A short 4-minute video from the guys at Hold Back to Block. They believe SF6 should either be fully or partially F2P.
Discuss.
Discuss.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"Should Street Fighter 6 be Free to Play?" - Hold Back to Block
- Thread starter Jaded Alyx
- Start date
- Capcom
[Gamerant] It Costs $110,000 to Fully Gear-Up in Diablo Immortal
But normally these kind of threads have some kind of warning/explanation box attached to every page. The ot for immortal has not.
www.resetera.com
EDIT: I should clarify, as I personally don't even have a problem with Immortal (I'm enjoying it). But SF6 has been in development for years and we already know it's been rebooted internally once. F2P games have to make their money somewhere. And so if Capcom suddenly released it as a F2P game, I'm very confident we'd see even more frustration and anger mounted toward them than they did with Fight Money and the monetization of DLC and costumes in 5.
Fact is, making it F2P would almost assuredly result in even more micro transactions, more DLC, and possibly the addition of loot box mechanics, battle passes (fight passes) and more, and I think people would be even more frustrated with that.
Even if it's just aesthetics/costumes (see Halo Infinite).
I personally don't think it's worth it.
Last edited:
Base game free to play (few characters, unranked/ranked online, training mode). Charge for story for people who want it, cosmetics and additional DLC characters. Release a $60 version for people who want it all at the start. Get people into the game. Get people into fighting games. The best way to do it is to make a high quality product that is free.
The only free to play fighting game I'm familiar with personally is Dissidia and once it went F2P it got really obnoxious with character and costume prices and just really turned me off. With SF6's single player content, nah, just make it a normal game.
Why even post this?[Gamerant] It Costs $110,000 to Fully Gear-Up in Diablo Immortal
But normally these kind of threads have some kind of warning/explanation box attached to every page. The ot for immortal has not.
Check LoL, Dota, Apex, Warzone, Fortnite and other mainstream multiplayer games that have fair f2p models.
You think paying for frame data is fair? Like in tekken?
You thinks the gems were fair in SFxT?
This is entirely a drive by post.
They will bring up how many it costs to get all the skins in LoL, probably.
It won't be but it would be a smart move. People will complain about microtransactions in free to plays game but let's be honest between new characters, seasons, costumes and now customizable avatars SF6 is going to already have tons of cosmetic microtransactions. It wouldn't surprise me if they add a battle pass.
But being that it is Street Fighter and the game will sell well at full price it's gonna be full price,
But being that it is Street Fighter and the game will sell well at full price it's gonna be full price,
As long as they do a $60 version with all of the content available out of the box, I think a F2P version is a GREAT idea.
I don't think there is a reason to go F2P at launch considering this game will actually move $60 ($80 deluxe) copies unlike SFV for a good while. SFV's constant "every character is unlocked" periods/free weekends feel like trial runs for a F2P game though, so I think it's going to come eventually.
OP
OP
the thing is, the people likely to play this due to it being free, are likely the people who only care about the single-player.
Capcom has already dipped their toes into this with SFV with free weekends and one week trial DLC character unlocks.
I was thinking Capcom should lift KI's model. Something like Ryu, Luke, Chun, & that Jamie guy from the trailer F2P, with a rotating cast member every month.
I was thinking Capcom should lift KI's model. Something like Ryu, Luke, Chun, & that Jamie guy from the trailer F2P, with a rotating cast member every month.
At launch, no, but if they want to pull a Dead or Alive 5/6 after the first season of DLC- where you get a free version of the game with 4-6 characters unlocked and access to all non-story mode content (online, training, arcade, etc) with those characters for free, and can piecemeal buy additional characters and the story mode ? Sure.
I think it should be, partially at the very least. It entinces people to try it out, does away with PS+ and Gold requirements and lowers the entry barrier.
I'd be fine with it, so long as there's a path to buy the "full" game set of features like how DOA5 and 6 did their F2P versions.
So this is now the go-to any time someone mentions a game being F2P? I hope not.[Gamerant] It Costs $110,000 to Fully Gear-Up in Diablo Immortal
But normally these kind of threads have some kind of warning/explanation box attached to every page. The ot for immortal has not.
That's a resounding No for me. SFV's model worked extremely well. They should follow in its footsteps and simply expand upon it and add more cool stuff. The reason I'm against it is because a lot of companies use F2P as an excuse to fill their games up with money grubbing schemes. Let me pay for a boxed premium product.
Last edited:
hello, i am the casual you speak of.
The 60 dollars is the version for me because i want all the characters to play offline with friends AND the story mode.
The free version is
1) for people who want to try, like a demo.
2) to bait people like "i wil only get my main" and then the person buy everything else and reach more than 60 bucks =P
Should probably but ain't happening til least post project L. If it happens the way the modes are segmented maybe fighting ground could have a free version spun out. It looks like it's double tripling down on address 5 not being a premium product and that ship is to far along to turn.
I'd be fine with a f2p version that's just the online multiplayer like what KI did, but the main release should be the full priced edition.
OP
OP
Then you aren't the casual I speak of. I'm talking about people who would never consider spending 60 on a fighting game.
Fact is, making it F2P would almost assuredly result in even more micro transactions, more DLC, and possibly the addition of loot box mechanics, battle passes (fight passes) and more, and I think people would be even more frustrated with that.
Even if it's just aesthetics/costumes (see Halo Infinite).
I personally don't think it's worth it.
[/QUOTE]
What happens if they add all of those stuff in a full price triple A game?
I'm in the camp that it should be F2P but with only standard versus modes and rotating weekly characters. You get the full game and access to all characters for the $60 price tag.
