Microsoft confirms Fable Legends is a free-to-play game

[HEXUS]

Lionhead's four-versus-one title will be available on Xbox One and Windows 10.

Read more.

[Wozza63]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[Plasmastorm]

May not be all that bad. For example I played startrek online for about 3-4 months without spending a penny. Then bought a £20 in-game thing as a way of supporting the Dev team.

If Fable is truly like that then it's a +1 for me but you know it's going to be a pay to win scenario by the time it comes out.

[ZaO]

But, 'Free to play' is always Pay to win, in my experience. Or you sometimes have the option of grinding for way too many hours to win. Planetside 2 is an example I like to use for this. People will argue that you can get all the stuff that matters without spending money. But I tried, and it requires you to treat that game like a full time job. I would rather just pay them £30-£40 and have the full game, even if I have to spend some hours unlocking weapons. I hate all the ridiculous amount of choice of different weapons, items and power ups as well. That stuff really puts me off. It's such a mess, designed purely to milk money out of people. You'd have to try an insane amount of things to figure out what a good setup is. The free to play model has never ever been a good thing from what I've seen. I don't bother with it at all anymore!

I think EA have actually done quite a good job with in the way they've done it with BF4 (bar the premium exclusive items. And I have a premium account..). Praising EA is not exactly something I'm fond of, either...

[Saracen]

Hmmm.

I guess a lot depends on how this is implemented, but I have a simple attitude, which is that I want to know what a game, or an OS on subscription for that matter, is going to cost BEFORE I get involved. So, I simply will not pay for in-game items, whether it's to 'enhance the exoerience', or pay-to-win. Either way, personally, not happening.

So .... if a game is genuinely free-to-play, the question for me is is it playable enough to enjoy without in-game payments? If so, it's a winner, and if not, it's not.

The next issue is XB1. So far, I've not seen the need. And I'm NOT interested in Live accounts. I don't have MS accounts for existing Windows, having stuck determinedly to Local accounts, and I don't and never have had a Live, or Gold, or whatever they call it, account for my XB360.

And as for Win 10, for me, the jury is still very much out on whether I ever will upgrade to that.

So, if it requires an XB1 (don't have one, no plans for one), Live/Gold account (don't have one, no plans for one) or Win10 (jury out) then this release isn't terribly high up my priority list. In fact, it barely registers on my radar.

[MercutioUK]

But, 'Free to play' is always Pay to win, in my experience. Or you sometimes have the option of grinding for way too many hours to win. Planetside 2 is an example I like to use for this. People will argue that you can get all the stuff that matters without spending money. But I tried, and it requires you to treat that game like a full time job. I would rather just pay them £30-£40 and have the full game, even if I have to spend some hours unlocking weapons. I hate all the ridiculous amount of choice of different weapons, items and power ups as well. That stuff really puts me off. It's such a mess, designed purely to milk money out of people. You'd have to try an insane amount of things to figure out what a good setup is. The free to play model has never ever been a good thing from what I've seen. I don't bother with it at all anymore!

I think EA have actually done quite a good job with in the way they've done it with BF4 (bar the premium exclusive items. And I have a premium account..). Praising EA is not exactly something I'm fond of, either...

I could happily make a new account, login PS2 and be making a mark with basic gear inside an hour. If you want superb weapon systems on EVERY choice in gear, yes, you'll have to grind or spend money. Same with every RPG ever though, the best stuff isn't just given to you, at least in PS2 you aren't borderline useless until you get most of this gear.

I see this crap spouted a lot. There's a VERY big learning curve, after that, the weapons you use are next to irrelevant. Think of counterstrikes learning curve, are you one of those that gets owned and complains that "everyone in CS cheats" or do you accept there's a certain amount of time taken to "get good?".

From a bias point of view, yes, play and enjoy PS2. I still use the same primary weapon the heavy gets on day 1 with an nightsight scope on it (which would take you about 30 minutes play to earn).

Now, agreed, there's plenty of games where the pay to win thing DOES occur. It's definitely not the case everywhere though and it shouldn't always be looked for/at in games that go that route. If you are paying for "random loot chests" or anything that's significantly better than the non payment option then yes, P2W. I'm even on your side of the fence with long grind stuff that is significantly better.

I think to round it off:

Cosmetic: Don't care
Gear: Sidegrades are a slippery slope, better/alternative long grind is clearly into P2W territory

In PS2's case the only "must have" bits are better armour (which can't be unlocked with real money) a decent scope that suits your playstyle and some form of explosives/better explosives which are about the only bit you can go the P2W route with (or unlock with a couple of days play/in a couple of hours once your playstyle improves). There's cheap options for most bits of gear that are completely serviceable.

[Dooms]

Good F2P models do exist but majorty of companies mess it up.

DOTA2 : Only cosmetic
Tribes & SMITE: Plenty of free content, paying stuff doesn't give you items non-payers can't get, can out right buy the game for £20-30 to unlock everything past, present and future so turn it into a retail purchased game.

