Oh, And Homeworld: Shipbreakers Is No Longer F2P

By Jim Rossignol on September 8th, 2013 at 8:25 pm.


Something that was F2P becoming a straightforward commercial release certainly isn’t something you hear too often these days, but that’s what’s happening to Blackbird’s game now that Gearbox – who loaned Blackbird the Homeworld IP – got involved. A tweet from Mr Pitchford revealed: “With our investment, Homeworld Shipbreakers can be a proper commercial release. No need for F2P.”

So that’s interesting. I was kind of interested to see how they’d handle the free part, personally. But this is probably for the best.

__________________

« | »

, , .

116 Comments »

  1. Optimaximal says:

    At least this means the game can theoretically be as good as it can be, not as good as the need to skim money from punters allows it to be.

    • noizy says:

      Yea. Getting real tired of F2P and how it turns most games into a progression based, never-ending grind.

      • fish99 says:

        Neither is WoW for that matter.

        • Dominic White says:

          And further on that point, I’ve generally found the games that charge you box price + subscription + regular expansions tend to have much longer grinds and treadmills than most F2P games.

        • noizy says:

          My claims is that: If a game is F2P, then it will likely turn into an endless grind-fest. Or said differently, most F2P are grind-fests.

          If you find examples of grindfest that are not F2P, that isn’t a counterexample to my claim. You can have a grindy game that isn’t F2P, but you’ll rarely find a F2P game that isn’t a grind-fest.

      • Koozer says:

        Or Battlefield 3, or the modern Cods, or Torchlight etc. etc.

      • nitehawk says:

        noizy said that F2P turns games into a grindfest with “gold buying” to skip it. S/He did not say that this was the only way to get a gold buying grindfest.

        • Koozer says:

          The point is that these days it isn’t an evil exclusive to F2P games.

        • Corb says:

          “These days”…are you guys serious? Grinding is not new, long-annoying-tedious-grinds for stuff/levels are not new. everquest, ffXI, pretty much any rpg from japan, conquer online, runescape, any shooter with chievos ever. Grinding is a game mechanic poorly utilized that has been around since the dawn of time. Grante f2p brings out the most evil in monetizing this but if you don’t like grinds, don’t play the genres that use them as core mechanics.

    • Deadly Habit says:

      They never said they wouldn’t tack DLC and microtransactions onto it still, call me cynical but that seems to be the new trend. Fully priced games with all the trappings of f2p.

    • denthor says:

      maybe im just a cynic, but have they said they’re dropping all f2p transactions?? I just can’t help but think they’ll keep the transactions yet also charge just to play the game.

      EDIT: o dear, it seems the person above had the exact same idea

      • Optimaximal says:

        I agree, they probably won’t drop them, but any game that is intrinsically F2P from the get-go wears its monetisation aspect on its sleeves.

        If this game is being retooled as a commercial release, it’s more than likely the micro-transaction stuff will be cosmetic fluff or expansion DLC, not core features or pay-to-win unfairness.

    • Cinek says:

      Aye.
      Definitely a good move.

      • Corb says:

        I agree. The only reason they did f2p before was because of the lack of resources. Now they have what they need to build the game they really wanted to make. I’m still optimistic about what they can achieve especially with this announcement.

  2. dE says:

    Somehow, my interest for this game is akin to a Tennis Match.

    PLOCK. Shiny.
    PLOCK. Nah, don’t care
    PLOCK. Oh that sounds cool.
    PLOCK. Go away, zero interest.
    PLOCK. Actually, show me that thing again.
    PLOCK. You made it a what? Buzz off.
    PLOCK. No longer? Ohh, okay, cool.

    • Bhaz0r says:

      I’m the same with Gearbox as a whole actually.
      Brothers in Arms: YAY!
      Duke Nukem: Fuck
      Borderlands: yay
      Brothers in Arms Furious 4: FUCK!
      Borderlands 2: YAY!
      Aliens Colonial Marines: fuck
      Homeworld Shipbreakers: FU-ay?

      • bvdemier says:

        My opinion on anything to do with Gearbox has become my inner Gollum:

        Brothers in arms was pretty sweet.

        But they screwed up Duke Nukem, we hates them.

