Overwatch - It's Actually a Trick To Make Everyone Play HotS, also BUY - Games

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52323337]this game is played by children[/QUOTE] Children that have debit cards and PayPal accounts?

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323344]Children that have debit cards and PayPal accounts?[/QUOTE] children who are exposed to a mechanism that is designed to extract money from consumers by plying gambling urges in people sorry, "it's optional" doesn't justify enormously anti-consumer monetization schemes that in every other medium are age-gated and heavily regulated

[QUOTE=PyrO_o;52323300][URL="http://kotaku.com/a-look-inside-the-art-of-overwatch-1795883309"]Kotaku published 4 pages from the incoming book "The Art of Overwatch"[/URL], and they're published a page with interesting early Lucio concept. [t]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/geyxsnmsd29igso6lixr.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Is that Junkcio Lucrat?

[QUOTE=UzumakaiPatch;52322665]It's not low though is it.[/QUOTE] Considering it's a AAA-title and it's only a year old, and the only benefit of the 59.99 edition is some arbitrary cosmetics, it's very low compared to games from other AAA-developers.

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323312]So call them minor content patches instead and stop being so impatient for the big content patches because [I]it takes time to develop them.[/I] You can't expect them to push a new map, new gamemode and new character every single month. That's unrealistic. Why is it such a big deal that they add small content patches with fun little things like cosmetics or map reskins while you wait for the major patches? I'm almost certain that they're releasing the small content updates so people wont whine and complain that there's nothing new. Or would you rather wait months between major updates while they work on new maps and characters?[/QUOTE] What? I'm just saying you can't dismiss content just because it doesn't affect gameplay.

[QUOTE=Jorori;52323355]Is that Junkcio Lucrat?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/80C7ADw.png[/img] hes a fucking pokemon gym leader

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52323351]children who are exposed to a mechanism that is designed to extract money from consumers by plying gambling urges in people sorry, "it's optional" doesn't justify enormously anti-consumer monetization schemes that in every other medium are age-gated and heavily regulated[/QUOTE] If the children buy lootboxes with their parents money, it's the parents' responsibility to control it. When the only income other than the purchase of the original game is microtransactions, of course they will attempt to lock some of [I]small[/I] event specific [I]cosmetics[/I] behind a paywall or else they wouldn't make the income to make new [I]major[/I] content patches. Would you rather pay monthly to play the game? Cause that's the only other major option for them to continue to make new major content. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] That or they charge for the major content updates which is a great way to make the consumers dislike the developers. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52323362]What? I'm just saying you can't dismiss content just because it doesn't affect gameplay.[/QUOTE] I'm not dismissing it. Yes, it's still content, but it's quick content to satisfy the consumers while they wait for the major patches.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52323356]Considering it's a AAA-title and it's only a year old, and the only benefit of the 59.99 edition is some arbitrary cosmetics, it's very low compared to games from other AAA-developers.[/QUOTE] And other AAA devs charge like three times the price of most games on the market. Overwatch costs less than the absolute most anybody would ever pay for a game, but it still costs much more than the vast majority of games on launch.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52323351]children who are exposed to a mechanism that is designed to extract money from consumers by plying gambling urges in people sorry, "it's optional" doesn't justify enormously anti-consumer monetization schemes that in every other medium are age-gated and heavily regulated[/QUOTE] Parents can easily turn off in-game purchases with blizzard. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323375] I'm not dismissing it. Yes, it's still content, but it's quick content to satisfy the consumers while they wait for the major patches.[/QUOTE] I think we're on the same side.

