Peek At Paladins, The Next F2P FPS From Smite Devs

Y’seen those folks behind Tribes: Ascend and Smite are working on a new free-to-play FPS, right? After showings at shows, Hi-Rez Studios are now ready to show Paladins [official site] to those of us who didn’t schlep ourselves to shows to see the showings. Show. Show? Showww.

Which is to say Hi-Rez have dropped a trailer showing bits of gameplay alongside scenes of people using computers and people wearing their smartest casual clothes talking about the game. Observe:

The key sentence in all that is: “The objective of Paladins is a combination of a point capture system and an escort siege push.” That’s what the game’s dealio is. Along with tech-o-fantasy weapons, its characters have special abilities, and a collectible card… thing adds another layer.

Cards in Paladin give passive power-ups like bonus damage, attack speed, or regeneration, and throughout battles you’ll draw new cards from the deck you’ve built. I think. Something like that. The point is: cards.

Paladins (which may or may not officially have the generic subtitle Champions of the Realm) is due to launch initially in some of early access later this year.

In the meantime, Hi-Rez have actually gone back and revisited Tribes a little. A new patch – the first in over two years – recently entered public testing.


  1. Hunchback says:

    I am still sad that they ditched Tribes…

    • AwkwardAlex says:

      They did kinda return to it, there’s a small team working on updates for tribes now.

    • DeVadder says:

      While i did enjoy Tribes Ascend a lot, i personally did stop playing quite a while before they stopped patches. I understand that others did not, of course, and that it certainly was sad for a lot of people.
      But one thing has allways bothered me. People allways complain about HiRez killing or abandoning Tribes but did Tribes Ascend not recieve much more updates and contend than Starsiege: Tribes and Tribes 2 combined? Why is everyone so bitter with HiRez but noone boycots Sierra or Dynamix (okay, that would be hard today)for not supporting their games longer?

      • treat says:

        Because Dynamix gave players the tools to create their own content, which is why Tribes and Tribes 2 (and doom, and quake, and half-life, ect) lasted as long as they did. Also because this is 2015, not 1995.

  2. The_invalid says:

    “It’s a pretty unique take on…”

    • teije says:

      Um yeah, the cards thing. The characters look pretty goofy, maybe that’s the style they’re going for. Don’t see the gotcha here on this one, but good luck to them.

  3. Ljud says:

    Cartoony class-based F2P FPS is really becoming a thing.
    Battleborn, Gigantic, Overwatch, Paladins, LawBreakers etc.
    Maybe I could count Dirty Bomb and Unreal Tournament as well , but those two are a little less cartoony. Will there even be a room for pay to play shooters?

    • Ljud says:

      Well and UT is not really class-based.

    • Xocrates says:

      “Will there even be a room for pay to play shooters?”

      Thing is that if you want to make a multiplayer focused game it increasingly makes less sense, from both a consumer and developer perspective, for it not to be a F2P game.

      The options basically are: use a “games as service approach” and provide frequent updates to keep the player base healthy and engaged – where even players that never drop a penny on the game help keeping it interesting.


      Make it a premium game, hope to hell it sells enough to not die in a week and… I dunno, sell DLC to the players you already have with diminishing returns? Abandon it completely after launch? Release a balance patch every couple months?

      • DeVadder says:

        I fully agree. And i am a person who happily pays for their games. But still, i prefer F2P as it likely gives me more people to play against and, if the game is cool, makes it way easier for me to get friends to give it a go as well.

        The only problem are games where more money allways means more advantage, i way prefer proper freemium games where i can either play for free or toss one payment and enjoy everything (except cosmetical, i guess?). And when it comes to that, HiRez has a pretty good record recently with the all-weapon pack from Tribes and the Ultimate-God-Pack from Smite, allowing me to treat both games as readily bought for-pay games while retaining F2P’s advantages.

    • Jenks says:

      Battlecry, Fortnite, PvZ2…

    • LionsPhil says:

      I honestly thought the screenshot was an article about Overwatch as I scrolled past.

