TotalBiscuit talks about Overwatch's microtransactions and progression systems for 40ish mins - General

What it really comes down to (and I'm not talking specifically about Overwatch) is how base content, price and microtransactions are balanced in relation to each other. For example it's normal for a F2P game to have expensive cosmetics, they need to make money somehow. Or if a game is fairly priced and has well enough content to offer to begin with then extra DLC can't really affect the game negatively*. It's when the game is short on content than you have a problem: the DLC/microtransactions just add insult to injury, and the concerns that content from the base game was cut or slowed down for the purpose of DLC becomes very real. *Microtransactions like Dead Space 3's are really bad though because then it pretty much leads towards cheating/modding being forbidden, which is beyond terrible in a full-price single-player game. Now some comments about the video itself: I don't think you can just brush off cosmetic DLC on the basis that it "doesn't affect gameplay". Granted cosmetic options usually don't matter as much as gameplay (though they can be a vital core element of [I]some[/I] games, say The Sims) but they're still part of the experience. That's why I disagree with TB's opinion that it doesn't matter how slow Overwatch's progression is. Cosmetic content is still content, and if none of it was in Overwatch then I can't say for sure that the game would have felt worth the purchase. It's not even as much enjoying cosmetics as simply getting the feel that there's enough work that went into the game to justify the asking price. Still on the topic of cosmetics I don't like this way of saying "but you don't [I]need[/I] them to play the game". Well you don't [I]need[/I] to play as every Rainbow Six operator, do you? You don't [I]need[/I] to play on every Overwatch map, etc. It's a really weak argument imo, because it applies to pretty much anything. I think it might sometimes be a good thing when purchasable cosmetics can't be earned through playing (and vice versa). It ensures that the existence of microtransactions won't affect the balance of the progression system, because they're entirely separate things. Also yeah it's good being able to buy something without RNG, and without the fear of wasting money because "what if I get it for free in my next loot box?". I don't agree with the whole "more money than time" thing. TB thinks it's nice to be able to pay the developer to skip the grind, but they're the one who put it there in the first place. They're sort of creating a problem (maybe unintentionally) and selling the solution, and I don't think that I could bring myself to pay without filling like I'm getting ripped off. Maybe it's just a matter of principle, but I want to spend money on things that have some semblance of tangible value. [editline]4th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Destroyox;50456340]I don't get this argument. Are level designers going to work on skins? It only happened to TF2 because the majority of the gameplay devs abandoned it.[/QUOTE] Do you think those level designers and other gameplay devs can't be reassigned to work on other games (or laid off)? I'm not saying this will happen but don't act like it's impossible for Blizzard to focus more on skins than gameplay.

If it was either this or paid DLC characters post launch (which Blizzard was most definitely considering adding way back before the open beta), I think I'll take the hats.

But Overwatch's loot system isn't a 'grind' because you're not unlocking anything of substance, it's not a strong new sword it's a fancy skin.

[QUOTE=CyclonatorZ;50456489]If it was either this or paid DLC characters post launch (which Blizzard was most definitely considering adding way back before the open beta), I think I'll take the hats.[/QUOTE] Definitely. DLC characters in a game that's all about picking the right counters would be pretty bad.

[QUOTE=Untouch;50456296]i don't agree with people saying "but they're just cosmetic" if blizzard is getting extra money from skins, they're going to focus more on skins instead of gameplay content, as skins are what'll keep them making money on the game see: tf2[/QUOTE] You sound like someone with no idea how game development works. Also, tf2 didn't release with cosmetics, and encouraged community made content. It's a totally different situation.

I never really cared about microtransactions ever, really. Even when Payday 2 did it I didn't give a shit. In a game like Overwatch where I never even looked at the customization screen because I don't care about cosmetics, it's a total nonissue.

snip

But unlike Siege all the characters are unlocked so that's not an apt comparison. The skins in this game are fucking meaningless. There is no argument to be had here. They do not affect gameplay, they do not affect your time with the game unless that's your primary goal in relation to a game that literally doesn't focus on it at all besides as a microtransaction to make money from. There is no "Progression" in OW, like there is in Siege. They're not comparable like that. Operators in siege =/= Skins in OW.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50456545]I've never understood the hate for progression systems. You level up and get more shit, I don't see how that's bad or anything.[/QUOTE] Because a lot of games don't get the balance right, and it can ruin some games if done really bad.

I love how the only people who get upset about progression rewarded with cosmetics are those weird people who think that they are the godfather opf knowledge and ethics in video games. You gotta look for when something is done properly or improperly. Not for just when it's used.

cosmetics are meaningless. they hold no importance in gameplay. you get them for free when you play the game and can buy them optionally. that's it, no more no less. why are people complaining about this this entire argument is stupid.

[QUOTE=Untouch;50456296]i don't agree with people saying "but they're just cosmetic" if blizzard is getting extra money from skins, they're going to focus more on skins instead of gameplay content, as skins are what'll keep them making money on the game see: tf2[/QUOTE] All of the current cosmetics were made before the game was even released. AND we still have a really great game. They probably have a big enough dev team to have a few working on cosmetics, and the majority working on future content. It's way too early to tell if they are focusing more on cosmetics. However I don't believe that will ever be the case. We'll probably get it all in future updates (heroes, maps, cosmetics).