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323375]If the children buy lootboxes with their parents money, it's the parents' responsibility to control it. When the only income other than the purchase of the original game is microtransactions, of course they will attempt to lock some of [I]small[/I] event specific [I]cosmetics[/I] behind a paywall or else they wouldn't make the income to make new [I]major[/I] content patches. Would you rather pay monthly to play the game? Cause that's the only other major option for them to continue to make new major content. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] That or they charge for the major content updates which is a great way to make the consumers dislike the developers.[/QUOTE] having a paid subscription or having to gamble for cosmetics are not the only two payment models, that is a false dichotomy - gambling mechanics in games that are as transparent as loot crates are a recent development popularised by TF2 i don't remember ludicrously successful games like league of legends or world of tanks having loot crate mechanics until fairly recently, and neither of those were full price games we're not even talking about a free to play game here, we're talking about a full price game that was sold with continued support advertised - so the monetization scheme should be much lighter than F2P. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52323394]Parents can easily turn off in-game purchases with blizzard. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] I think we're on the same side.[/QUOTE] i'm not interested in children buying cosmetics because that can be controlled, i'm interested in a) children being exposed to something that is highly regulated outside of this one medium because gambling is extremely bad and b) blizzard not implementing gambling mechanics which are highly anti-consumer - they are designed to extract as much money as possible, while encouraging people to continue rolling the dice timed events are a mechanism where consumers are advertised items, told that there's a certain time period that they can get them in, and the only reasonable option for acquiring them is a gambling mechanic (while the in-game currency route is extortionately expensive, and in-game methods of getting that currency incredibly inconsistent) it's enormously anti-consumer, and defending practices like this damage the games industry as a whole

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323266]Have you really been blinded by Valve's shitty excuse for a content update being cosmetics and weapon reskins as the norm? If you need an excuse to keep playing then you're experiencing the very normal phenomenon of 'videogame burnout' and it's time for you to take a break and maybe come back to Overwatch later. Complaints about current character interactions in-game despite the devs saying that the in-game character interactions are not canonical? I really don't understand what you guys are complaining about. I'd rather have the devs put out actual content updates in due time with new maps, new heroes and new gamemodes as the primary focus. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] The events (Olympics, Junkenstein, Christmas, Lunar New Year) are more like minor patches. The Anniversary Event is like a major patch that added three new arena maps with an interesting spin, though nothing groundbreaking, on the already established 3v3 gamemode. It's fine if that doesn't interest you, but that's still major content. Eichenwalde and Oasis were part of major updates, and so were Ana, Sombra and Orisa. I don't think you realize how long it takes to make new maps and new characters.[/QUOTE] You seem nicer in the update videos, Jeff :v:

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52323404]having a paid subscription or having to gamble for cosmetics are not the only two payment models, that is a false dichotomy - gambling mechanics in games that are as transparent as loot crates are a recent development popularised by TF2 i don't remember ludicrously successful games like league of legends or world of tanks having loot crate mechanics until fairly recently, and neither of those were full price games we're not even talking about a free to play game here, we're talking about a full price game that was sold with continued support advertised[/QUOTE] The devs need money to continue making content, do you not realize that? Sure, they're making money from people buying the game, but that wont continue to be the case forever. It's a business stragedy that allows people who want to tip the developers do so and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the idea of it being randomized loot at the end of the day however, but it's still an optional fee that you as a consumer should know is just that; optional. You're not locked out of earning those lootboxes from just playing the game. From what I understand, a compromise that you would be fine with is the option to buy currency so you can buy those specific cosmetics with your own money, but you can't just say that you don't want the developers to advertise their lootboxes, because they need the money to make updates and maybe hire new staff.

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52323389]And other AAA devs charge like three times the price of most games on the market. Overwatch costs less than the absolute most anybody would ever pay for a game, but it still costs much more than the vast majority of games on launch.[/QUOTE] Considering the absolute vast mass majority of [I]AAA titles[/I] usually launch at 59.99, the price is fine where it is. Are you including indie titles when you say "vast majority of games"? Because sure, Indie games might go for 4.99, but you've gotta take into account the amount of work-power that goes into projects depending on where the production company is at in the industry. A AAA-game will need to recuperate it's developments costs and ongoing maintenance in a way an indie-game won't usually need.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52323446]Considering the absolute vast mass majority of [I]AAA titles[/I] usually launch at 59.99, the price is fine where it is. Are you including indie titles when you say "vast majority of games"? Because sure, Indie games might go for 4.99, but you've gotta take into account the amount of work-power that goes into projects depending on where the production company is at in the industry. A AAA-game will need to recuperate it's developments costs and ongoing maintenance in a way an indie-game won't usually need.[/QUOTE] None of that changes the fact that overwatch is a very expensive game.

