Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Multiplatform Versions Revealed with $60 Price Tag | Overwatch | MMORPG.com

1235»

Comments

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    Man you guys meaning the people responding in horror they have to spend money on software are so far down the entitlement rabbits hole I cant even believe it.  Here's a solution, keep playing your free games and stop worry about what people with jobs that pay above the poverty level spend their money on.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    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.

    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.
    Well that's what I meant by "majority of interested players."

    Sure, if the game makes any money whatsoever, it's viable.  However, if it barely makes end's meet, I doubt Blizzard will pour a large amount of resources into the continued development and advertising (unless their research determines that a lack of exposure caused the product to fall short of its expected profit goals).  Judging by the way they scrapped Titan after so long, I wouldn't say Blizzard is above cutting off a project that isn't deemed worth the continued funding and effort.

    Will the other poster and my money make that difference, alone?  No.  But if enough players decide $60 is too much for the content offered, it will send a message.  Will that happen?  Honestly, with the way Destiny's release went, I'm slightly pessimistic that folks can see past a developer logo to judge a product on objective merits these days.  That doesn't change the fact that I won't support it with my dollars if I don't find the content worthy of the price (I don't).

    It's a vote.  Will it matter?  Probably not.  But I still won't cave and spend money on such miniscule content just because Blizzard's logo ensured it's profitability at launch (because let's be honest...  a no-name developer wouldn't dare launch a PC arena multiplayer game for $60, even if a console port was included).

    image
  • BaitnessBaitness Member UncommonPosts: 675
    Sounds like Blizzard is drastically overestimating the appeal of a moba/tf2 hybrid.  What makes those games so successful seems to be hooking the player and then offering them microtransactions.  Blizzard has just removed the hook.

    For awhile now Blizzard has shown they no longer know or care wtf they are doing.  Earlier games had a focus on awesome lore and compelling gameplay, whereas now it seems like their biggest focus for each game they make is just how to monetize it.  Diablo 3:  Hey guys wut if we made ebay for virtual items?  WoW:  Hey guys wut if we charged more for our expansions and then just didn't add more content?  Hearthstone:  Hey guys wut if we could make gambling with cartoons?  Overwatch: lets make a F2P game, charge for it up front AND load it with microtransactions!

    I am getting really frustrated seeing this once great company churning out crap after crap just to test different methods of milking their fans.
Sign In or Register to comment.