No Hawking Hawken: It’s Free-To-Play

By Craig Pearson on February 6th, 2012 at 5:27 pm.

Shut up and take my Yen!
Time to spin the wheel of game payment: the game is Hawken. A beautiful multiplayer, mech basher. What will we do to get it on our PC? Do we pay all-out, or is it going to land on this part of the wheel marked “free-for-all”. Ready? Spin! Tick-a-tick-a-tick-a-tick-tock. Oh my! Put your money away, people. Hide your Dollars, burn your Euros (I know, it’s too easy), laminate your Lira, rip up your Real. Punt the Pound: Hawken is free.

Hawken will be published by developers Adhesive Games’s newly formed publishing arm, Meteor. For a tiny independent developer, the ambition is rather staggering. It’s not surprising they want to keep things in-house: Hawken seems to have captured a lot of public attention. Other indie-biggie, League of Legends’ 12 million player count has inspired the developers that freemium is the route to follow.

Excitingly, they’ve just announced beta sign-ups. Get enough people to sign-up via referral and you’ll have your space reserved. I humbly present a non-referral link here.

And here’s some footage from last year’s PAX. It’s out 12.12.12. See what they did?

Via Venturebeat.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

127 Comments »

  1. Hanban says:

    Its release is on my birthday! Yay!

  2. Jabberwocky says:

    I’m going to play the crap out of this game.
    If you log in, and someone kills you, that’s me.

  3. Brun says:

    One thing that really struck me about the previews for this game was the excellent sound design.

  4. Wizardry says:

    It looks like it plays like an FPS instead of a mech game. Kind of disappointing.

    • Shortwave says:

      A lot of people really find that appealing.
      Don’t worry, the new Mech Warrior is coming though. : P

    • Lev Astov says:

      The only thing that would justify a real mech over a tank is its agility and human-like movement. Don’t get me wrong, I love tank combat and will play the heck out of the new Mechwarrior game, but Hawken represents mech combat the way it would really happen, FPS-like. I find that appealing.

    • Stellar Duck says:

      Wizardry kind of have a point. I’d not previously bothered to look at any footage and now that I have I’m a bit disappointed. Didn’t really seem to capture the feeling of driving a mech around, whatever the that means.

      Still I suppose I’ll try it out when it comes. Not like I’ll lose anything on it.

    • dontnormally says:

      Pay attention to the way the mechs move, though – the strafing, acceleration, etc. You can’t start/stop on a dime and wheel about all willy-nilly, which to me seems to be a great addition and separating factor between this / Standard Manshoot IX.

    • Phantoon says:

      Really? I thought this looked very Mechwarrior.

    • LionsPhil says:

      I think they have weight classes. This video seems to show a lighter one that does little dash-strafes. Some of the others have been a bit bulkier.

      MW3 it is not (that game absolutely, categorically justified my Saitek Cyborg 3D force-feedback stick…WHUD, WHUD, WHUD), but it’s not quite Quake either.

    • Gnoupi says:

      Reading about MW3 didn’t make me think of Mechwarrior in the first place, hmm.
      And yet, it didn’t surprise me to read “that game absolutely, categorically justified my Saitek Cyborg 3D force-feedback stick…”

      Go figure.

    • Chainspork says:

      The only thing that would justify a real mech over a tank is its agility and human-like movement.

      There’s little that would realistically justify a human-piloted giant walking robot from a practical standpoint, unless wars of the future are decided on “coolness”. Otherwise, it will be all AI drones in the simplest, cheapest, most practical configurations. Bipedal locomotion is one of the most difficult engineering challenges there is. It’s a complicated system that can be destroyed just as easily by a buggy, jet, or mini-copter. Humans are stupid and slow, and supposedly valuable according to some estimations.

      The point is, it doesn’t “feel” like a giant mech if it plays exactly like a fast paced human-shooter. That feeling of weight and scale is part of the genre, at least for some. It’s not realistic…nothing about the concept is…but it feels right.