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323445]The devs need money to continue making content, do you not realize that? Sure, they're making money from people buying the game, but that wont continue to be the case forever. It's a business stragedy that allows people who want to tip the developers do so and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the idea of it being randomized loot at the end of the day however, but it's still an optional fee that you as a consumer should know is just that; optional. You're not locked out of earning those lootboxes from just playing the game. From what I understand, a compromise that you would be fine with is the option to buy currency so you can buy those specific cosmetics with your own money, but you can't just say that you don't want the developers to advertise their lootboxes, because they need the money to make updates and maybe hire new staff.[/QUOTE] a fair system to buy the currency would alleviate some of my concerns however, i disagree that a system like this is a requirement for continued development TF2 had continued development from release in October 2007, and only had the drop system implemented in April 20th 2010, with crates being introduced in September 30th 2010 Mannconomy update, with the game going free to play in June 2011 considering TF2 was not even a full-price game, the idea that blizzard couldn't support development without a system nickel-and-diming people even when the game is full price, is very silly this isn't to say that I am a fan of what happened to TF2, but [I]at least[/I] TF2 went free to play in the end soon after the item madness took hold- can we say the same of Overwatch?

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52323461]None of that changes the fact that overwatch is a very expensive game.[/QUOTE] It isn't, though.

It would be cheaper to buy a season pass then it would be to try and unlock every item in Overwatch. And the people that drop $60 every event for lootboxes could have bought several season passes by now :v:

I played during the free weekend. Good game, easier to get decent if you played TF2 before, since it feels similar. Steep price though.

[QUOTE=Crackodile;52323561]I played during the free weekend. Good game, easier to get decent if you played TF2 before, since it feels similar. Steep price though.[/QUOTE] You could've saved $20 on it until like 2 days ago, actually. I do recommend picking it up next sale at least.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52323462]a fair system to buy the currency would alleviate some of my concerns however, i disagree that a system like this is a requirement for continued development TF2 had continued development from release in October 2007, and only had the drop system implemented in April 20th 2010, with crates being introduced in September 30th 2010 Mannconomy update, with the game going free to play in June 2011 considering TF2 was not even a full-price game, the idea that blizzard couldn't support development without a system nickel-and-diming people even when the game is full price, is very silly this isn't to say that I am a fan of what happened to TF2, but [I]at least[/I] TF2 went free to play in the end soon after the item madness took hold- can we say the same of Overwatch?[/QUOTE] I don't understand why people insist on comparing Overwatch to TF2 just because they're classbased shooters, but here we go. After they implemented crates and trading three years down the line, I remember people being against it, me included. Introducing this kind of stuff down the line can hurt the game community, and the same happened with Payday 2, on a much heavier scale too I might add. If Overwatch decided to follow the trend of random lootboxes, that was made popular by a company that have more or less abandoned the IP that paid for their company for years, then let them. It's just part of the norm and you really shouldn't be surprised that Activision Blizzard is doing it for all their recent games.

[QUOTE=PyrO_o;52323300][URL="http://kotaku.com/a-look-inside-the-art-of-overwatch-1795883309"]Kotaku published 4 pages from the incoming book "The Art of Overwatch"[/URL], and they're published a page with interesting early Lucio concept. [t]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/geyxsnmsd29igso6lixr.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] This design looks super familiar and I can't figure it out

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323603]I don't understand why people insist on comparing Overwatch to TF2 just because they're classbased shooters, but here we go. After they implemented crates and trading three years down the line, I remember people being against it, me included. Introducing this kind of stuff down the line can hurt the game community, and the same happened with Payday 2, on a much heavier scale too I might add. If Overwatch decided to follow the trend of random lootboxes, that was made popular by a company that have more or less abandoned the IP that paid for their company for years, then let them. It's just part of the norm and you really shouldn't be surprised that Activision Blizzard is doing it for all their recent games.[/QUOTE] i'm comparing it to TF2 because TF2 is the counterpoint to your idea that games need a recurrent revenue stream for any support the point is that TF2 gave people at least two years of support before they started to monetize, whereas overwatch has been aggressively nickel-and-diming people, even on the anniversary of the game if overwatch decided to follow the trend set by TF2 where they released the game in an [I]insanely high value[/I] bundle, gave it two years of support without getting a penny from it, and then transitioned into a free to play model with item purchasing, we wouldn't be having this discussion it may be the norm, but it's bad, and hopefully people will continue to slam blizzard for it [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] the fact that you can't trade in overwatch or hearthstone really does suggest the system is anti-consumer - and the fact that blizzard essentially made fun of the chinese law that would have been a great opportunity to alleviate some of this, shows this isn't changing right now