[QUOTE=Hogie bear;50456549]Because a lot of games don't get the balance right, and it can ruin some games if done really bad.[/QUOTE] Yeah there's absolutely no problem with some players having objectively better stuff than other players in a competitive game :speechless:

[QUOTE=Rossy167;50456590]Yeah there's absolutely no problem with some players having objectively better stuff than other plays :speechless:[/QUOTE] Cosmetics. Really? It's objectively better? How so? How does it objectively make you a better player? These arguments are silly. Not even stupid, it doesn't deserve to be dignified with stupid. This is a flat out silly argument.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456638]Cosmetics. Really? It's objectively better? How so? How does it objectively make you a better player? These arguments are silly. Not even stupid, it doesn't deserve to be dignified with stupid. This is a flat out silly argument.[/QUOTE] I think he was talking about linear progressions systems, not Overwatch.

[QUOTE=Skyward;50456644]I think he was talking about linear progressions systems, not Overwatch.[/QUOTE] oh, my bad apologies.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456638]Cosmetics. Really? It's objectively better? How so? How does it objectively make you a better player? These arguments are silly. Not even stupid, it doesn't deserve to be dignified with stupid. This is a flat out silly argument.[/QUOTE] I was talking about progression systems, read what I was quoting and what I was quoting was quoting.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456548]But unlike Siege all the characters are unlocked so that's not an apt comparison. The skins in this game are fucking meaningless. There is no argument to be had here. They do not affect gameplay, they do not affect your time with the game unless that's your primary goal in relation to a game that literally doesn't focus on it at all besides as a microtransaction to make money from. There is no "Progression" in OW, like there is in Siege. They're not comparable like that. Operators in siege =/= Skins in OW.[/QUOTE] Certain legendary skins do sorta affect the game. Mainly in the case of Hanzo, where his wolf skins have him say his ult quieter until the very end, which makes it more difficult to dodge compared to his non-legendary skins. That's the only exception that I can think of though.

[QUOTE=Gunzers6;50456683]Certain legendary skins do sorta affect the game. Mainly in the case of Hanzo, where his wolf skins have him say his ult quieter until the very end, which makes it more difficult to dodge compared to his non-legendary skins. That's the only exception that I can think of though.[/QUOTE] I don't think it does that. I've played against that skin, it seemed just as loud as the normal one.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456732]I don't think it does that. I've played against that skin, it seemed just as loud as the normal one.[/QUOTE] idk I've found it's harder to dodge. Perhaps I should've mentioned that it starts out quieter then gets louder nearer to the end than the original skin, though that could just be me being terrible.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456732]I don't think it does that. I've played against that skin, it seemed just as loud as the normal one.[/QUOTE] [url=https://youtu.be/tdGogi4rdnU?t=34s]there's a different voice line[/url], and it plays for the enemy team as well, but the only advantage it gives you is catching the people who have never heard it before

I feel skins in Overwatch can actually handicap you - people get legendary skins for heroes they can't play and then you have to deal with clueless vegetable Genjis who never switch heroes :vs:

[QUOTE=Ripper Roo;50456798]I feel skins in Overwatch can actually handicap you - people get legendary skins for heroes they can't play and then you have to deal with clueless vegetable Genjis who never switch heroes :vs:[/QUOTE] Getting a legendary for a hero you never play tends to be a nice incentive to try them out.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;50456838]Getting a legendary for a hero you never play tends to be a nice incentive to try them out.[/QUOTE] Can confirm. I got a legendary for Winston, whom I've never had any reason to play. Now he's my favorite tank.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;50456838]Getting a legendary for a hero you never play tends to be a nice incentive to try them out.[/QUOTE] It is, but it is also important to try to have a sensible team composition instead of insta-locking heroes you have skins for. I got a legendary skin for Zenyatta and I really wanted to get into him, but the pubbies I played with killed that feeling with their moaning how I should play more useful supports instead (God forbid they'd go one).

[QUOTE=Ripper Roo;50456871]It is, but it is also important to try to have a sensible team composition instead of insta-locking heroes you have skins for. I got a legendary skin for Zenyatta and I really wanted to get into him, but the pubbies I played with killed that feeling with their moaning how I should play more useful supports instead (God forbid they'd go one).[/QUOTE] it's always the worst when people bitch at you to go their favourite support and not your favourite or the most applicable but they utterly refuse to play anything but some attack class.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50456890]it's always the worst when people bitch at you to go their favourite support and not your favourite or the most applicable but they utterly refuse to play anything but some attack class.[/QUOTE] reaper players are the worst "omfg we lost nobody wants to go tank or support because my team is full of idiots" instantly chooses reaper before hand

Skins being micro transactions is fine but the gambling/crate/gacha system is anti-consumer imo. It's gambling and you have no way to guarantee you get what you want. Why couldn't it have been just direct buy skins for real money or reliable in-game money?

[QUOTE=ashxu;50457262]Skins being micro transactions is fine but the gambling/crate/gacha system is anti-consumer imo. It's gambling and you have no way to guarantee you get what you want. Why couldn't it have been just direct buy skins for real money or reliable in-game money?[/QUOTE] Because that would discourage people from trying out different heroes.

[QUOTE=NoobSauce;50456568]cosmetics are meaningless. they hold no importance in gameplay. you get them for free when you play the game and can buy them optionally. that's it, no more no less. why are people complaining about this this entire argument is stupid.[/QUOTE] Yes let's just shut down all discussion about this. No one can question our Blizzard overlords. Stop being such a blind fanboy. [editline]5th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Damjen;50457269]Because that would discourage people from trying out different heroes.[/QUOTE] You can try other heroes by... trying other heroes. There's nothing stopping you from doing so. I'm pretty sure people want skins for characters they actually play. I doubt many people want skins for characters they don't lol.