Blizzard doing OW free weekend out of the blue?
Really nice move, Je... oh. right.
[t]https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/gearbox/uploads/default/original/4X/5/d/1/5d17193c987dcdc3e67333b842dad69492ca10ca.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Hammer7;52899592]Blizzard doing OW free weekend out of the blue?
Really nice move, Je... oh. right.
[t]https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/gearbox/uploads/default/original/4X/5/d/1/5d17193c987dcdc3e67333b842dad69492ca10ca.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
it's not halloween for another 11 months now, no need to post dead stuff
[QUOTE=Hammer7;52899592]Blizzard doing OW free weekend out of the blue?
Really nice move, Je... oh. right.
[t]https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/gearbox/uploads/default/original/4X/5/d/1/5d17193c987dcdc3e67333b842dad69492ca10ca.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Stop! Stop! It's already dead!
Overwatch should be free forever.
[QUOTE=Zadrave;52900226]Overwatch should be free forever.[/QUOTE]
Overwatch F2P:
- You can't unlock cosmetics by any means
- You can't play ranked.
+ You can earn coins but you can't spend them.
I don't see the problem with something like that..
[QUOTE=Zadrave;52900226]Overwatch should be free forever.[/QUOTE]
It's still funny how it got away with being a P2P game with a F2P business model.
[QUOTE=Drury;52900823]It's still funny how it got away with being a P2P game with a F2P business model.[/QUOTE]
It needs it to sustain itself. They want the game to be around for a long time and servers cost money. I'm certain it'll go the way of TF2 and have a F2P component within the next three years
[QUOTE=Drury;52900823]It's still funny how it got away with being a P2P game with a F2P business model.[/QUOTE]
Funny how a lot of games do that recently.
[QUOTE=153x;52900906]It needs it to sustain itself. They want the game to be around for a long time and servers cost money. I'm certain it'll go the way of TF2 and have a F2P component within the next three years[/QUOTE]
Oh the poor Blizzard, they can't support their underselling small indie title so they are [B]forced[/B] to put in gambling for kids. I weep for their dedication to the game, after all it's not like 4/5 of the updates were focused entirely on selling more lootboxes, but on introducing well balanced, polished heroes and maps.
[Sp]Get a fucking grip.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Damjen;52900944]Oh the poor Blizzard, they can't support their underselling small indie title so they are [B]forced[/B] to put in gambling for kids. I weep for their dedication to the game, after all it's not like 4/5 of the updates were focused entirely on selling more lootboxes, but on introducing well balanced, polished heroes and maps.
[Sp]Get a fucking grip.[/sp][/QUOTE]
I paid $40 for the game, have played less than 200 hours over two years, never spent a cent on loot boxes and have most of the cosmetics I could want. Unless you're a little baby who CAN'T PLAY THE GAME WITHOUT THIS ONE SKIN then there is absolutely NO pressure to get a loot box. Not to mention that unlike other games like TF2 there is a very reasonable chance to get a high-tier item.
"oh poor blizzard can't support their small title" is the weakest argument I've ever heard. Do you have the slightest clue how much it costs to maintain server infrastructure for millions of players? I don't see people bitching about other games charging monthly fees.
Loot boxes in a lot of games suck. I know it's the cool hip thing to hate on loot boxes now but Overwatch does it in the least intrusive way possible. If that really makes you not want to play the game, I'd say you're the one that needs to get a grip.
[QUOTE=Drury;52900823]It's still funny how it got away with being a P2P game with a F2P business model.[/QUOTE]
That's not a F2P business model.
A F2P business model would pretty much be a P2W model, in which everything is free, but if you buy stuff from the ingame store, you can get an advantage over people.
A good example is Cabal Online. I've heard of people who spent thousands of euros to get and upgrade endgame gear, essentialy making them the very best due to ludicrous stats stack. And all that real money went to the publishers that provided the items, which could be sold ingame for a lot of virtual currency.
Overwatch however doesn't relies on this, in the slightest.
You don't even need to purchase lootboxes unless for some reason you really want to, despite being able to get them by just playing. Not only that, they don't cost a dime to open, they aren't tradeable, and the items within them don't give you any advantage in combat.