Seriously why wasn't the anniversary event concept art skins instead of "random shit we couldn't fit else where"

[QUOTE=Zeos;52323667]This design looks super familiar and I can't figure it out[/QUOTE] It reminds me fairly much of Street Fighter's Deejay. Shirtless, bright orange loose pants and fingerless gloves, the Colgate smile. The two could probably get along quite well in general.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;52323681]Seriously why wasn't the anniversary event concept art skins instead of "random shit we couldn't fit else where"[/QUOTE] Isn't the sym skin based off concept art though?

[QUOTE=Stoffy;52323239]Cosmetics count as "content"?[/QUOTE] Yes. [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323266] I really don't understand what you guys are complaining about. I'd rather have the devs put out actual content updates in due time with new maps, new heroes and new gamemodes as the primary focus. I don't think you realize how long it takes to make new maps and new characters.[/QUOTE] They can take all the time they want. I just don't like the way they distribute the content. I don't think content, no matter how trivial, should be behind a paywall or time locked when I already paid full retail price for the game. [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323331]It's optional. If you can't control your gambling addiction to get virtual cosmetics, that's your problem and not the devs.[/QUOTE] It's not that it's gambling. It's that the only way to reliably get the content I want from each update is to rely on RNG, and then if that doesn't work to pay more for more RNG. I paid for the game, there should be a way to reliably get content I want even if it means grinding a ton. The current set up where you can only grind for a finite amount of time means if I don't get the RNG content I want Im shit out of luck. [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323375] I'm not dismissing it. Yes, it's still content, but it's quick content to satisfy the consumers while they wait for the major patches.[/QUOTE] Quick content that players can not reliably get without paying more. [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323445]The devs need money to continue making content, do you not realize that? Sure, they're making money from people buying the game, but that wont continue to be the case forever. It's a business stragedy that allows people who want to tip the developers do so and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the idea of it being randomized loot at the end of the day however, but it's still an optional fee that you as a consumer should know is just that; optional. You're not locked out of earning those lootboxes from just playing the game. From what I understand, a compromise that you would be fine with is the option to buy currency so you can buy those specific cosmetics with your own money, but you can't just say that you don't want the developers to advertise their lootboxes, because they need the money to make updates and maybe hire new staff.[/QUOTE] That's a business, yes. I disagree with how they are doing it. It should not be "optionable" where your only choices are [i]1. get screwed by RNG tough shit if you didnt get the item you want[/i] or [i]2. BUY[/i]. [QUOTE=Stoffy;52323603] If Overwatch decided to follow the trend of random lootboxes [a la TF2], that was made popular by a company that have more or less abandoned the IP that paid for their company for years, then let them. It's just part of the norm and you really shouldn't be surprised that Activision Blizzard is doing it for all their recent games.[/QUOTE] The difference between between OW and TF2 both using this same microtransaction structure is that TF2 is free, OW is $40. And even then TF2 has in game trading and cosmetic crafting so that even if you don't buy keys you can still turn your random drops into the items you like.

This anniversary update should have been rolled into Uprising, and the 'classic' skins should have been unlocks, the timing of the two being back to back is really weird, especially since the current event is so goddamn flaccid and lifeless.

If something is added to the game. It's content. It's not that hard to understand. Just because you don't care for cosmetics doesn't make it not content.

I really wish Blizzard would just release an SDK that's solely geared towards map making at some point, modders are clearly capable of creating some of the best maps when they put their love and effort into it. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons they'd be against doing this would be because issues with their drop system, or maintaining equality between platforms.

[QUOTE=Breastigator;52323996]I really wish Blizzard would just release an SDK that's solely geared towards map making at some point,[B] modders are clearly capable of creating some of the best maps [/B]when they put their love and effort into it. [/QUOTE] This is exactly why they won't do it. They [I]know[/I] that the modders will deliver better map design than the official maps.