Speaking to Destructoid, Boss Key Productions’ leader Cliff Bleszinski said that the reason for LawBreakers’ shift from free-to-play to pay-to-play was because, as he put it, F2P felt “dirty” to him.

“It was hurting my brain, thinking of ways to do it. Do we do a hero rotation? Do we do energy [pay to play]? We kept coming back to the idea of paying a lump sum, and at that point we decided to get rid of free-to play.”

Cliffy B keeps going back to an energy system, which even the slightest research into F2P should tell him is pretty much universally reviled, while hero rotations are much less controversial. And his comments regarding CS:GO (“I didn’t feel bad spending money on cosmetic shit”) might lead one to surmise he didn’t think LawBreakers could be successful selling “cosmetic shit.” Or that the F2P version would have been rife with pay-to-open lockboxes.

Boss Key co-founder Arjan Brussee acknowledges that it could be difficult to compete in a world largely dominated by F2P shooters but insists that his game will be more in the $20 to $40 range — “Closer to $20, hopefully” — to help compete with games like Overwatch, whose cheapest package is $40.

In any case, Boss Key released a new teaser video for LawBreakers today, titled “Between Our Guns,” which you can check out above. There is some NSFW language contained therein, so you might need to keep the volume down.

the author

Jason Winter is a veteran gaming journalist, he brings a wide range of experience to MMOBomb, including two years with Beckett Media where he served as the editor of the leading gaming magazine Massive Online Gamer. He has also written professionally for several gaming websites.

16 Readers Commented

Join discussion
  1. DemondOridth on April 23, 2016

    don’t worry they will probably be making a loot system that requires you to buy keys.. and they will also sell skins along side that $30 price tag to buy and play that game. Its not that they didn’t think of ways to make it free to play… they just want to milk more money out of it in anyway possible and when they see the game going in decline they will push it out as free to play and give a big middle finger to all their buying population.

  2. Bombo on April 22, 2016

    Do Gamer or Normal Player know what right and wrong anymore in Multiplayer online games Nowadays? The Free to play has declined a lot over the years with new Games or Old Games on the Market.

  3. rickshaw on April 21, 2016

    The game itself looks like a quake rip-off! nothing really new just a revamp of an old game.

    • Player1 on April 22, 2016

      so what, the game’s looks great

      • LinkoN on April 23, 2016

        Well yeah, but good graphics isn’t everything, i still play older games which are way better than their newer counterparts.. Battlefield 2 or Supreme commander: forged alliance for example.
        The gameplay still is great, the graphics aged well.. but im propably another generation than you or you’re just one of those short sighted graphic whores.
        What matters for me is the gameplay and balance, the graphics are not that important.
        But yeah, go ahead, buy the game.. atleast it got good graphics huh?
        I may ever create a game for you on the newest cry engine, make it look completely breathtaking while there’s no story, no new or original ideas just plain graphics where you can run around forever. maybe even some guns and destructable buildings so you won’t get tired too fast.
        No story? No anything? so what? the game looks great!

  4. Curst on April 21, 2016

    They are either ignorant and unprofessional, or they know all to well that their game won’t be good enough and popular enough to make money without doing unthinkable stuff like energy/stamina. Either way this makes me uninterested in their game.

    P.S. By the way, there’s a new FPS that has been announced recently. It’s being developed by Allods team and I believe they are going to name it F.R.A.G. (yeah, terribly original >_>). There are still no details about what it’s going to be like. Maybe MMOBomb will be able to get something out of them. Or maybe not, because there is no official English web page for now 😀

  5. Thhher on April 21, 2016

    If the game has good gameplay and good options ( like FOV of 90+ etc. ) then i would love to buy the game and spend money on skins.

    • DemondOridth on April 23, 2016

      You are the reason why game companies are getting away with this crap… I remember in the day Buy to Play titles gave you everything that could be unlocked….

      I highly doubt they will have skins able to be unlocked with premium… Which I think is stupid because that makes buy to play pointless.

  6. Zoran Revaic on April 21, 2016

    Wow power to him. I kind of agree with him. Free to play seems to sound like the most greedy option. At least with P2p you don’t exploit almost every profitable slice of content and you don’t have to worry about falling within a certain ethical monetary guideline that F2p seems to still have to regulate itself with. I wasn’t interested before but I believe I am now loyal to Cliffy B and his kind of thinking.

    • Drumpf on April 21, 2016

      The game is B2P not P2P. Sorry to break it to you, but B2P and F2P are essentially the same model other than forking out extra for access to the game. You can say “less hackers” or “less bots” but time and time again that was proven wrong.
      I’d say they just want to cut their losses and change the model to get some money back in case their game fails, if you’re going to pay for a game of this genre, then you would have already heard of Overwatch, and Paladins for the F2P side.

    • Delphi Tamaris on April 22, 2016

      It doesn’t HAVE to be the greedy option, though. There are ways of doing F2P right without nickle-and-dime-ing the players. It’s even mentioned in the article:

      “…His comments regarding CS:GO (“I didn’t feel bad spending money on cosmetic shit”) might lead one to surmise he didn’t think LawBreakers could be successful selling “cosmetic shit.””

      If they really thought the game would be inherently worse for being f2p, it makes me wonder why they even decided to make it f2p in the first place.

    • hackisack on April 22, 2016

      There’s one problem about B2P though, which is longevity. If they charge a relative low amount of money initially, it will be hard for them to keep servers alive and develop new content.
      For comparison, Payday 2 developers managed to keep the game running and producing new content, but therefore have to constantly sell new cosmetic shit, new weapon packs and even new characters I think., All kinds of stuff that turned the game into an ugly DLC cash grab machine. I believe there’s no complete pack either.
      Lawberakers probably will have to go the same route of buying the initial game and paying extra for everything that comes thereafter.

      • Razer on April 23, 2016

        The Payday 2 developers didn’t “have” to sell their tiny piecemeal DLC at such exorbitant prices. They did it for the sake of price gouging. They got away with it because they had conditioned a community of rabid fanboys to eagerly hand over their money and stamp out anyone criticizing it.

        They made an enormous profit just from pre-orders alone. Adding all the DLC revenue to that, they made enough money to fund multiple separate games and the development of VR hardware.

        • Razer on April 23, 2016

          …And still have millions of dollars leftover.

    • DemondOridth on April 23, 2016

      seriously……. are you that daft ?

      So you are fine with a game that has a buy to play title plus a premium based item mall that could in theory support the game just fine. Really the only fracking difference between that and free to play models is that they are buy to play titles…. are you really that blind ? wow no wonder this new form of premium item buy to play crap exists because of people like you who don’t know a difference between a penny and a dime.