of the DLC's for free. You could choose which one, but you would have to pay for the rest if you wanted those. The credit refund thing is just that-you get to choose which additional part of the gear/cosmetic hats/whatever for whatever you spent to get the game.

However, calling it free to play is still flat out stupid.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I think people in the comments section are missing something...

It's not "subscription-based". Which, technically, makes it a "free-to-play" game, as you do not have to pay a subscription in order to play the game.

I just brought GTA4 off steam recently. I payed an initial sum, then did not have to pay a subscription charge. Is that free to play?

I can see however, where they are going with this: imagine that you brought a game with DLC (Im gonna use borderlands as an example) and gearbox gave you one of the DLC's for free. You could choose which one, but you would have to pay for the rest if you wanted those. The credit refund thing is just that-you get to choose which additional part of the gear/cosmetic hats/whatever for whatever you spent to get the game.

However, calling it free to play is still flat out stupid.

I'm calling "language barrier" on this one. They probably didn't understand the concept, as they are comparing it to EVE (as it is a supplementary game to EVE), they probably meant "well, EVE requires a subscription, but DUST 514 does not, that makes it free-to-play. It's simply a technicality error on their part.

 

[figday]

okay,, it.s 2 AM where i'm at so i'm a bit sleepy.

i don't get it. they're saying that it's going to be Buy-to-play no?

but still. PS3 exclusive. meh.

 

[GrimSheeper]

Gonna follow the general consent here. If there's a charge, it's not free to play. It's a cheap game, but it's not free. You can't put a free to play label on a game that is free to download but requires 10$-20$ to be played.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Gotta love the sweet sweet coated candy of lies pfft free to play back in my day free literally meant free.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

Thats my thought. I dont mind paying for a MMO "cover charge", but dont say its a F2P MMO that I have to buy.

 

[Epona]

I think people in the comments section are missing something...

It's not "subscription-based". Which, technically, makes it a "free-to-play" game, as you do not have to pay a subscription in order to play the game. Yes, there is the cover charge, but, you don't have to continually pay it to play the game. So, they are correct, it is free-to-play, but, with a cover charge.

So should we throw the Free to Play label on all non MMO games now?

It isn't free to play if you can't play until you pay.