        But Borderlands was awesome especially attack on Dragon’s keep, we loves them.

        They did horrible things to Aliens CM and Pitchford communitacted poorly about it. shshshsh.

        They can’t have HomeWorld, my precious.

        • Shuck says:

          To be fair, Gearbox had almost nothing to do with Duke Nukem, except that they made it possible for it to be published. (And let’s face it, if they hadn’t, people would be angry about that.) So they certainly didn’t screw that up – that was entirely due to 3D Realms and Broussard. And Gearbox aren’t entirely responsible for Colonial Marines, just mostly responsible.

          • newguy2012 says:

            Gearbox slapped their name on the box and took the money, they are responsible for releasing duke and aliens. Its an odd company, some of their stuff like Borderlands is good and the other is just pure garbage. Aliens trailer vs the actual game, basically a scam.

            Anyways this game goeing away from f2p is good, please give us a proper singleplayer campaign with black and white cutscenes and the epic music.

          • welverin says:

            newguy2012, you seem to have completely missed the point.

            While I agree that Gearbox is ultimately responsible for Aliens and maybe even DNF, the fact they did not develop those games internally is relevant. If Gearbox develops a game themselves it a pretty safe bet it’ll be good, if they farm it out or buy it from someone else and shove ti out the door, you should probably stay far away from it.

          • Baines says:

            Welverin, Gearbox decided Duke Nukem Forever was good enough to put their name on it, to promote it, to sell it, and to take money for it.

            Pitchford had nothing but praise for DNF before release, and even defended it briefly after release. He compared it favorably to Half Life and tried to negate the impact of negative reviews by going after the reviewers as well as playing up the idea that DNF wasn’t going to be fairly reviewed.

            Pitchford has the morals of a no-morals used car salesman. He played up DNF as great long enough to get the money from pre-orders and the first week or two of sales, and then he distanced himself from the game. It is very similar to what he did with Aliens: Colonial Marines, except the latter had Gearbox shifting the blame onto Timegate while the former had Gearbox shifting the blame onto 3DRealms. (And saying that they had to release DNF in order to be able to make their own good new Duke Nukem game.)

          • HadToLogin says:

            Not sure if I would take away DNF blame from them, as I remember reading they actually put a lot from them into game – like 2 weapons limit.

          • Baines says:

            To be fair, Broussard defended the two-weapon limit, describing it as good gameplay, citing the importance of consoles and that (at least to him) two weapons had been the standard since 2001.

            The whole quote:
            Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons. Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it’s really not an issue.

            The levels have weapons spread all over them. It’s actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time. Choices and consequence are good things in a game. I don’t personally think it’s good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles. It’s not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let’s you carry 10 guns, and another, 2. The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches.

            In the grand scheme of playing the full game it’s really not a big deal.

            Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas.

          • TheGameSquid says:

            Completely agree that Gearbox is responsible for this. I don’t care how they came up with the final bytes that amount to the game. Maybe they did all the work internally? Maybe they outsourced it? Or the coffee-machine programmed it? I don’t care.

            Consider this: if CM had turned out to be good, who do you think would have been taking credit for it?

          • darkChozo says:

            As far as I see it, here’s how it works:

            Is Gearbox responsible for how bad DNF/A:CM were? Of course. They put their name on it, they presumably had some editorial oversight, and they defended both at one point or another. If that bothers you, you’re well within your rights to avoid Gearbox and anything they touch, either for ethical reasons or just because you don’t trust them.

            Do DNF/A:CM reflect on Gearbox’s skills as a developer? Hard to say for sure, but probably not. Evidence is that both games were largely driven by other companies, and Gearbox’s pet series are at the very least competently made. (Disclaimer: this is addressed towards “this is the same company that made DNF/A:CM”-type comments intimating that Gearbox is incompetent, and does not excuse the second paragraph. So there.)

        • Dances to Podcasts says:

          As always, there’s the Simpsons as well:

          Shopkeeper: [Homer has agreed to purchase a Krusty doll for Bart's birthday] Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse!
          Homer: Ooh, that’s bad.
          Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!
          Homer: That’s good.
          Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
          Homer: That’s bad.
          Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings.
          Homer: That’s good!
          Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
          [Homer looks puzzled]
          Shopkeeper: …That’s bad.
          Homer: Can I go now?

