Sweet, Firefall servers are open 24/7 today with the PAX east people, and the NDA has been lifted!
Servers go online today, but the NDA will be lifted on Friday :)
By which Notch actually means that his game won’t be free to play at all:
“Scrolls won’t be free at all, so we’re avoiding the term ‘free-to-play’.”
“My personal opinion, however, is that Scrolls is definitely along the lines of a ‘free-to-play’ game,” he admitted, “except we try to avoid the ‘free’ part of it. We don’t want to trick people into thinking it’s a free game.”
Fascinating. In other words, it’s free in the sense that after you pay money to play it, you can play it without paying more money, but you can also pay more money after having paid money, and this will also not be free.
Sarcasm aside, this entire thread does not make any sense. I understand the business model he’s describing: it’s called “microtransactions” or sometimes “retail box + DLC”
or maybe “Skylanders.” So why even mention the notion of Scrolls being free in the first place, even though it is literally not free at all, in any way? He seems to hate the idea that “free-to-play” games are designed to let people pay as much (or as little!) as they want, even though it sounds like he is okay with people paying money for more scrolls in his company’s game. He just doesn’t want them to be able to play initially for free.
It’s as if, by charging money for initial access, Notch believes he’s immune to his perceived trappings of the free-to-play model. I really don’t know. Complaining about games abusing players’ sense of sunk costs in order to monetize them is definitely weird when you consider that charging up-front for game access is, yknow, inherently more of a cost than offering it for free.