Fighting games live and die by their playerbase and that's a surefire way to keep people who are casually interested on board, especially when you have Riot breaking into the space with a F2P game. Given their track record, it'll probably be successful.
This isn't to say SF6 will fail if it's not free, I just think that F2P is a viable approach.
Fighting games live and die by their playerbase and that's a surefire way to keep people who are casually interested on board, especially when you have Riot breaking into the space with a F2P game. Given their track record, it'll probably be successful.
This isn't to say SF6 will fail if it's not free, I just think that F2P is a viable approach.
The Killer Instinct model could work a think.
A free version of the game with multiplayer and training mode, with a rotating selection of characters.
Then a paid version with the story and arcade modes, and all the characters unlocked.
This was discussed on one of the episodes of the Triple K.O. podcast, but they brought up the good point that very few casual players want to pay $60-$70 to hop online and get their ass beat. Speaking as a casual player myself I agree with that.
A free version of the game with multiplayer and training mode, with a rotating selection of characters.
Then a paid version with the story and arcade modes, and all the characters unlocked.
This was discussed on one of the episodes of the Triple K.O. podcast, but they brought up the good point that very few casual players want to pay $60-$70 to hop online and get their ass beat. Speaking as a casual player myself I agree with that.
I'm already poor, if I could not spend 60 on a multiplayer only game that would be pretty amazing.
Nope, but i want Fight Money back so I can buy costumes and even characters, SFV Season 1 and 2 was purchased with FM, and i started paying with seasons once the grind became too much in season 3..
I'm of the mindset that the majority of multiplayer focused games should go F2P but Street Fighter is obviously big enough that it doesn't have to.
I really doubt it will happen personally.
I really doubt it will happen personally.
I'd prefer it to be free. The more people playing Street Fighter 6 the more enjoyment casuals and non-competitive people would have.
Also every future fighting game is going to be competing with whatever Project L turns into and Riot Games massive infrastructure.
Also every future fighting game is going to be competing with whatever Project L turns into and Riot Games massive infrastructure.
All characters free (now and future seasons). Skins, colors and stages no. Add fight money to earn stuff. Rotate stages or skins weekly for f2p players.
I don't think any fighting game will ever have a $60 version that has everything. Even the $150 ultimate versions will still have missing content that you can only get via DLC.
The model definitely makes sense for fighting games but with the number of copies this is sure to sell at launch anyway I'm not sure if it makes sense for Street Fighter.
VesperArcade made a rebuttal a few months ago when Max had brought up the conversation. I didn't fully agree with it, but one point he brought up I couldn't actually argue with; a big AAA fighting game FTP would probably be DOA if the developers don't actually learn how to streamline the online experience first. And when I say that, I mean how quickly you can actually boot up the game to start an online match. And that's not even taking stuff like Rollback and Crossplay into consideration, which still isn't universal and I feel like those would absolutely need to be guaranteed to be implemented for an FTP fighting game to actually have true longevity.
I can't afford free to play games. I need to know how much it costs to buy the full game and if that's more than £70, I really can't justify getting it.
There's no convincing reason a proper F2P model wouldn't work in a fighting game.
A proper F2P model being something like League of Legends with a free base roster, a free weekly rotating roster, earn currency or spend money to easily unlock other characters, paid cosmetics, paid battle pass. They can even do what League does and when they release a new fighter bundle the fighter + a skin together for a discount.
For whatever reason, fighting game players tend to:
* imagine the shittiest F2P systems possible and ignore all the actual good F2P games (maybe says something about what they actually think about the developers who make their games? idk.)
or
* think fighting games, for whatever reason, can't work as F2P. Like the genre is somehow so unique that its the sole genre you can't make a F2P game for (lol).
The current popular monetization model for fighting games is already a F2P model except shittier. You're paying full price for the game, then have to pay for a Season Pass or individual characters, then you still have to pay for stages or story modes. You're still paying out the ass for MTX/DLC, just you're also paying for the actual game too.
The answer to the question in the OP, is yes.
However, I predict the following events:
* the answer is actually no
* Multiversus and Project L (which are both proper F2P model fighting games) do extremely well
* Capcom pivots to F2P with the 1st "Super" equivalent package.
A proper F2P model being something like League of Legends with a free base roster, a free weekly rotating roster, earn currency or spend money to easily unlock other characters, paid cosmetics, paid battle pass. They can even do what League does and when they release a new fighter bundle the fighter + a skin together for a discount.
For whatever reason, fighting game players tend to:
* imagine the shittiest F2P systems possible and ignore all the actual good F2P games (maybe says something about what they actually think about the developers who make their games? idk.)
or
* think fighting games, for whatever reason, can't work as F2P. Like the genre is somehow so unique that its the sole genre you can't make a F2P game for (lol).
The current popular monetization model for fighting games is already a F2P model except shittier. You're paying full price for the game, then have to pay for a Season Pass or individual characters, then you still have to pay for stages or story modes. You're still paying out the ass for MTX/DLC, just you're also paying for the actual game too.
The answer to the question in the OP, is yes.
However, I predict the following events:
* the answer is actually no
* Multiversus and Project L (which are both proper F2P model fighting games) do extremely well
* Capcom pivots to F2P with the 1st "Super" equivalent package.
Fighting Ground: no.
World Tour: probably.
I could see Capcom spinning the modes off as standalone products after launch, to monetize them differently and sunset PS4 support.
World Tour: probably.
I could see Capcom spinning the modes off as standalone products after launch, to monetize them differently and sunset PS4 support.
OP
OP