      The same way in the future we will almost certainly have deduced some sort of rust proof metal and non-peeling paint, yet every other sci-fi movie you see is all peeling paint and rust to give an industrial feel to the surroundings, and remind us we are encased in cold metal. It “feels” right, based on our expectations.

      I too am a fan of the more deliberate movement heavy mech game, but also feel that speed and agility should be the obvious benefit for choosing to pilot a small little chicken-legged mech, as opposed to a giant hulking mech that levels schools and libraries with a single shot. If this is the case as Lion’sPhil suggests, Im happy.

    • Lev Astov says:

      There’s little that would realistically justify a human-piloted giant walking robot from a practical standpoint…

      That’s why I said “The only thing…” There are actually cases where the mobility afforded would be desirable, too. In close, urban quarters, an armed force might want something that can outmaneuver a tank or wheeled vehicle and still be able to carry heavy weapons and armor. Since it is currently very difficult to get bipedal motion controlled by AI, it is feasible that a human operator would be used to balance and directly control the joints, since I hear the human brain is supposed to be good at that kind of thing.

      Sorry, I love mech discussions.

    • Chainspork says:

      I love mech discussions too, and am happy to keep beating the horse.

      In close urban combat, like door to door fighting that absolutely requires human judgement until such time as AI can reliably make those judgements, I can see humans in man-sized armored suits that might blur the lines between armor and robot but I cant see any situation where “giant walking mech” is the best answer to that situation.

      Most other street combat seems much more likely to be handled by simple (comparatively) cheap flying drones similar to something like these flying construction drones . Half Life 2, anyone? In the case where you might actually benefit from a robot that can scale terrain, a spidery quadruped design is far more stable and suited to that than a humanoid one.

      Giant human piloted walking robots are something we want to believe in…or at least I do. But they are far more of a whimsical concept than a practical one. Even if we were to find some reason to build a giant bipedal robot, by the time we developed the technology to actually make it work from a mechanical perspective, and expend the cost and all that metal to manufacture such a slow, vulnerable target, the need or desire for human being in control of something that costs that much is questionable. AI by that time will be able to make much better, faster decisions.

      [edit] Speaking of terrain-scaling quads, this thing is really kind of disturbing to watch. The way it can recover balance is a little too lifelike.

    • Chris D says:

      This is a future version of me just popping in to say that while AI drones were indeed used successfully for several years they fell from popularity after a Masticator class Hunter-killer drone misidentified a primary school as an insurgent training camp due to a scaling error. While this was not the first incident of it’s kind it was being publically broadcast as part of a publicity campaign due to the British army being sold off and floated on the stock market. The broadcast was censored almost immediately but to no avail. The incident trended on twitter for the best part of two weeks. The public outcry was such that a UN resolution was rushed through outlawing the use of AI controlled weapons systems. SInce then military vehicles have been predominantly human piloted. (Remote control was used briefly but proved to be too vulnerable to jamming and hacking) Though some rogue states still use AI drones most nations abide by the resolution. In public, at least.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Wizardry does have a point. Last time I was in my Mech it was all slow and stuff.

    • Chainspork says:

      For that matter, I’m pretty sure most large heavy armor offensive vehicles, bipedal or otherwise, are going the way of the battleship. Jet drones aside, what’s a tank going to do when its opponent is a swarm of small, cheap, disposable spider like munitions, only one of which needs to crawl down its gun barrel or lodge itself in its locomotion apparatus.

      Next thing you know, we’re all being grown in vats and harnessed for a grossly inefficient and unsustainable biochemical energy source.

    • Consumatopia says:

      Yeah, the only way I see mechs working is if we think of them as (very) close air-support. They don’t replace tanks, they replace attack helicopters.

    • Chaz says:

      Pffft, robots and tanks. I’ll just use my orbital rail gun.

