The beta is very far away from being a contender for an e-sports game.
They really need to add a lot to the gameplay and make it a hell of a lot more skillbased instead of having huge dragons that move through walls and kill everything they touch.
It's a fun casual F2P game.... noway near an e-sports FPP game though.
60$ is fine by me if it means no DLC/season pass and no cash shop or other nickle and dime scheme. Full price yearly expansions are also a big NO. There was a time before WoW when I had faith in Blizzard but now I expect the worst, I won't be buying until I get official word of how it will be monetized for years to come.
When they first revealed Overwatch, especially with the lengthy trailer..... I had hoped it would be a combination of PVE and PVP kind of game.
As the trailer showed an interesting new IP that would lend itself for a new kind of RPG.
But now it seems the trailer was just a farce and yet another remnant of the Titan MMO project, as now everything points to a stupid E-sport milkcow kind of small team PVP game and that´s it.
Thanks but no thanks! /shrug
60$ is fine by me if it means no DLC/season pass and no cash shop or other nickle and dime scheme. Full price yearly expansions are also a big NO. There was a time before WoW when I had faith in Blizzard but now I expect the worst, I won't be buying until I get official word of how it will be monetized for years to come.
I think your comment about how it will be monetized over time is astute.
I think paid dlc will be a given. A cash shop probably. Season passes who knows - you might need one for competing in an e-sports league. The only thing you can be sure of is that you will get what is "in the box" at whatever price you pay.
Bill Murphy has confirmed that there is an Origins Edition of the game that comes with all heroes. We have to remember that MMORPG.com has claimed confirms in the past, only for those confirms to then turn out to be utter nonsense or only half true. MMORP{G is a low-market outfit that offers low integrity in a low-demand field of gaming journalism. Nothing this site says should ever be taken with anything other than humour and disregard.
My opinion: Origins Edition is a founder's deal. Buy the game for $60, get all heroes at launch, plus a set of premium skins, etc. The game will almost certainly be F2P with premium heroes and skins. Nothing about this say "exclusively B2P" and the game's model doesn't lend to it.
The comparisons to Diablo 3 are mute; Diablo 3 had an EXTENSIVE single player campaign that was the leverage to get people to buy. Overwatch follows the same model as every successful arena shooter out there, and they are all F2P. Further, and given Blizzard's success with Hearthstone and their movement of World of Warcraft to a hybrid model, it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to take this announcement as anything resembling a confirmation of a static model with a $60 barrier to entry.
Shoddy journalism, a product of hype, without any objectivity. Good job, hobby journos!
I imagine he will vote with his wallet, as will I.
People do not seem to understand how voting with the wallet works (or perhaps it is voting in general). The only thing that counts is how much money is spent (votes cast). You can not vote against something by not spending money, you can only vote for something else, by spending. Whatever gets the most money (votes) is the leader and is what the industry chases. The only way to change the industry is by spending money (and lots of it). Those who do not spend, get no say.
Doesn't it make sense for this to just be a "hero pack"?
A.k.a. FREE game, but you need to pay to unlock heroes and skins and etc. + free rotation of heroes ofc. Which would be 100% identical to HotS...
oh ok so drop $60 on a game with zero story that looks like it was originally designed to be a f2p model or drop $40 on a game (diablo 3) with an amazing story and a great multiplayer experience... fucking hilarious.
I am amazed that this has a price tag, this is a F2P game all the way.
How the game currently is: 1: Choose a character 2: Get dropped into an arena 3: Try to kill as many people as you can 4: Repeat
If they expect people to buy this game they have to include a single player campaign or something else to do offline.
Please learn from Titanfall
The people making Battleborn expect you to play for that game, and it's practically the same thing. Go play Psladins if you wanna play free Overwatch.
Not really, Battleborn at least offers a campaign on top of the multiplayer side. This is just a straight arena.
Tbh, unless you got in the beta you have no clue what you're going to get.
They can't release it like a typical arena game with 4 - 5 maps and 3 - 4 modes, then add more later (So far i only know of 2 ). It needs to at least have double the above as a bare minimum, maybe even PvPvE and PvE modes
You guys are taking an image and a rumor and going to war. A lot of F2P games have launch bundles. Heroes of the Storm had a $50 bundle that unlocked most of their initial roster and gave several skins. Given Blizzard's history with developing F2P titles that monetize style and early unlocks and tie that to the fact that that image that Bill was nice enough to provide shows that the listed product is the "Origins Edition" complete with 5 skins I would say they are following the same pattern they have for their last two games.
But yea take that click bait title and arm yourself with the context less image and lets go picket BlizzCon.