They are the only 100% acceptable things I can think of at the moment, most do introduce pay=win things which just ruin it all.

[Saracen]

... can out right buy the game for £20-30 to unlock everything past, present and future so turn it into a retail purchased game.

....

That's the only model that really interests me. The only question then is ' does it look to be good enough to pay £30 (or whatever the price is)?"

If yes, buy. If no, don't. Simple.

But I recognise that games cost real money, and often a lot of it, to develop. So unless it's a very rich altruist behind it, there's an agenda somewhere. It might be in-game advertising (an utter non-starter for me), it might be incremental in-game purchases (a non-starter for me, since you're buying a pig in a poke, and if you stop buying, you waste everything you've spent).

I cheerfully accept that those making games have wages and bills to pay, and that "free" is .... rare. Maybe as a taster for follow-ons, mission packs, etc, which will be charged-for. Fair enough.

And sure, it's just me and my preferences/standards, but either pay-to-play or in-game advertising are absolute non-starters for me. I want to, and indeed insist on, knowing the cost, in-total and up-front, before buying. For anyone else, clearly, YMMV.

[ZaO]

I could happily make a new account, login PS2 and be making a mark with basic gear inside an hour. If you want superb weapon systems on EVERY choice in gear, yes, you'll have to grind or spend money. Same with every RPG ever though, the best stuff isn't just given to you, at least in PS2 you aren't borderline useless until you get most of this gear.

I see this crap spouted a lot. There's a VERY big learning curve, after that, the weapons you use are next to irrelevant. Think of counterstrikes learning curve, are you one of those that gets owned and complains that "everyone in CS cheats" or do you accept there's a certain amount of time taken to "get good?".

From a bias point of view, yes, play and enjoy PS2. I still use the same primary weapon the heavy gets on day 1 with an nightsight scope on it (which would take you about 30 minutes play to earn).

Now, agreed, there's plenty of games where the pay to win thing DOES occur. It's definitely not the case everywhere though and it shouldn't always be looked for/at in games that go that route. If you are paying for "random loot chests" or anything that's significantly better than the non payment option then yes, P2W. I'm even on your side of the fence with long grind stuff that is significantly better.

I think to round it off:

Cosmetic: Don't care
Gear: Sidegrades are a slippery slope, better/alternative long grind is clearly into P2W territory

In PS2's case the only "must have" bits are better armour (which can't be unlocked with real money) a decent scope that suits your playstyle and some form of explosives/better explosives which are about the only bit you can go the P2W route with (or unlock with a couple of days play/in a couple of hours once your playstyle improves). There's cheap options for most bits of gear that are completely serviceable.

Whatever. I don't feel that way. I did good in PS2 with the weapons available at the start, but it got so much better when I finally got a scope for a gun. The people who have a few attatchements and boosts/perks/grenades n stuff definitely have a bit of an advantage. To kit out all your classes will take way too long. I'm not prepared to spend that much time, no way... I prefer to just buy a game and have the game (playing to unlock items is fine by me. But not as long as PS2 takes). And I definitely don't mind some proper addons/expansions when they're done right. But, Freemium sucks, and I don't bother with it. Not until I see it done in a way that I feel works better. I'm not budging on this opinion.

[MercutioUK]

Whatever. I don't feel that way. I did good in PS2 with the weapons available at the start, but it got so much better when I finally got a scope for a gun. The people who have a few attatchements and boosts/perks/grenades n stuff definitely have a bit of an advantage. To kit out all your classes will take way too long. I'm not prepared to spend that much time, no way... I prefer to just buy a game and have the game (playing to unlock items is fine by me. But not as long as PS2 takes). And I definitely don't mind some proper addons/expansions when they're done right. But, Freemium sucks, and I don't bother with it. Not until I see it done in a way that I feel works better. I'm not budging on this opinion.

Re-reading that, I came over a bit (lot) aggressive, apologies
If you pick a favourite class and put points in it you'll advance fairly quickly. To have everything though takes a long time, yes.

[ZaO]

Re-reading that, I came over a bit (lot) aggressive, apologies
If you pick a favourite class and put points in it you'll advance fairly quickly. To have everything though takes a long time, yes.

No probs I haven't played it for at least a year, so maybe it's changed a lot. But it took a painfully long time unlock most things when I was playing. I stuck to one class a little more than the rest, but I don't like to play that way. I like to mix it up. Seeing as I was enjoying the game at the time, I looked into buying some weapons to support the game, and of course have some new weapons! But they were asking way too much for way too little. Again, I don't think they were doing it right. And even if they did do that bit right, I still hate all the stupid boosts and stuff that you can buy. Those kind of things put me off big time. As I say, it might be quite different to when I played last. But that was my experience.. It's still an awesome game, just ruined by the monetizing strategy, in my opinion..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have not spent any money on PS2 myself and it has a great F2P model but has a very steep learning curve especially if you are TR. I play as TR Heavy Assault and the basic ML7 is my most used weapon - I have taken out lvl100 players with it. It is grindy but so are games like D3 and so on.