          • Amun says:

            How is this comment related to video games?

          • zachforrest says:

            It’s a sad day when a man can’t supply a fairly apposite Simpsons quote without someone being snarky.

          • Baines says:

            Classic Simpsons is always relevant.

          • Universal Quitter says:

            Can we just stop with being sarcastic, nasty fuckwits? Or pretending to be for fun and profit, or whatever the hell explanation there is for it?

            So many random acts of dickery. It’s absolutely exhausting sometimes.

          • Synesthesia says:

            *running hug for universal quitter*

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            No! Wait! You’re too low! Pull up! PULL UP!

            Oooooh… Attempted hug straight into accidental elbow-to-the-face. That looks nasty. You’d better put something cold on that before it swells up.

      • Bull0 says:

        Those are mostly “fucks” for me.

      • Werthead says:

        Before that they also did the very good PC port of HALO and of course the mighty OPPOSING FORCE, though both of those were a long time ago.

        I think they are, broadly speaking, a decent company whose PR skills and oversight for external projects leaves a little to be desired (cough understatement). However, in the game of Timegate and 3D Realms, they weren’t exactly working with high-calibre teams either (yes, DN3D was great but that really was a long time ago). Blackbird is a bit of an unknown quantity at this time. Yes, they have a lot of ex-Relicers working for them that is very encouraging, but how they work as a team and bringing a project to completion remains to be seen. I’m pretty hopeful based on their prior work, though.

  3. Sp4rkR4t says:

    Thank Fuck.

  4. Dr_Barnowl says:

    Someone beat me to the punch, but I agree – I’m actually feeling much better about this game now. I’d much rather have an RTS with a meaningful single-player campaign than an F2P.

    • jonahcutter says:

      Have they said anything about a singeplayer mode? I thought it was multi only.

      • Werthead says:

        It’s a prequel to HOMEWORLD. It’s hard to be a prequel without some kind of narrative, and it’s hard (though not impossible) to do a meaningful narrative in a multiplayer-only game. Logically, it has to have some kind of SP campaign mode.

        It’d be nice to get 100% confirmation of that though.

  5. smg77 says:

    This is fantastic news. Death to F2P.

    • Wade42Wilson says:

      Valve is pretty much the only company that can pull off F2P. And that’s only because they own the distribution platform.

      • MadTinkerer says:

        IMO, it’s not so much a Valve thing as an E Sports thing. F2P works for Esports just fine. Trying to force a monetization model on a game style not designed with that model in mind is the general problem I have with F2P.

        It all goes back to the Arcades vs. Consoles & PCs. At the time, the expense of disks and cartriges combined with the lack of networking prevented the home market from having more than one model for the most part. Nintendo had limited success with downloadable games as far back as the 80s (thanks to peripherals which weren’t released outside of Japan), and free online games flourished on BBSs and private internet servers via telnet.

        The arcade model of acquiring payment from players shaped the kinds of games made for arcades. Arcades spawned things like Gauntlet and Golden Axe, as opposed to Ultima and Wizardry. While the NES thrived on Arcade ports initially (in no small part because Nintendo had excellent 1st party arcade games to port), the games designed exclusively for the system that could ignore Arcade tropes are what made it legendary.

        F2P’s biggest issue is that few to no publishers seem to understand how drastically the F2P model affects game design, and how negatively it can affect game design. How choosing that model above pay-to-own as a starting point excludes entire genres from even being considered (like story-heavy RPGs or classic casual games like Tetris) and shackles the game to a server which will eventually be turned off. But on the other hand, who gives a shit if the customer can’t play a game a year after release? They should be buying this year’s model anyway, like the good Madden and CoD zombies do.

  6. GernauMorat says:

    Interest rekindled. Hoping for a thoughtful single player campaign

  7. tomeoftom says:

    YES! Today, wholesome game design prevails.

    • Baines says:

      Maybe it is because Gearbox is involved, but I question whether this is “wholesome game design prevails” or “Tacking the Homeworld license onto a random games == More Moneyz!”