    • Kollega says:

      I’m going to jump in, but instead of commenting on the glut of free-to-play cartoony shooters, I’m going to bemoan the fact that there are nearly no cartoony single-player games. I’ve been long-dreaming of a bright, cartoony pay-once open-world game where I’d get to travel to interesting places, meet interesting people, and kill them. And so far, the closest that the industry got to it is Borderlands. And Sunset Overdrive, but that’s Xbone-exclusive.

      I mean… seriously. Why is it that cartoonish aesthetic is so popular for multiplayer shooters – PC and not, F2P and not – but when it comes to singleplayer games, the most you’ll get is a cel-shaded tumbleweed blowing across the landscape?

  4. Xocrates says:

    Hmm, the card system seems to function more or less like a randomized talent system from HOTS.

    While I’m far from a fan of the Talent system, this at least seems mildly interesting, since if nothing else it requires you to have some adaptability.

  5. Enkinan says:

    Everyone wants a piece of that sweet, sweet TF2 cash cow.

    The card system seems like an interesting twist, but if I had to put money on one of these new cartoon, class-based FPS’s it would be Overwatch.

    • Christo4 says:

      I wouldn’t bet on that.
      Overwatch kinda wants to jump on the TF2 train as well, but more sci-fi and stuff.
      IMO, it depends on how competitive one game can become. Maybe it’s just me, but apparently, the games that are most popular are either the ones who are super fun (and these are usually not competitive games), or competitive ones that attract customers by their competitiveness alone. Not saying the latter can’t be fun, but if you suck at it, well, not so much.
      So i think it’s up for the end user to see which will be better or worse.

  6. Christo4 says:

    Seems interesting i guess.
    But i don’t really like how the game looks tbh. It’s rather… Bland?
    I hope skill is also involved. From their interview where they said they didn’t want “pixel hunting” well… I’m afraid they’ll try to reach for the lowest common denominator and i certainly hope that’s not the case…
    One more thing, i hope it’s not too complex. Since it is a multiplayer game, if it’s too complex that just means more problems with balance, more problems with balance means it won’t be as fun especially since, usually, higher tier cards or skills or champions/heroes are locked behind grind or pay walls.

  7. Hastur609 says:

    The problem with these new cartoony shooters I’m seeing on the brink of release is that there’s no mobility. It’s all very flat, aiming forward at incoming opponents and not many classes showcase any notable mobility options.

    UT, Quake, TF2, and some of the DOOM DM settings I’ve been playing over the last few years (Still a younger generation gamer myself being a few months from hitting my twenties!) have really spoiled me in regards to varying elevations, fast pacing, and skill based not just on your ability to line up headshots but also your grasp on the movement system.

    A movement system that -every- class had a stake in one way or another in games like TF2, Counterstike, Tribes, Dirty Bomb even as much as that game puts me off each and every update.

    Yet in these upcoming shooters things are very flat. There’s TTK but there’s no mobility, just strafing side to side and popping cool-down abilities to kill things slightly faster or keep yourself from getting killed slower.

    Battleborn or whatever, the upcoming one made by the guys of Borderlands was one of the worst offenders of this. Enemies were ground bound and just ran straight at you while the characters in the trailers spent most of their time aiming at the ground.


    For me to like a shooter it needs to be dynamic. I don’t mind higher TTK, what I do mind is a flat game.

    You guys kinda understand what I’m trying to say?

    • Christo4 says:

      UT 2004 ftw!
      Well mostly because i didn’t play the other games much.
      But yeah i do.
      You mean to say that it looks kinda like a MOBA, but fps and shooty.
      Not like an action fps game that is dynamic and good movement also counts as a skill.
      I still fondly remember what you had to do in some capture the flag games in UT, the running and jumping to escape the others who were trying to get you and even in onslaught it was fun imo when you could outmaneuver a tank or double jump over a scorpion’s fangs.

  8. Stinkfinger75 says:

    They’re working on another new game when they have Super Monday Night Combat sitting right there. They were way out in front of the MOBA curve with that one then completely ditched it. Shame really, it was an extremely fun game with a ton of polish on it.

  9. Ur-Quan says:

    I’m kind of glad the whole MOBA thing seems to finally die down a bit, but on the other hand cartoony FPS interests me even less…
    Can’t we make RTS games the next big thing? Please?