And funny enough, CSGO, DOTA 2 and TF2 had lootboxes AND keys way before Overwatch was even released, and the items within them could be sold for real money and even generated quite a bit of fuss, because they were actually part of real gambling.
It honestly sounds like people in this forum have a beef with Overwatch, either because they don't get the skin they really want despite getting 3 legendaries in one box, or because Overwatch popularized lootboxes (despite Valve starting it all and having an extremely shitty practice with the key system and pretty much being a husk of itself due to changing priorities), or for some stupid reason that isn't actually important to the core game, like the fucking maps and some heroes.
f2p does not need to be p2w. IAP is a design, not a bible.
That said, games aiming for longevity do need a constant revenue of some sort to sustain and justify its continuous development. Overwatch did it well (except the lootboxes), but they ran into another problem: their allocate too much effort on producing cosmetics because that is now their primary source of income, gameplay content become secondary for player retention. It hurts the game more than the player, in a way. But since people seem to celebrate hot, new skins, there's little reason for Blizzard to alter their plan.
Fortunately they do also have an esport scene they have yet taken full advantage of. However I have no idea how much they are generating through that so I won't comment on it.
[QUOTE=153x;52901069]
"oh poor blizzard can't support their small title" is the weakest argument I've ever heard. Do you have the slightest clue how much it costs to maintain server infrastructure for millions of players? I don't see people bitching about other games charging monthly fees.
Loot boxes in a lot of games suck. I know it's the cool hip thing to hate on loot boxes now but Overwatch does it in the least intrusive way possible. If that really makes you not want to play the game, I'd say you're the one that needs to get a grip.[/QUOTE]
Right now, Overwatch has about 35 million players. Let's pretend the $60 version doesn't exist and everyone paid the $40 you did, which makes $1,400,000,000 or almost a billion and a half.
Overwatch was developed with a lot of assets ripped from a scrapped Blizzard project called Titan, which is why people like to add that game to the budget. Titan had an estimated budget between 50 million and 100 million dollars and once development on Overwatch began, that added about 15 to 50 million, making for a budget of 65 to 150 million dollars.
That means Blizzard made at least 9 times the money they put in, even if you don't account for the money they make from lootboxes. And no, servers aren't expensive, Blizzard makes money hand over fist, they can run their servers for another year with the earnings they make in a month.
Also way to grind on someone for not playing a game out of not agreeing with predatory monetization tactics. I don't think that's lack of "grip", I think that's just being a responsible human being, who can see the writing on the wall regarding addictive personalities.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52902461]Right now, Overwatch has about 35 million players. Let's pretend the $60 version doesn't exist and everyone paid the $40 you did, which makes $1,400,000,000 or almost a billion and a half.
Overwatch was developed with a lot of assets ripped from a scrapped Blizzard project called Titan, which is why people like to add that game to the budget. Titan had an estimated budget between 50 million and 100 million dollars and once development on Overwatch began, that added about 15 to 50 million, making for a budget of 65 to 150 million dollars.
That means Blizzard made at least 9 times the money they put in, even if you don't account for the money they make from lootboxes. And no, servers aren't expensive, Blizzard makes money hand over fist, they can run their servers for another year with the earnings they make in a month.
Also way to grind on someone for not playing a game out of not agreeing with predatory monetization tactics. I don't think that's lack of "grip", I think that's just being a responsible human being, who can see the writing on the wall regarding addictive personalities.[/QUOTE]
it'd be alright if they were actively constantly reinvesting that money in the games or business which would help the games, but I don't think it's happening at the rate it should be. that kind of money could hire you a small nation of developers if you wanted (as well as an actual decent overwatch community management team)
[QUOTE=153x;52900906]It needs it to sustain itself. They want the game to be around for a long time and servers cost money. I'm certain it'll go the way of TF2 and have a F2P component within the next three years[/QUOTE]
Boohoo. A game that made over 1 billion dollars in the first year by one of the most successful companies working for the biggest publisher in the world needs to sustain itself with microtransactions like that? How come they didn't implement them in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 so far?
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52901546]That's not a F2P business model.