  5. Tei says:

    All game companies must just copy riot here. Sell cosmetic enhancements, skins, and new heroes that hare balanced with older ones. This would be trivial to apply to this mech game. Sadly very few companies do free well. Most korean style free to play games are disgusting to play and look at because the fremiumness is that pervasive. So a game going free is not always good news, depend how is implemented.

  6. Smarag says:

    Free to play makes me sad. Probably either pay to win or stupid unlock crap just like LoL/ Tribes:Ascend. I wanted this to be a competitive game where everybody plays on equal grounds. There is still hope that they will go the TF2 route, but they didn’t want to include much customizing to begin with so I don’t think that will happen. :(

    • Shortwave says:

      This game looks and sounds so amazing, I can’t wait!

    • trjp says:

      If you think F2P = pay to win, you’re a berk…

      Most games – a handful of evil ones aside (see Zynga) – offer shortcuts with their F2P games but very, very few actually allow people who pay money an actual advantage OTHER than having to spend less time advancing…

      By charing a fee upfront they’re just as guilty of ‘pay to win’ surely – I mean if I don’t want to pay for the game I can’t win, right? :)

    • misterT0AST says:

      what exactly bothers you about the League of Legends free to play model?

    • Brun says:

      what exactly bothers you about the League of Legends free to play model?

      Well, there’s the fact that the new heroes are typically a little bit overpowered or unbalanced to boost sales.

    • Smarag says:

      >what exactly bothers you about the League of Legends free to play model?

      It’s supposed to be a game about skill. It’s not about skill if I don’t have the same tools (heroes) as everybody else available for me. Same for Tribes:Ascend.

      >Most games – a handful of evil ones aside (see Zynga) – offer shortcuts with their F2P games but >very, very few actually allow people who pay money an actual advantage OTHER than having to >spend less time advancing…

      Yeah except that at the same time they increase the time you need to spend advancing/ the “upper limit” thus making it unjustified expensive to just “buy everything” and impossible to ever reach maximum without paying money. I wouldn’t complain if I could just avoid the f2p bullshit and pay my $30 to get everything. I can’t think of one good fp game besides TF2 and the TF2 model only works, because it has this crazy economy thing going on where people will pay outrageous amounts of money for whatever reasons, because they so much fucking love the game (nothing wrong with that). Most games won’t ever be able to live up to that / profit in the same way from a similar business model.

    • Vagrant says:

      I’m not going to totally hate on the F2P model, but I will always approach with caution. It’s not even fear for a pay-to-win model that bugs me.

      Best example: F2P ruined World of Tanks for me, because it would require a monthly fee just to play with friends. I would happily pay $50 for a WoT that had mulit where I could play with friends and be able to unlock upgrades at a reasonable pace.

    • Koozer says:

      Vagrant: they reversed the decision to make platoons (parties if you will) a premium-only feature quite a while ago.

      EDIT: Just noticed the post mentioning TF2 as a good example. Like bjohndooh below, the random drop system facilitating the F2P model was what drove me away from the game too, after years of play.

    • bjohndooh says:

      I just find it amusing you think Team Fortress 2 is better.
      That’s exactly why I got turned off of it, because it was becoming non-competitive, and unfair when they started locking items with achievements.

    • ch4os1337 says:

      Tribes Ascend is the only F2P model that’s done correctly, if Hawken strays from that model by a pixel I will be disappointed.

    • Consumatopia says:

      offer shortcuts with their F2P games but very, very few actually allow people who pay money an actual advantage OTHER than having to spend less time advancing…

      Often, that’s WORSE than pay-to-win. It means the developer has an incentive to make parts of the game sufficiently boring that players would pay to avoid them.

      I’m not saying that will be a problem with Hawken, but I really hate when people defend F2P with “it’s not Pay-to-Win!” Pay-to-Win is not the problem. Free-to-Grind is the problem.

      I wonder what the people with the job of making parts of the game sufficiently boring think of themselves.

    • Zeewolf says:

      Good point.

