By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - ‘Free-to-play titles are natural fit for Xbox – Microsoft

Legend11 on 29 August 2012

They're F2P for Xbox Live Gold members and Microsoft has been very upfront about that.

Also for those Playstation gamers arguing that F2P should mean completely free, are you saying that anyone that wants to play a F2P game on a PS3 and doesn't own the console is provided one for free? Well then they're not truly F2P either.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 29 August 2012
deskpro2k3 said:
they'll probably market this and still get people to pay to play free to play games lol

Any commercial offering has someone paying.  It may be backed by advertising (user pays with their attention and wallets for something later), attached to a larger subscription-based system, gone micropayments (pay later) or a dozen of other things, someone is paying.  The goal now is to get people to think it is free and then pay money somewhere into the system.  That is how the game is set up these days. Heck, even Home is free, and they use micropayments to pay for things.



richardhutnik on 29 August 2012
foodfather said:
Considering the price of Xbox live, this should have been the case from launch. Quality free to play arcade game for Gold members, but instead we get Dash of Destruction courtesy of Doritos. Utter fail.

Aegis Wing and Crash Course are two free games that are good.  Aegis Wing sucks single player though, but if you get 2 or more players playing it, it becomes really good.  There is also demo stuff that can be played also, that don't cost anything.



dahuman on 29 August 2012

yeah so, the PC master race is laughing at this thread right now..... petty console shit talks lol? always so many years behind muwahahahhaha!



Kresnik on 29 August 2012

Well, firstly I'm sorry for the few Microsoft fans around here that this thread got derailed so quickly. It's never nice for fans of any group to have that happen.

Can I just clarify as a Sony fan, though: PS+ is in no way "free games". They are "excellent value for money rentals", but they're certainly not free. So your comparison there is justified. What these games should be compared to, however, are the actual F2P games on PS3. Namely DCUO (at the moment) and Dust 514 (coming soon), and any of the Playstation Home games. You simply need the console & an internet connection to play them - nothing else, and in that respect there is an extra charge for playing Microsoft's versions.

Of course, this brings up a whole other debate. Is anything really "free to play" when you have to invest in the hardware and have paid for an internet connection (mostly, perhaps you could take your console to a wi-fi enabled cafe with a TV and download them from there). Perhaps it would be better if they would be called something else, because "free" isn't necessarily true. If Microsoft's games are "Cheap to Play", then the PS3 games would be "Even cheaper to play".

Kowenicki's replies gave me a chuckle though, so thanks for that.



Find my website here

Around the Network
hollabackenny on 29 August 2012

I just went through 7 pages of the same post.

OT: Good on M$ for adding more for XBL Gold members.



chapset on 29 August 2012

can't wait till they make xbox live f2p



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

SOLIDSNAKE08 on 29 August 2012
Kresnik said:

Well, firstly I'm sorry for the few Microsoft fans around here that this thread got derailed so quickly. It's never nice for fans of any group to have that happen.

Can I just clarify as a Sony fan, though: PS+ is in no way "free games". They are "excellent value for money rentals", but they're certainly not free. So your comparison there is justified. What these games should be compared to, however, are the actual F2P games on PS3. Namely DCUO (at the moment) and Dust 514 (coming soon), and any of the Playstation Home games. You simply need the console & an internet connection to play them - nothing else, and in that respect there is an extra charge for playing Microsoft's versions.

Of course, this brings up a whole other debate. Is anything really "free to play" when you have to invest in the hardware and have paid for an internet connection (mostly, perhaps you could take your console to a wi-fi enabled cafe with a TV and download them from there). Perhaps it would be better if they would be called something else, because "free" isn't necessarily true. If Microsoft's games are "Cheap to Play", then the PS3 games would be "Even cheaper to play".

Kowenicki's replies gave me a chuckle though, so thanks for that.

this. sony get RIPPED everyday here by the same users that are now moaning about this thread being derailed.



oniyide on 29 August 2012
binary solo said:
Idiot fans can shout "free" all they like. They're still idiots and they'll always be wrong when a subscription is a pre-requisite.

What needs to be called here though out is the fact that Microsoft are very specifically claiming "free to play". Whereas Sony has never used that term (which has a pretty well understood meaning) in relation to the "free" stuff you get as a PSN+ member.

MS was wrong to use the F2P claim. They should have come up with a different term.

Misleading and deceptive PR needs to be called for what it is. If you can point to misleading and deceptive PR from Sony around PSN+ then call it out. If not then all the blow back at fans who are delluding themselves that their getting free stuff isn't just diversion from admitting that MS has been caught in a lie.

It's unfortunate that this thread's been derailed by debating PSN+ vs Gold and what's free and what's not. But let's be honest here, would there even be a thread if MS hadn't tried to claim they were getting in to F2P? I doubt it. So the subject of the thread really is F2P, not the games themselves.

The other unfortunate thing is that it takes un-fans poking fun at the claim on forums like this for the claim itself to be exposed as a [minor] fraud. Why is the news media merely parroting MS's PR instead of holding up a light to the claim and examining it critically, and pointing out the fallacy of it? Companies get away with a lot of crap because the news media just publish company PR press releases without really looking critically at what's being said. And journalists are scared to ask the hard questions in interviews, for fear of being blacklisted and never scoring interviews again. This F2P thing is just a small little smear of pooh that barely even smells, but it's part of the PR method and it's the free pass frm the media that I really find annoying.

Sure the quoted article states XBL Gold is required. But whoever wrote it didn't say "Back up the truck mate! If you need Gold then it's not F2P! You can't call it F2P so I ain't publishing this unless you take out the F2P claim." Lack of media integrity IMO.


THIS, ALL OF IT



oniyide on 29 August 2012
D-Joe said:

Ah look,another wave,this time even with words words words

Finally i know why 2ch call sony fans are ________(i can't say the word or i will get banned forever)


instead of complaining and making comments that arent really adding to the thread, how about you make a statement refuting what the other people are saying?? ive yet to hear a compelling argument for MS calling it F2P, and no "but SOny games arent free to play because you have to buy PS3" isnt a compelling argument cause that has nothing to do with xbox, and that would still be wrong because there are some PC games they made that are F2P(freerealms, DCUniverse)