      • bills6693 says:

        Normally, I’d agree, but in this case – you have a team made up of ex-homeworld devs, the art style and even the look of the things in game (just look at those fighters) looks distinctly homeworld. It was clearly meant to ‘be’ in the homeworld universe in all but name. So really in this instance they are putting the title where it should be.

      • epmode says:

        This was a Homeworld prequel in all but name before Gearbox got involved. The Hardware devs were among the bidders for the Homeworld license, even.

      • Werthead says:

        It’s a game made by the HOMEWORLD team who always planned for it to be in the HOMEWORLD universe (or at least always compatible with being so) but had a backup plan to make it into its own thing if they couldn’t get the licence. The HARDWARE thing only came about because THQ refused to discuss a licensing deal back in 2010.

        http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-09-02-gearbox-had-no-clear-path-for-homeworld-ip-invests-in-blackbirds-shipbreakers

        So this is really the game returning to its original plan and design, not a totally unrelated game being shoehorned into the HOMEWORLD universe where it doesn’t fit.

  8. kwyjibo says:

    This means that the game has been fundamentally redesigned as a result of publisher funding.

    There’s an attitude like F2P can only be a desperation move that is tacked on, I don’t think that’s the case at all.

    • bills6693 says:

      Maybe it isn’t always, but it has a reputation for a reason. Several MMOs were subscription and then turned into F2P in a desperation move.

      And the biggest reason to go F2P is to get a big base audience to play your game, some of which will give you money. Which is often done because you don’t think you will get money upfront due to insufficient reach/advertising/etc.

      How many times have you read ‘its not a great game, but you may as well try it because its free’? This is exactly what the F2P games need. If they were paid, reviews would instead say ‘its not a great game, spend your money elsewhere’.

      • kwyjibo says:

        A game designed ground-up for free to play, as this game was, must undergo a significant redesign for pay-to-play.

        If it is the reverse of the MMO-fail scenario, all it means is that they’ve tagged a price tag onto a free to play game. Fantastic.

        • bills6693 says:

          I’m hoping they are going to spend a significant amount of time on the game to convert it. Honestly, I’d much prefer to wait an extra 6-12 months to get a good quality, pay-once game than a F2P game.

          My hope is that the devs originally didn’t want to do F2P but did because they didn’t think they could make money through a standard business model, and now can revet to original plans or something like that.

          If it is indeed just putting a price tag on a F2P, then I’ll be disappointed but I won’t be pre-ordering and will wait until reviews are out.

        • Werthead says:

          I don’t think that’s the case. Blackbird went to THQ to discuss a licensing (and presumably publishing) deal for the HOMEWORLD brand and didn’t get very far. The F2P thing came up after that due to money. Now that Gearbox are on board, the F2P approach is no longer necessary, which leads me to suspect that as a F2P game, SHIPBREAKERS might not have worked very well since it wasn’t 100% designed with that in mind.

      • YogSo says:

        How many times have you read ‘its not a great game, but you may as well try it because its free’?

        Fewer times than “it’s a great game, but you don’t have to blindly trust me, since it’s free to play and there’s no reason you shouldn’t try it for yourself”, actually.

    • WHS says:

      I agree–in theory, F2P has significant advantages over traditional retail sale, at least for the game’s producers.

      The downside is that those advantages come at the cost of significant consumer goodwill, which is a particularly precious commodity in the game industry.

  9. dsi1 says:

    I hope this is the start of the “oh, F2P is actually really terrible for games, lets get rid of it” trend!

    • The Laughing Owl says:

      For singleplayer yes, they definitely benefit from being a full $60 title, but multiplayer games can be very engaging with a F2P model.

      • SanguineAngel says:

        I have yet to play a F2P MP game where I felt the F2P elements enhanced the game in any way or weren’t actively detracting from it for my personal tastes. Other people’s opinions will of course vary but any game that constantly or even periodically reminds me of my terrible financial position leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I play games to escape that rubbish.

        • Koozer says:

          “I have yet to play a F2P MP game where I felt the F2P elements enhanced the game in any way or weren’t actively detracting from it for my personal tastes.”