      I’m disappointed about this news. I only play MP games where I have access to exactly the same stuff, skills, maps, weapons, etc. as everyone else. I am no longer interested in unlocks of any kind, regardless of payment model. I just want to go out there and compete, and nothing more.

    • cliffski says:

      “very, very few actually allow people who pay money an actual advantage OTHER than having to spend less time advancing…”

      I don’t want to waste my time on a game that has been deliberately made boring, slow and grindy, unless I pay extra money.
      Thats not a good premise on which to design something fun.

    • Urthman says:

      How much money would you like them to sell the game for? Are you willing to pay $30 or $40 for this game? Because I’m sure that much money will buy pretty much all the unlocks you’d need.

    • Smarag says:

      I would pay 30€, 40 probably as well. I would definitely think twice though and trice if it would take 50.

    • fpsgamer says:

      I agree Smarag. Tribes Ascend’s cost to unlock everything with money is well over $230 USD, I did the calculation several times slowly. Unlocking JUST all the perks for the 9 classes is about $230. Of course everything can be unlocked by not paying at all, but it’ll be many months to possibly a year of grinding in T:A. TF2 actually does the FTP very well. The only items you would pay are cosmetic. Don’t let “free to play” fool us gamers. The total cost to unlock the entire game by money is well 2x-3x that of a standard day one $60 game with loads of content. I lost interest in Hawken. Oh well.

  7. Dezztroy says:

    Did anyone else just use three bogus emails for their referrals?

  8. rocketman71 says:

    Oh, god. Let ‘s pray this won’t be another shitty P2W without public server files.

  9. RagingLion says:

    Clearly they weren’t listening to all those people shouting SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY at them. To be fair they might well get that money another way anyway.

    As for me, I might actually play a bit if it’s free but otherwise would have thought that’s a good game over there but I know I would never invest a ton of time into it.

    • Lev Astov says:

      Yeah, what, exactly does “reserve a callsign” mean? Does it mean we actually get in the closed beta, or just reserve our names? They really aren’t descriptive about this.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      I’m assuming this is just reserving your nickname on the multiplayer matchmaking platform, though I honestly am doing it in large part to show support. If they can use these subs/registrations to show venture capital firms or publishers that their game is popular, all the better.

      I want this game to succeed.

  10. Dana says:

    They had to go f2p, looking how Mechwarrior Online will be f2p as well. And they both target similar audience.

  11. Daniel Klein says:

    (I should probably point out I work for Riot, so yeah, I’m biased)

    This is smart and ultimately a great thing for the community.

    The economic pressure in a pay everything upfront game is to make a great launch because people will stop buying your game x days after launch. So you make and abandon, unless you’re driven by unusual (and financially reckless) altruism.

    The economic pressure in a subscription based game is to make your game good enough (and make new content last long enough) that people want to sign up and play. All improvements past that point that just make existing players happier, unless they can be shown to directly impact retention, are moot. Maybe World of Warcraft would be more fun with a less steep leveling curve. However it would mess with pacing and people would feel they had “finished” the game more quickly. So you make your game good enough.

    In free to play, you’re only ever paid through the good will of your playerbase. Yes, you can make a crippled game that can only be fully enjoyed through payments, but that is such a fundamentally broken model that the game won’t be fun and will die and go away. It is in the best interest of a company running a free to play game to make absolutely the best game possible, to continually improve the game, to constantly take player feedback into consideration, and so on. They’re directly rewarded for this by players spending their money. You never ask in the design of a free to play game “yes but how do we make them pay?” If that is your question, you’re asking the wrong question. The question needs to be, “what’s non-essential but fun, frivolous but enjoyable, that we can open up to our players as a way for them to give back to us?”

    So having followed this game from the first incredibly stunning trailer, I could not be happier to hear these news.

    I’m still hoping they’ll allow hats on mechs, though.

    • bateleur says:

      Good analysis. Hopefully this means a huge community of players very early in the game’s life.