__________________________________ I would not object to Overwatch having a flat box price, but it would have to work just like the seventeen years, give or take, of online multiplayer FPS that came before it.
Classes are not to be held hostage by nickle and dime DLC. Servers can be hosted by anyone anywhere on their own hardware. Custom content is allowed and even encouraged.
However, Blizzard being a company that keeps their products in a stranglehold, will never allow players these freedoms. Freedoms coincidentally afforded by the game it is constantly compared to, Team Fortress 2.
That said, it is poor practice to do these things to a free game as well. There is more than enough money to be made in areas that do not influence gameplay if they had any respect for the players.
I've played a lot of 'PvP' FPS games and to me single player isn't interesting in these types of games. To me it's weird hearing people say that FPS games need a single player campaign to be worth full price. A good 'PvP' FPS game offers endless replayability and I much prefer games focused on doing that well rather than wasting energy on a single player campaign that lasts 10 hours? on average.
There are many FPS games with single player for people who prefer that but very few good 'PvP' FPS games released since the good old days of Quake and Unreal Tournament.
Hope they have more to add from now to launch... that value for content no where matches a blizzard game like say diablo 3.
21 heroes / 2 game modes 1 with 5 maps other with 3 / 6 vs 6....
Oh and to look forward to future sales of heroes / maps / skins etcs
This doesn't give me the normal must buy from a blizzard product... even less when you know there is f2p's that offer the pretty much same FPS experience with more content for free.
I imagine he will vote with his wallet, as will I.
People do not seem to understand how voting with the wallet works (or perhaps it is voting in general). The only thing that counts is how much money is spent (votes cast). You can not vote against something by not spending money, you can only vote for something else, by spending. Whatever gets the most money (votes) is the leader and is what the industry chases. The only way to change the industry is by spending money (and lots of it). Those who do not spend, get no say.
I don't think I disagreed with the statement you quoted, though.
I will be spending money on games in the future. Just not a $60 Overwatch. I'll save that for The Division on a preorder. Or maybe I'll spend it on a few indie games off Steam.
However, a vote to not spend money on this game does have an effect, if the majority of interested players vote in the same manner. Even if they don't place that earmarked money elsewhere, a failed game (financially speaking) is failed even if players don't move money they thought about spending on this game over to another title. Blizzard doesn't get that money de facto just because it's not spent elsewhere.
Voting here is not equivalent to voting in, say, a Presidential election. Indeed, a non-vote in such an election does not make the statement a vote does, because there's no requirement for a minimum percentage of votes cast from the population. It's different when we speak about throwing money vs. not throwing it.
EDIT- On another note, I have a feeling Origins Edition isn't the only price point that will be offered upon release. F2P? Probably not, but I could see a $20-30 version that doesn't come with as many bells and whistles after the game is released.
The sad thing is, it was a better game back when we paid for it. Now, with all these random weapons, it's become hogwash in the purview of a competitive arena shooter.
"Overwatch-themed content for several Blizzard Entertainment games:
Heroes of the Storm™ - Tracer Hero
World of Warcraft® - Baby Winston Pet
StarCraft® II Portraits
Hearthstone® Cardback
Diablo® III - Mercy Wings"
sigh.
wait isn't there an standard edition for 40 bucks or something? anyway i think CSGO and TF2 were cheaper at launch regardless not sure though (TF2 used to b2p).
either way i am only gonna buy Legacy of the Void from Blizzard's recent products and that is if it has an acceptable story. yea i know, it's an Esport title. just like almost all their titles these days.
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
I lost all interest in the game once they announced the price. As a F2P with the HOTS model I was very interested. As a B2P with micro-transactions and no details on how they'd make future heroes/skins available I have zero interest. I'll try TF2 first.
Doesn't it make sense for this to just be a "hero pack"?
A.k.a. FREE game, but you need to pay to unlock heroes and skins and etc. + free rotation of heroes ofc. Which would be 100% identical to HotS...
That would actually require Blizzard to spend more money on this failure. Blizzard isn't really looking to make a good game that could possibly pull away WOW subscribers, but they are interested in offering new things for WOW subscribers to do between expansions. This is the reason why HOTS, Hearthstone, and Overwatch don't look like complete games designed to drawn in a new kind of Blizzard player, but games that look like they are designed to waste your time until the next WOW expansion.
I imagine he will vote with his wallet, as will I.
People do not seem to understand how voting with the wallet works (or perhaps it is voting in general). The only thing that counts is how much money is spent (votes cast). You can not vote against something by not spending money, you can only vote for something else, by spending. Whatever gets the most money (votes) is the leader and is what the industry chases. The only way to change the industry is by spending money (and lots of it). Those who do not spend, get no say.