          How about the biggest and pretty much only advantage of F2P multiplayer games: a huge playerbase. If I wanted a quick game of Brink (don’t laugh) these days it would be pretty impossible. Indie multiplayer games also commonly run afoul of the tiny playerbase problem, leading them into a spiral of noone playing > noone buying > noone playing.

          You may counter with traditional paid-for games with large playerbases, such as Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty. I will then point at the horrendous grind for equipment, map packs and season passes that are all the rage these days, and suddenly F2P doesn’t look that bad to me.

        • Leb says:

          I’ve played Tribes, Hawken, Warframe, War Thunder, League of Legends, Dota 2, TF2, and not one of them had anything taken away from them for being F2P.

          Enjoyed most of them for hours without paying a dime, at which point I dropped 5 dollars for all I wanted. 5 dollars. And those 5 dollars didn’t set me ahead, they either bought me something pretty or saved me a grind

        • Apocalypse says:

          League of Legends works just fine with its F2P Elements, naturally it would have be less grindy without the payment options for shortcuts, but the basic F2P mechanics are working really, really well.

  10. PsychoWedge says:

    well, this is certainly good news. I’m rather curious how this turns out in the end. I mean I liked the music in Homeworld much more than the game itself but I suck at rts, so that’s not the fault of the game… xD

  11. Cytrom says:

    And who said it’s not gonna have microtransactions and pay to win anyways? EA, and blizzard among others can get away with it, so anything can happen…

  12. Dave L. says:

    So what does this mean for the people who paid a hundred bucks for the Prospector’s Guide and priority beta access?

    I also find it odd that Blackbird Interactive’s site hasn’t been updated with any of this news, and the @Hardwarethegame twitter account hasn’t tweeted anything since June 3rd.

  13. daphne says:

    I kind of expect that the game will be totally remade after these two announcements. IIRC, the initial footage showed ground-based action. A Homeworld game is a space game, and known for utilizing all three dimensions of it.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I don’t think this will be turned into a space game.

      • Dave L. says:

        I could see them working in some more space-y elements.

      • Gap Gen says:

        What about other key-based games? Return to Castle Wofflestein? Ground Control? Need for Speed Shift? AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! – A Reckless Disregard for Gravity?

      • Riithi says:

        This game seems to be the prequel to Homeworld 1

        In the first homeworld they found a derelict ship on the planet which gave them the tech for faster than light.

        All those events will now be played out in this RTS, where you dig through mysteriously crashed ships on a desert planet.

    • arccos says:

      Now I want a game about hypercubes.

      • andytt66 says:

        I’ve long suspected http://www.timecube.com is some sort of ARG.. you could try your luck at that :)

        • MadTinkerer says:

          An ARG run by someone with paranoid schizophrenia, I’d guess.

          EDIT: Oh, and racist as well. Of course. I forgot that part! It’s been a while since I visited good ol’ Timecube.com.

        • Koozer says:

          Holy hell that HTML gave me aneurysm.

          I also have absolutely no idea what the words are trying to say.

      • Gap Gen says:

        I wanted to make a 4D Asteroids. Asteroids would come at you through a plane that you cannot perceive, annihilating you without warning.

        • Werthead says:

          Wouldn’t that be 5D? The 4th D is Time.

          Unless the asteroids were travelling backwards in time and materialised without warning in front of…

          Okay, you were right.

    • Werthead says:

      I think one of the appealing things about the deal for Gearbox was that Blackbird had already invested in a lot of money and done a lot development work on the game. It’s clearly not nearly done, but they have the engine, the different modes, the art style, some music and VO work already done and so on. Completing a partially-done title is always cheaper than starting one from scratch, and minimises Gearbox’s risk (and, from our POV, reduces the need for Gearbox to meddle in the game design).

      So SHIPBREAKERS will stay predominantly a planet-bound game, though I don’t rule out us seeing maybe some space-based missions or something later on. More likely, if SHIPBREAKERS and the HOMEWORLD re-releases do well, Blackbird will be able to do a proper, space-set HOMEWORLD 3 later on.

  14. Phasma Felis says:

    Big step in the right direction. Now I want to know (1) will there be a single-player campaign and (2) will they be kicking the Homeworld story in the nads by trying to shoehorn this into the history of Kharak, instead of anywhere else in the big big galaxy.