    • Phantoon says:

      What you guys should do, is have hats that drop via playing, but only work on certain skins, thus providing even more incentive to GIVE ME HATS!

      MORE HATS!

    • LionsPhil says:

      My problem with this for Hawken is that I cannot see what trinkets players would buy. It has such a surprisingly good graphical style (I know! Brown and grey! But you can read the terrain and spot other players!) that TF2-esque customization would kind of ruin it. I’m not really convinced it looks like it’d benefit from weapon/class unlocks, either; while that might be sssssort of comparable to a demo that’s compatable with the full game, it’d be taken as crippling free players. So that leaves…what? Good feelings?

    • Squishpoke says:

      Problem is, you are going to listen to those who pay the most.

      Those who pay for anything would like to pay for advantages.

      I’d much rather an even playing field where everyone pays ten-twenty bucks and has everything from the get-go. With a “let the community decide what they pay” approach can lead to a power creep that only benefits those who pay more and more.

      Eventually, the cost of “having everything” in a game (like in LoL) would far exceed a normal game with a flat price.

      An example of what I enjoy would be Unreal Tournament 3. A flat fee of $20. Everyone gets all the same weapons, there is no level-up/experience crap, the only thing that separates players on the battlefield is their experience/skill. (Actual skill, not abstracted unlocks).

    • RegisteredUser says:

      Now please go and explain this to THE REST OF THE F2P WORLD. :P
      Sounds nice, the way you put it.

  12. LukaD says:

    I sure hope it won’t be some pay to win crap because I’m really looking forward to this game.

    btw: http://playhawken.com/?ref=ol3j63fe

  13. ThaneSolus says:

    While free to play usually means crapy products and horrible ingame shops, some are made well. League of Legends, LOTR Online somewhat, so now it depends on what options they will have.

    The best free to play options is the oldest one, when these CEOs and Marketing idiots didn’t even dreamed about it. It was 10 years ago and it was like this:

    2 plans:

    1) Game is free to play, but you get 50% procent less xp, and have no access to the latest tier weapons or w/e
    2) If you want to have access to full content, like 100% procent xp and etc, you pay 9.95/14.95 per month.

    It was a great system, since you could play 90% of the game on a competitive level. Of course there are some similar games today, but on free option its almost unplayable.

  14. ThaneSolus says:

    I love the atmosphere, graphics (art direction), sound and effects, but if they dont have some equipment customization like old Mechwarrior it will be pointles

  15. Unaco says:

    I prefer my Mechs to be STOMPY, rather than these ballerinas… but I signed up, I’ll give this a shot. Mech based games are, sadly, a dying breed these days.

    • Hindenburg says:

      Indeed. Even Fromsoft is kinda quiet on that front ever since AC4a was released and Demon’s Souls became the company’s hit. What a shame.
      —-
      Aaaand just after i said that, i checked the wiki, and AC5 came out in japan 26/01/12. hoho. Releases on western shores at the end of march.

      Sadly, no famitsu review yet.

    • PodX140 says:

      I’m sorry, but AC# is in no way a mech game. Mecha, sure. But not mech. No localized damage, no overheating, no 3 second jump jets, no customization of parts/clan tech.

      AKA: Not a mech game.

    • Phantoon says:

      I was a fan of Armored Core until I played one of the games that felt a lot more like anime mecha than slow stompy bots. My friggin sword attack carried me halfway across the map- NOT something I want in Armored Core.

    • Hanban says:

      Think I bought AC4 for the PS3, or perhaps AC3. Thought it was dreadful. The missions felt meaningless and the action was so speedy I didn’t at all feel like I was in a big robot. From time to time I can enjoy mecha anime, but with games I like to feel like I’m actually piloting a huge lumbering machine that rains death down in its path, not a giant bee.

      I think Hawken looks terrific and it seems like it might hit a sweet spot between agile mechs and lumbering ones. Hopefully there are even bigger weight classes than the ones they’ve showcased so far!