A F2P business model would pretty much be a P2W model, in which everything is free, but if you buy stuff from the ingame store, you can get an advantage over people.
[/QUOTE]
Did you take a look at Dota 2? F2P since the very first release, you can't buy any advantages, everything is just cosmetics. It works. This is a successful and well implemented F2P model.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52901546]
It honestly sounds like people in this forum have a beef with Overwatch, either because they don't get the skin they really want despite getting 3 legendaries in one box, or because Overwatch popularized lootboxes (despite Valve starting it all and having an extremely shitty practice with the key system and pretty much being a husk of itself due to changing priorities), or for some stupid reason that isn't actually important to the core game, like the fucking maps and some heroes.[/QUOTE]
Actually it's a beef that Overwatch has abysmal core game problems like ridiculously bad map design, bad game modes and pretty much anti-fun gameplay since everything revolves around competing with others. People have a beef with Overwatch because Blizzard doesn't bother to improve any of the actual problems of the game and continues to use their free game content mostly to push more lootbox and skin sales for the player instead of meaningful content. Heroes and new maps are okay, but considering that Blizzard already has problems continuously balancing heroes correctly and brings problems from the old maps into the new ones and doesn't give a second thought about new game modes they implement, it really is annoying.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;52903291]Boohoo. A game that made over 1 billion dollars in the first year by one of the most successful companies working for the biggest publisher in the world needs to sustain itself with microtransactions like that? How come they didn't implement them in Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 so far?
Did you take a look at Dota 2? F2P since the very first release, you can't buy any advantages, everything is just cosmetics. It works. This is a successful and well implemented F2P model.
Actually it's a beef that Overwatch has abysmal core game problems like ridiculously bad map design, bad game modes and pretty much anti-fun gameplay since everything revolves around competing with others. People have a beef with Overwatch because Blizzard doesn't bother to improve any of the actual problems of the game and continues to use their free game content mostly to push more lootbox and skin sales for the player instead of meaningful content. Heroes and new maps are okay, but considering that Blizzard already has problems continuously balancing heroes correctly and brings problems from the old maps into the new ones and doesn't give a second thought about new game modes they implement, it really is annoying.[/QUOTE]
1- Why DID they implement it in Overwatch then? And why are people only having a problem with it now? By that logic, why is CSGO not F2P yet? It reels in boatloads of money through skins so... Boohoo to CS too? Valve takes away €26 from me if I sell something on the market for €200, so don't tell me they don't profit.
2- So, wait, what's the difference between OW lootboxes and ANY of the lootboxes in all Valve games?
I mean, you do realise that the lootboxes made by Valve actually cost money to open right? ALL of the cash you spend goes straight to Valve. You're essentially charging your "Valve bank" with real money to buy virtual items or games, in the case of the first, some of those credits go to the person selling whichever item he/she is selling, and yet, Valve STILL takes a very small cut from that cash. Of those 2.50 or 2.60 euros you spend on a key for example, only like 2.30 something goes to the person selling you the key.
People get lootboxes and they can't do a thing with them until they cough up the money that will ALWAYS go to Valve. Valve NEVER loses a dime with skins. In fact, it earns billions instead.
3- Then complain about that instead of skins. Valve does THE EXACT SAME THING, almost at the exact same rate aswell, and nobody bats an eye at it.
The "but its a $60 dollar game!" thing is tiring aswell. Nobody's forcing you to buy lootboxes which you can open for free and are a sure drop after having like 10 games or something.
Again, the same thing happens with Valve games, you get lootboxes at random, spend actual money to open them, and most likely, you'll get absolute crap from it, but apparently that's not a problem because the game is either free or $15... Wow, what a world of difference.
Valve had the benefit of still being the "heroes of the industry" in 2012, when CS:GO came out. Believe me, when they introduced lootcrates, my skeleton almost jumped out of my body to firebomb Valve HQ. They just played their magic "b-but the community" card and enabled some pachinko loophole shit through the market and everyone was suddenly fine with it, there just wasn't a precedent for it at this scale. Now some people know for sure that lootboxes are shit and too many still don't.