    • Bad-Timing says:

      If it tries to do Kharak pre Homeworld I’ll cry.

      It looks like they are not going for that from what we have seen so far due to the fact that it was the discovery of the guidestone that led to the Hiigarans to develop serious spaceflight on Kharak, whereas the wrecks seen in shipbreakers look like serious spacecraft. Hopefully the game will have something to do with the Hiigarans, but I would be fine if it wasn’t.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        The rumor is that they’re going to retcon it so that Kharak was always covered with wrecked ships that the Kiithid fought over, and eventually they found the Khar-Toba and the Guidestone. I really hope that’s crazy fanwank and not the actual plan.

        • Riithi says:

          I don’t really see a problem with that idea.

          They never really portrayed Kharak as a shipwreck planet, but well.. why not.

  15. nimbulan says:

    While this is great news, I still don’t understand what this game has to do with Homeworld in the first place. I know that some of the team worked on Homeworld but that seems the be the only connection. What am I missing?

    • Shooop says:

      That’s pretty much it. They said this is going to be a spiritual successor.

      The best news about Gearbox’s involvement though is they’re considering remastering the first Homeworld.

      • nimbulan says:

        Not just considering, they’re already working on it. I saw some preview images of some of the new textures, it basically looked like they went over all the detail outlines with a big black marker. Not terribly promising so far.

    • Werthead says:

      SHIPBREAKERS was always intended to be the prequel to HOMEWORLD. Blackbird Interactive was founded in 2007 by ex-Relic staff who worked on the original game (and other Relic titles up to COMPANY OF HEROES 1) and they started work on SHIPBREAKERS IN 2010. After a few months they talked to THQ about licensing and possibly publishing, but THQ didn’t seem interested.

      At that point Blackbird decided to move the game into its own setting and to also develop it as a cheaper F2P title. They still used the HOMEWORLD font and a very, very similar art style, possibly so fans would support them if they went back to THQ later on and tried again (as they said was the plan, as THQ passed in 2010 as they didn’t have much done on the game to show them). After THQ went bust, the stars aligned and they’ve been able to join forces with Gearbox instead.

      As a prequel, there’s only one thing really the game can be: set on Kharak and showing the kiiths fighting over resources before discovering the Khar-Toba. The released videos and cut scenes are VERY similar to the opening cut scene of HOMEWORLD set in the desert (I think they even have the same VO guy, some of the same sound effects and very similar music from the same composer).

      The only big issue is the fact that Kharak wasn’t covered in tons of starship hulks pre-HOMEWORLD. They knew they didn’t come from Kharak, which was only barely habitable, but not that there were tons of alien races out there. That I’m presuming will be retconned or they’ll be pulling out the hulks and replacing them with more generic resources.

      http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-09-02-gearbox-had-no-clear-path-for-homeworld-ip-invests-in-blackbirds-shipbreakers

      • Cinek says:

        “Blackbird Interactive was founded in 2007 by ex-Relic staff who worked on the original game (and other Relic titles up to COMPANY OF HEROES 1) and they started work on SHIPBREAKERS IN 2010″ – so what exactly Blackbird been doing in this 3 years gap?

        • Werthead says:

          Good question. I imagine looking for investors so they could actually start making the game. With start-ups it takes a while to bring everything together, though three years seems rather excessive.

        • Dave L. says:

          They’ve been doing some contract work on other games. They were instrumental in removing the Relic Online code from Company of Heroes and integrating the Steamworks code for the New Steam Version, for instance.

  16. Hunchback says:

    Hooray \o/

  17. Invisty says:

    Judging by the jobs section on their website, it looks like there will be singleplayer, or at least AI controlled enemies.

    “Implement robust singleplayer and multiplayer game features…”

    “…to create compelling gameplay and convincing non-player behaviour.”

    One would imagine the gameplay follow a progression from fighting bots to fighting players.

  18. Dudeist says:

    Probably too many players know already, that F2P model is worst thing in games

    • HadToLogin says:

      Actually, I believe Buy2Pay is even worse – microtransactions and shitty DLC (new shirt, weapon skin) are even worse. Too bad even Valve decided they are cool and now everybody defends them. And probably are the reason why HL3 won’t be released – kinda hard to sell hats in single-player game.
      They were able to put coop in Portal 2 since that series is about GLaDOS, but HL is about Gordon and his total obedience.