    • Chainspork says:

      Mech based games are, sadly, a dying breed these days.

      Mechwarrior Online due this year. Hard to be more Mech than Mechwarrior.

    • Vagrant says:

      Man I love the Armored Core series, although 4A will be hard to top! 5 is looking pretty rad, though, with it’s multiplayer that sounds like Chromehounds. On that note, crazy people who think mechs are real and shouldn’t defy physics should have play that game instead. It’s communication system and multiplayer were far more interesting than any Mechwarrior game. Single player was lacking, though.

      Also, at different points in the series, AC has featured: localized damage, overheating, 3 second jump jets & customization of parts. No clan tech, but that is BATTLETECH.

    • Phantoon says:

      Armored Core 3 was for the PS2, it was like its predecessors.

      And “far more interesting than Mechwarrior” is practically begging for flames. I myself want to cast you into the deepest depths of hell for even considering thinking that, ever, much less saying it.

      And yes. Mechwarrior is basically Battletech as a computer game.

      Armored Core, however, has never featured inner-part customization, unless they did that after the game became anime mecha. I want to be able to replace all my heat sinks with machine guns.

    • Hindenburg says:

      Ahhh, first world problems…

      I like ‘em all, tbqh. If it’s fun, i’ll play it. Don’t really see why something must be a “true” mech game to be fun.

      Just wanna see giant bots smashing the cogs out of each other ^___^

  16. WMain00 says:

    Look, a code!

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=d3hjlkjm

    Game looks too awesome to miss.

  17. Post-Internet Syndrome says:

    Sweet.

  18. Kollega says:

    I remember reading in another Hawken comment thread that it would make a lot of sense for them to make it free-to-play (since no barrier to entry means a bigger community). Let’s just hope the developers don’t switch from “i-want-to-eat” mode to “i-want-a-golden-jacuzzi-tub” mode.

  19. Valvarexart says:

    Just fyi you can use your own link and a non-existing email address…

  20. Dakia says:

    Here is mine if three people are willing: https://playhawken.com/?ref=wf9jolnb

  21. Muzman says:

    Dammit, look at this thing. The 12th? Man, kick it out the door and get to work on a full game in the same world!

  22. Lev Astov says:

    So, does Hawken officially announcing it’s free-to-play mean it’s guaranteed to come out on the PC? I believe RPS expressed some concern that it wouldn’t and that distressed me. I’d count this as good news if a PC release is thereby guaranteed.

  23. hosndosn says:

    Now F2P is eating up every indie developer as well. :(

    Say hello to slightly better $5 miniguns that are promised not to affect game balance but still kinda sorta do.

    • MadMatty says:

      Try APB Reloadeds model… 60 £ for a gun so vastly overpowered youll never have to worry about non paying Vermin ever again……….

  24. Khemm says:

    How much money do I have to donate for the developers to create a single-player campaign in the vein of Mechwarrior? I’d even pay full price for a finished product.

    The world looks so great it’d be a shame if were stuck with a multiplayer-only game.

  25. Ataru Moroboshi says:

    Look, it’s another beta sign-up link!

    http://playhawken.com/?ref=v3x9oax9

    If this is something that a few people with UDK can do within a couple of years, this deserves to have a lot of players!

  26. Dominic White says:

    To those complaining about this going F2P, the alternative is a standard retail release, and have you noticed what happens to those?

    95% of indie multiplayer games sell under 10k copies, and struggle to maintain 100 players on worldwide at any given time. A lucky few survive, but usually not more than a few months.

    Meanwhile, World of Tanks has ~30,000 players online at any given time in Europe alone, and that’s a fairly hardcore tank combat game, not a fast and accessible shooter.

    The developers had a fairly simple choice here – near-certain bankruptcy or probable, continuous success. It’s not exactly rocket science to figure out which they chose and why.

    • MadMatty says:

      Its an extremely lightweight tank simulation, its like for the Casual “sim” crowd.