I don't think I disagreed with the statement you quoted, though.
I will be spending money on games in the future. Just not a $60 Overwatch. I'll save that for The Division on a preorder. Or maybe I'll spend it on a few indie games off Steam.
However, a vote to not spend money on this game does have an effect, if the majority of interested players vote in the same manner. Even if they don't place that earmarked money elsewhere, a failed game (financially speaking) is failed even if players don't move money they thought about spending on this game over to another title. Blizzard doesn't get that money de facto just because it's not spent elsewhere.
Voting here is not equivalent to voting in, say, a Presidential election. Indeed, a non-vote in such an election does not make the statement a vote does, because there's no requirement for a minimum percentage of votes cast from the population. It's different when we speak about throwing money vs. not throwing it.
Sadly, this is not how it works. The only measure of success is the money made by a product. It is totally unimportant how much money it COULD have made (if done differently).The fact that some people do not like how something is done, and choose not to pay for it is normal for any product. It is only unusual if nobody (or hardly any) people are willing to pay for the product. The fact that some people are willing to pay for it means that it is perfectly viable.
The industry (and its financial backers) only look at where the money goes, and then they try to make products that can get a portion of that money. Without big(er) spending on something else, they do not see any need to change. Voting with you wallet is picking A or B... but this does not change the industry. To do that you need to spend 3-4x as much on B, if you want to stop them from making A.
Comments
..Cake..
https://ashesofcreation.com/r/Y4U3PQCASUPJ5SED
I think paid dlc will be a given. A cash shop probably. Season passes who knows - you might need one for competing in an e-sports league. The only thing you can be sure of is that you will get what is "in the box" at whatever price you pay.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
The normal version is $40.
The extra $20 is for a skin, WoW pet, HotS hero, SC2 portraits and D3 vanity item.
Again, if you just want to play Overwatch it's $40.
Tbh, unless you got in the beta you have no clue what you're going to get.
They can't release it like a typical arena game with 4 - 5 maps and 3 - 4 modes, then add more later (So far i only know of 2
__________________________________
I would not object to Overwatch having a flat box price, but it would have to work just like the seventeen years, give or take, of online multiplayer FPS that came before it.
Classes are not to be held hostage by nickle and dime DLC.
Servers can be hosted by anyone anywhere on their own hardware.
Custom content is allowed and even encouraged.
However, Blizzard being a company that keeps their products in a stranglehold, will never allow players these freedoms.
Freedoms coincidentally afforded by the game it is constantly compared to, Team Fortress 2.
That said, it is poor practice to do these things to a free game as well.
There is more than enough money to be made in areas that do not influence gameplay if they had any respect for the players.
There are many FPS games with single player for people who prefer that but very few good 'PvP' FPS games released since the good old days of Quake and Unreal Tournament.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I will be spending money on games in the future. Just not a $60 Overwatch. I'll save that for The Division on a preorder. Or maybe I'll spend it on a few indie games off Steam.
However, a vote to not spend money on this game does have an effect, if the majority of interested players vote in the same manner. Even if they don't place that earmarked money elsewhere, a failed game (financially speaking) is failed even if players don't move money they thought about spending on this game over to another title. Blizzard doesn't get that money de facto just because it's not spent elsewhere.
Voting here is not equivalent to voting in, say, a Presidential election. Indeed, a non-vote in such an election does not make the statement a vote does, because there's no requirement for a minimum percentage of votes cast from the population. It's different when we speak about throwing money vs. not throwing it.
EDIT- On another note, I have a feeling Origins Edition isn't the only price point that will be offered upon release. F2P? Probably not, but I could see a $20-30 version that doesn't come with as many bells and whistles after the game is released.
The sad thing is, it was a better game back when we paid for it. Now, with all these random weapons, it's become hogwash in the purview of a competitive arena shooter.
my top MMOs: UO,DAOC,WoW,GW2
most of my posts are just my opinions they are not facts,it is the same for you too.
That would actually require Blizzard to spend more money on this failure. Blizzard isn't really looking to make a good game that could possibly pull away WOW subscribers, but they are interested in offering new things for WOW subscribers to do between expansions. This is the reason why HOTS, Hearthstone, and Overwatch don't look like complete games designed to drawn in a new kind of Blizzard player, but games that look like they are designed to waste your time until the next WOW expansion.
The industry (and its financial backers) only look at where the money goes, and then they try to make products that can get a portion of that money. Without big(er) spending on something else, they do not see any need to change. Voting with you wallet is picking A or B... but this does not change the industry. To do that you need to spend 3-4x as much on B, if you want to stop them from making A.