Plunk this, plunk that: Fortnite adds Battle Royale mode

The current hot fad in multiplayer games is Battle Royale, you might have noticed, following in the wake of games like Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (boasting the highest playercount on Steam) and H1Z1: King of the Kill as well as Minecraft’s Hunger Games servers. Epic Games are now joining the Battle Royale battle of Battle Royale games with their early access craft-o-build-a-shooter Fortnite [official site], adding a new competitive 100-player mode. It’ll officially launch on September 26th but is already rolling out for players to test. Fortnite’s core solo and cooperative play is a bit bum but can this turn out better?

What the heck is the ‘Pubgee’ game that fella mentions?

Fortnite’s Battle Royale works in the usual Plunkbat way: 100 players fly over a giant map in a transport, pick a spot to jump out and parachute down, then loot up so they can murder each other to bits until one player stands triumphant. This being Fortnite, players can also build fortifications and lay traps.

The Battle Royale mode uses separate characters, not using any of your PvE progression, and has its own separate balance too. Crouching has been added and gives the customary accuracy boost, falling damage is increased, players have a limited inventory for weapons and consumables (though ammo, traps, and building resources don’t consume it), and so it. It’s Plunkier, basically.

Check Fortnite version 1.6’s patch notes for full details on how it all works, as well as other changes in today’s update. The mode is rolling out to players in waves, slowly increasing the number of players, then it’ll launch in full on the 26th.

Fortnite is currently in paid early access but will be free-to-play when it launches in 2018. Our Brendan played Fortnite last month and found all the free-to-play systems horribly overwhelming, and the game beneath all that guff not very good.


  1. drewski says:

    Aaaand the flavour of the month copycats begin.

  2. Chorltonwheelie says:

    ‘Bum’ means good these days Alice.

  3. hatsuna says:

    Curious to see to what extent you can scavenge and build traps and buildings and stuff. This plus destructibility actually sounds pretty interesting.

  4. Remmoth says:

    Once again RPS; This game is not currently Free-to-Play. The article linked in the last sentence also makes this mistake.

  5. ajaxpliskin says:

    I think calling it a “fad” or “flavour of the month” or “copycat” lacks foresight as well as knowledge about the game type’s origins. The ‘Battle Royale’ game type has been around for several years as mods, with player counts growing steadily in numbers, especially since they’ve broken out into standalone titles.

    I don’t think they’ll be going away anytime soon, and will actually become a genre type in of itself. The way people refer to them as a temporary thing that are clones of each other reminds me of when people would refer to first person shooters as “Doom clones” in the 90s.

    • Alice O'Connor says:

      I adore Plunkbat but I’ve no doubt that its mega success (which, as you say, was built up from years of mods) is stoking a fad in the same way that League of Legends and Dota 2 did with MOBAs.

      LoL and Dota 2 are still huge but their dozens of imitators have largely collapsed. Battle Royale ’em ups will likely repeat this.

      • Imperialist says:

        There is plenty of evidence of similar fads reaching stupid levels of popularity, and then crumbling to bits. MOBAs, Day-Z-alikes (survival games). Battle Royale games are next on the list.

        I personally find it a rather large waste to have a big open explorable world be a backdrop for nothing more than FFA Deathmatch.

        • ajaxpliskin says:

          Interesting comments, but I see a lot of people referring to games that were popular for several, several years as “fads,” which I think is wrong. These games aren’t flick on bracelets or yoyos, they’re games that are inhabited by players for years and years.

          Battle Royale is an evolution of DayZ. DayZ became Battle Royale. Some poor players were still playing it as a survival game at it’s peak, unaware that the most hardcore players were treating it as an endless FFA deathmatch.

          DayZ mod’s gameplay never really went away, it has branched off into two more distilled variations. One one hand, you have Battle Royale, which is the looting, killing and last man standing aspect of DayZ, and then you have games like Rust, which is the base building, survival, long term strategy game, that was also a component of the DayZ mod. Please note that I am explicitly referring to the mod, as the standalone game is one of the most shambolic recreations/interpretations of the mod scene that surrounded Arma 2.

          I predict that these game types will not go away, but will evolve and establish themselves as their own sub-genres.

      • xvre says:

        I disagree. The thing with MOBAs is that they require hundreds of hours invested to be anywhere close to decent at them. And once you’re there (comfortable with LOL or DOTA), you’re going to reject other MOBAs, because you already know how steep the learning curve is (and sometimes the content grind).

        Battle Royale games on the other hand, are much easier to get into, so current PUBG players will be more receptive to future alternatives.

        I can already imagine a hugely popular Battle Royale game coming from EA, Activision or Ubisoft, in the next year or so. The basic recipe is now public. Just add to that high production values and remove the jank that PUBG drowns in, and you got yourself a hit.

        • CMaster says:

          The trouble is you can’t turn out a AAA game that quickly. Normal development times are on the order of 3-4 years. Maybe you could get something out in 2, if you hurried – but you can’t just magic up that high-polish, high-production value open world game from nowhere.

          I can’t imagine that we won’t see a “Battle Royale Hero Shooter” in the next couple of years though.

          • xvre says:

            Well, I imagine EA has a lot of the tech in place from Battlefield. After all, it’s just a deathmatch with 100 players and a force field. They have had 64 players server on PC for many years. They also have a loadout & weapon attachment system.

  6. Pogs says:

    Plunk this, plunk that, plunkbat it for always
    That’s the way it should be
    Plunk this, plunk that, plunkbat it together

  7. racccoon says:

    This can easily knock off that pubic game of its perch.
    Its just a shame they never thought to use a BUS! instead of copying the sky drop approach.
    I think bus’s coming from all directions with small groups would of made for more fun approach especially the way the game graphs are set in this. lol
    Wake up devs!
    You are already thinking outside of the box, you just didn’t think further a field.

  8. hfm says:

    That sniper shot at ~1:00 in that vid looked like it probably shouldn’t have hit.

  9. Bull0 says:

    Nothing cynical about this, no siree

  10. Turkey says:

    I don’t know about this. I’m usually for more cartoony looking games, but it doesn’t quite gel with the feel of a battle royale type game.

  11. DoubleO says:

    Everytime you call pubg, plunkbat i die inside. Just conform and call it Pubg like the rest of us.