      I mean, the tanks even have hitpoints.

  27. kwyjibo says:

    This is awesome news. It means the servers won’t be fucking empty like every other minor multiplayer shooter. Empty servers essentially tell customers that they’re idiots.

  28. Dick Page says:

    No game has scratched the big stompy robot itch since MW2: Mercenaries for me.

    Perhaps now I can at last use my preferred (but popular) handle!

    A referral link, ahoy.
    https://playhawken.com/?ref=6v61gwid

  29. Navagon says:

    Well, on the bright side this does guarantee a lot of players. But if you can buy an advantage over your enemies then that’s going to get old fast – if you have that advantage or not.

    • Dick Page says:

      I think a game like this could work in freemium, especially if all the purchases are cosmetic. As I develop a personal play style and a favorite mech I could see that turning in to a desire to paint flashy colors and stick skulls and horns all over my mech.

  30. JackDandy says:

    Sounds good. Can’t see what they have in store for us. Looks like it’ll really go toe-to-toe with Mechwarrior Online. I wonder who’ll come out on top of the Online Robot game contest!

  31. Tori says:

    I registered using DanDeaths link, I would be thankful I some RPS folk would use mine too. :)

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=5pxepqfo

  32. Feet says:

    Eh, why not. Here is a link, feel free to click it so I can reserve the highly sought after “Feet” handle. Thanks!

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=fu5x9r4b

  33. welshy says:

    looks great. here’s my code

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=f15ehyj7

    EDIT: 2 spots still to go

  34. Chainspork says:

    Here’s my exclusive link:

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=issv0sav

    One requirement slot filled, two to go. Quick before they’re gone!

  35. derbefrier says:

    i hope this game is as awesome as it looks

    and heres my referal

    https://playhawken.com/?ref=63ayymvb

    edit: got all 3 thanks guys!
    edit 2: “You never know what kind of rewards await our best recruiters!” got this message after i reserved my name so i am gonna leave the link up in hopes of something cool happening

  36. crinkles esq. says:

    I must admit, reading the title I thought this was going to be some sort of shooting game featuring Dr. Stephen Hawking, perhaps in a giant hawk-shaped glider he had built to fight off an alien invasion. As such, I cannot help but be a disappointed in the reality of the situation.

  37. MadMatty says:

    APB REloaded and Warrock – two games that are pay-to-win, both from Gamersfirst (paying gamers to be precise)

  38. DOLBYdigital says:

    I’m excited… personally like fast paced mech games and haven’t had much issue with most free-to-play games that don’t sell things that can’t be unlocked normally. So this sounds fantastic and can’t wait to get in on the beta, hopefully this is another skill heavy shooter. 2012 could take us back to skill based shooters which I would be very happy about!

  39. Captain Hijinx says:

    F2P?

    Meh.

  40. Prime says:

    The nice thing about the Mechwarrior games used to be that they offered something qualitatively different from the run-and-gun formula of Doom et al. They were part simulation as much as action. It was when you finally got the feel of the controls, when you started to harmonise with your machine (its weight made all the difference to this as well) that you, as a player, felt like the king of armoured killing machines.

    Now here we are embracing the same old WASD run-and-gun arena frag-fest but dressed up in Mech-ish clothing this time. Apart from the visuals I saw little to get excited about, offering absolutely nothing more than UT or Quake 3′s most basic gameplay. It’s a Manshoot. That’s all it is. That’s all it does. We’ve seen and played it a million times already. I just don’t get the excitement for this latest variant of it.

  41. roryok says:

    Reactor … Online.
    Sensors … Online.
    Weapons … Online.
    All Systems Nominal

    DIE INNER SPHERE SCUM

  42. magnus says:

    Multipayer only? Then I’m baulkin’ at Hawken.

  43. Armitage says:

    I feel I must shamelessly post my referal link so I can access the beta.

    http://playhawken.com/?ref=9fjpsvjp

    Please help me RPS readers, you are my only hope!

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>