  19. wodin says:

    Wonder if it will now get a single player mode??

  20. Tancosin says:

    Yay! Now people can stop shitting on it just because it was going to be F2P!

    It’s seriously annoying how fast people jump on the “This’ll fuckin’ suck” bandwagon just because a game says it’ll be f2p. Why not wait and actually see what it will look like first?

    • Phinor says:

      To be fair, even Pitchford said it doesn’t need F2P now, because it can be “proper commercial release”. At least in my mind, I emphasize the word proper :)

    • Njordsk says:

      because games are made for money, and not by philanthropy

  21. racccoon says:

    Its probably going to fail now. it should of been left alone, and sold to normal people. P.s. the title is an omen.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      What do you mean by “sold to normal people”? It was not being sold previously (F2P) and is now being sold normally. So I’m confused…

  22. MeestaNob says:

    Other than being made by a few of the original Homeworld developers, have they explained how/if/why this has anything to do with the Homeworld universe?

    • Werthead says:

      The only official statement so far is that it’s a prequel to HOMEWORLD. When it was still HARDWARE, the game was set on a desert planet and featured mercs competing for the right to loot giant crashed starships for tech. It’s easy to see how the desert planet could be changed to Kharak. Beyond that, more is still to be revealed.

  23. ain says:

    I’m gonna buy the crap out of this just so publishers finally might stop doing stupid f2p models.

  24. dmastri says:

    Not touching anything with the Gearbox name until they make some kind of official announcement on the Aliens cock up. And I already know they won’t, so I guess I’ll add them to the EA/Blizzard pile of devs/publishers that will never get another cent of my money. I’m quite alright with that – fuck them.

    To be honest I’m less than thrilled about a Homeworld planet based RTS anyways. Come out with a proper space based Homeworld 3 and I might be eating crow.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      AFAIK they only gave the makers the IP to use for this game. No funds/restrictions or publishing deal has been mentioned yet, so I’m not sure Gearbox is involved at all.

      It’s closer to Gearbox releasing a hostage, which we would not complain about, rather than them sending you a box of chocolates as a “sorry we kidnapped your friend”. ;)

      • Werthead says:

        Gearbox is funding the game and say they will publish it. If the game is going to be digital-only, Gearbox can probably handle that themselves (through the magic of the “Hey, Steam, release this and take some of our money,” system). If they’re going for a wider, boxed release they might get a proper publisher involved as well.

        However, I think Gearbox may have taken note of the success of XCOM on tablet at a higher price point and might be looking at doing something similar with HOMEWORLD, which might make it more of a solo project for them.

  25. TechnicalBen says:

    From the title of this article alone this is a buy from me on release. Providing they don’t backtrack*, then I’ll be ecstatic! :D

    *Like add a in game drop rate for weapons that are actually usable and effect gameplay in multiplayer (looking at you TF2!!!).

  26. Snack says:

    Not sure if this was noticed or pointed out already, but I love what they did with the title. “Hardware” broken down to initials would read “HW” as in Home World.
    Oh boy, what a sweet game Home World is.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      That was the makers design from day one. ;)
      It was the goal. :P

  27. TheGameSquid says:

    “With our investment, Homeworld Shipbreakers can be a proper commercial release. No need for F2P.”

    I’m not sure I understand this. How is the fact that the game utilizes a F2P model related to the funding of the game? Why would there be any “need” for F2P if they hadn’t received this additional investment. And what is a “proper” commercial game? Were they planning on making a game that was NOT a proper commercial game?

    Don’t misunderstand me, I’m happy they dropped the F2P bit, the explanation is just a bit bizarre…

    • Apocalypse says:

      Different business model, F2P generates a lot of money post release, now they have the founding to finish the game properly and abandon the game after release like it is done with a proper commercial release :p

  28. Iskariot says:

    If this means it gets a decent single player campaign and a skirmish mode then I am in heaven. Otherwise it is a no go for me. Not interested in multi player at all.