And yes, it's worse to have microtransactions in a $60 game than it is to have them in a $15 game, it's a simple price-value comparison. The lower the pay-to-play barrier is, the easier microtransactions are to swallow. If you pay $60, you expect $60 of content, a singleplayer component maybe or just a lot of multiplayer content. Overwatch is not a $60 game. It's only $60 by virtue of Activision and Blizzard needing to compensate for Titan's cancellation and subsequent 100 million dollar deficit.
I don't support microtransactions in paid games either way but just saying.
Valve's loot boxes are honestly the least worst on the market, because there's a way for you to go specifically after any loot box item that you really want, with no gambling required, even if it will be marked up if it's a rare item.
[QUOTE=Hammer7;52899592]Blizzard doing OW free weekend out of the blue?
Really nice move, Je... oh. right.
[t]https://cdn-enterprise.discourse.org/gearbox/uploads/default/original/4X/5/d/1/5d17193c987dcdc3e67333b842dad69492ca10ca.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
"Community event"
WHAT fucking community!
Couldn't find the play for free button. Purchased the game as it was 50% off.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52905749]"Community event"
WHAT fucking community![/QUOTE]
um this one sweetie :)
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/KWMl6uW.png[/IMG]
Feels like OW is free week like almost every second week
[QUOTE=153x;52900906]It needs it to sustain itself. They want the game to be around for a long time and servers cost money. I'm certain it'll go the way of TF2 and have a F2P component within the next three years[/QUOTE]
Do you know how much money servers actually cost? Because I sort of doubt they could cost [I]that much[/I] when PS3 had free online for 7 straight years before PS4 came out. Nintendo had free online too until the Switch came out.
I feel like a lot of this bullshit people buy in to nowadays is purely manufactured by companies to excuse themselves, and ate up by suckers. The games industry is not poor. They don't need a handout. They don't need constant financial support to update games. Overwatch in particular has made almost 1.5 billion fucking dollars, and that's not counting the loot box sales. They could support the game for years off that.
Do gamers just lack long term memory of any kind? Because the games industry supported itself for several decades before loot boxes came along. Not only did they not need them, but many developers still updated their games [I]anyway.[/I] And the hilarious fucking thing is that most old games tend to provide [I]more[/I] content than games do today. This kind of shit is literally the games industry fucking you in the ass to make more money because they can, and not only will you still buy it, you'll actually defend them like they aren't a soulless corporation squeezing you dry.
You're the kind of person that buys in to billionaires trying to come off as blue collar workers.
[QUOTE=Oblivion Knight;52905769]um this one sweetie :)
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/KWMl6uW.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I'm sure Randy is 'proud' that he gets as much attention as a free to play indie game but that's practically a dead game
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52905872]Do you know how much money servers actually cost? Because I sort of doubt they could cost [I]that much[/I] when PS3 had free online for 7 straight years before PS4 came out. Nintendo had free online too until the Switch came out.
I feel like a lot of this bullshit people buy in to nowadays is purely manufactured by companies to excuse themselves, and ate up by suckers. The games industry is not poor. They don't need a handout. They don't need constant financial support to update games. Overwatch in particular has made almost 1.5 billion fucking dollars, and that's not counting the loot box sales. They could support the game for years off that.
Do gamers just lack long term memory of any kind? Because the games industry supported itself for several decades before loot boxes came along. Not only did they not need them, but many developers still updated their games [I]anyway.[/I] And the hilarious fucking thing is that most old games tend to provide [I]more[/I] content than games do today. This kind of shit is literally the games industry fucking you in the ass to make more money because they can, and not only will you still buy it, you'll actually defend them like they aren't a soulless corporation squeezing you dry.
You're the kind of person that buys in to billionaires trying to come off as blue collar workers.[/QUOTE]
I'm not and frankly that's a bad assumption to make off of one post.
Just because the PS3 had free online doesn't mean it was cheap to run. It was a marketing tool used to draw in more customers and it worked very well. Having already had an invested userbase they could get more paid subscribers when PS4 came around, not to mention they needed to upgrade to accomodate that. [url=https://kotaku.com/5575994/after-nearly-four-years-the-ps3-finally-turns-a-profit]It took four years for the PS3 to even turn a profit.[/url]
So let's assume Overwatch is making heaps of money, which it is. Do you really think they pocket all that? They still have to pay:
- the hundreds of salaried people that worked and still work on the game continuously plus whatever contractors they might have hired
- server maintenance and expansion as well as the teams of engineers who work on them
- marketing and advertising and all the people who do it
But let's assume that even after all that, there are a few people pocketing a LOT of money, which isn't impossible. There is still [i]no[/i] pressure to buy lootboxes because if you play for even a modest amount of time you'll earn a good amount. Not to mention the cosmetics provide absolutely no gameplay advantage other than feeling like you look cooler than everyone else. If you don't support microtransactions, and might I remind you [b]I don't[/b], don't buy the boxes. I've never bought one, never will, and I'm not at any disadvantage from it.
If you want to boycott the game entirely despite this, that's okay. You do you. I'm still going to enjoy the game I paid for but we're each entitled to our own opinion.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52902461]Also way to grind on someone for not playing a game out of not agreeing with predatory monetization tactics. I don't think that's lack of "grip", I think that's just being a responsible human being, who can see the writing on the wall regarding addictive personalities.[/QUOTE]
As if. Telling me to "get a fucking grip" because I said servers cost money is incredibly immature.
I boycott the microtransactions and still play because I am not disadvantaged for it and I think that's fair. If you want to boycott the game in a different way that's your own thing.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;52905354]Valve had the benefit of still being the "heroes of the industry" in 2012, when CS:GO came out. Believe me, when they introduced lootcrates, my skeleton almost jumped out of my body to firebomb Valve HQ. They just played their magic "b-but the community" card and enabled some pachinko loophole shit through the market and everyone was suddenly fine with it, there just wasn't a precedent for it at this scale. Now some people know for sure that lootboxes are shit and too many still don't.
And yes, it's worse to have microtransactions in a $60 game than it is to have them in a $15 game, it's a simple price-value comparison. The lower the pay-to-play barrier is, the easier microtransactions are to swallow. If you pay $60, you expect $60 of content, a singleplayer component maybe or just a lot of multiplayer content. Overwatch is not a $60 game. It's only $60 by virtue of Activision and Blizzard needing to compensate for Titan's cancellation and subsequent 100 million dollar deficit.
I don't support microtransactions in paid games either way but just saying.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you keep forgetting how valve lootboxes need real money to be opened.
Lets consider about 20 boxes. You pay for absolutely nothing related to those boxes, not to get them and not to open them.
On the other hand, for those 20 boxes, you'll pay 50 dollars to open all of them, and you most likely will not gain even a dollar out of it. And thats just the payment aspect of it. Then theres the whole website gambling behind it but I digress.
The whole point about the pricing of the game is entirely subjective though. I didn't pay 60 dollars for OW and while the game isn't all that adequate for me either, I feel like I got my money's worth out of it. The same goes for csgo, and I honestly don't feel like either of them would need a singleplayer mode, the same way a game a few years ago was supposed to have a multiplayer mode or "it wouldn't sell without it".
In the end, it ends up being a matter of "is it really worth 60 dollars to me?" and bitching about free lootboxes which you don't really need, because you bought the game for what you thought was too much.
[editline]19th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Samiam22;52905417]Valve's loot boxes are honestly the least worst on the market, because there's a way for you to go specifically after any loot box item that you really want, with no gambling required, even if it will be marked up if it's a rare item.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, imagine not getting free lootboxes at a fixed drop rate that are totally free to open and give you random things...
It sure is better to pay real money for skins.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52906743]Yeah, imagine not getting free lootboxes at a fixed drop rate that are totally free to open and give you random things...
It sure is better to pay real money for skins.[/QUOTE]
Valve games also have free drops, and also allow you to trade items you don't want with others, again for free.
I'll stick to TF2. Sorry Blizzard, even if this game was free to play like TF2 I still wouldn't have anything to do with it. I dont like the characters, the art style, the game itself, but I especially want nothing to do with its weird community fanbase.
The Overwatch skins wouldn't be bad at all if you didn't HAVE to go through the lootcrate system to get them. That and vapid limited time event content that heavily encouraged buying lootcrates if you wanted anything from the events.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
