Overwatch marks a new low in Unlocking and Microtransaction systems that I'm aware of

Steve Youngblood said:
But I also recognize that this can be a very slippery slope. How do you make sure that progress stays the same for people who aren't paying for microtransactions? Because the appearance of people willing to pay is something that I can recognize as sending a signal to try to incentivize paying. Can devs resist the temptation to make the natural systems to unlock more tedious? Even if they do, it's going to be hard as consumers to not be a tad cynical and wonder what might have been if there was no real currency option for unlocks.

So the tl;dr from me is that I don't think microtransactions are inherently bad, but I understand why consumers distrust them.
Click to expand...
This is always the issue I have with micro transactions. And the way the game systems are built/designed to take these transactions into account.
 
psyfi said:
I really really hate the "random box of goodies" unlock system. Halo 5 has it, too, and it drives me nuts. I just want to earn in-game points and choose the specific items I want... Cause really, there's only fifteen things at most that I'll ever bother with.

But oh well. It looks like this system is really successful, so I better get used to it.
Click to expand...

The random box of goodies can also include in-game currency so you can purchase specific items.
 
psyfi said:
I really really hate the "random box of goodies" unlock system. Halo 5 has it, too, and it drives me nuts. I just want to earn in-game points and choose the specific items I want... Cause really, there's only fifteen things at most that I'll ever bother with.

But oh well. It looks like this system is really successful, so I better get used to it.
Click to expand...

Thats good, you can buy the 15 things you want with the gold you get from the loot boxes.

But.. it seems like you havent played the game (yet?)
 
But seriously, if we look at the OP in regards to this specific game, this statement:

A new low in 'carrot & stick' progression design; in closing-off any kind of content to give the illusion there's more of it by unlocking. A new low in nickle and diming microtransactions.
Click to expand...

Is completely off base and ridiculously hyperbolic.
 
The hyperbole in the first post is hilarious but I don't disagree that the way the unlocks are being handled isn't sometimes frustrating. I'd love a better way to zero in on character unlocks I desire without relying on acquiring fun bucks or hoping they drop. The prices on some unlocks are very high compared to the rate I'm acquiring money so that entire portion of the game is just a source of frustration for me.
 
Interfectum said:
The random box of goodies can also include in-game currency so you can purchase specific items.
Click to expand...

MMaRsu said:
Thats good, you can buy the 15 things you want with the gold you get from the loot boxes.

But.. it seems like you havent played the game (yet?)
Click to expand...
Aw cool, I didn't realize. I put 10 hours into the beta but mostly ignored the loot boxes because I assumed they'd be like in Halo 5 (plus it was a beta and I didn't want to get too attached to my stuff).
 
Pinko Marx said:
A lot of people apparently with all the OW bashing threads.
Click to expand...

Specifically the ones not playing it it seems. More along the lines of "those fools are too busy enjoying a game, they can't see how the mt's I have so little understanding about are horrible, I must tell them how wrong they are for knowing exactly how the mt's work from my little understanding of them"
 
Steve Youngblood said:
.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, but I think the biggest issue when looking at a single game is the amount of free content and post launch support that the game gets versus the amount of MT. Also, whether the MT can affect ANYTHING in the way that the game plays. CoD: BO3 was brought up many times in this thread and for good reason. It's a $60 game. It it still using the same system that it has for years where a DLC pack is $15 for a few maps and a zombies map. On top of that, you get currency for leveling up which allows you to buy different boxes which have taunts, weapon skins, etc. Then, they went and added some guns to said boxes on top of everything.

This is a problem. When a game has full priced DLC and still pushes the user to use real money, and there are items that can actually affect performance. There are a couple of pretty good weapons in there also. Street Fighter 5 has been getting some complaints too. Some legitimate, others not as much.

OTOH, I don't think anyone that still plays The Division has a problem with their DLC as Massive has put out content and major patches every month so far to try and improve the endgame. They are legitimately trying, despite their hearts being in the wrong place sometimes. Same thing with developers like CDPR and FROM. A significant amount of work has gone into their extra content that gives the user a large portion of gameplay(10+ hours, non-padding) for the same price that a lot of companies give you 1.5 hours for.
 
This just baffles me. I think it's sort of fun to just open a loot box and see what shows up. I don't think of it much beyond that and for the people that want to gamble their money for the off chance of more cool stuff, well...there are worse vices I guess. This is not directly related to this topic, but lately this obsession that seems to be growing with the nebulous concept of "content" as the defining feature of a game seems off base.

EDIT: OW seems to be in weird position in that even before it was released it was already the popular thing people want to tear down. It's weird that while most review threads are about those "crazy" low scores, the OW one was instead mostly people arguing about high scores
 
ObiDin said:
This is always the issue I have with micro transactions. And the way the game systems are built/designed to take these transactions into account.
Click to expand...

But the "system to unlock" here is merely playing the game. There aren't any tedious tasks to undertake that you could relieve by adding money to the equation (Unless of course you find the game tedious, which is a totally different conversation then). We're not talking about gems to speed up timers on chests, or xp boosts, or damage multipliers, or coin doublers, or anything else that might actually effect the way someone plays the game. Therefore, the concern posed by microtransactions effecting the gameplay is irrelevant.

The system is literally just, "play the game" and you'll occasionally get to pull a slot machine lever to see if you can change your character's color scheme.
 
Atraveller said:
LOL you
Click to expand...

image.php
 
This is far from the worst use of micro transactions. All you have to do to unlock stuff is play the game, any way you want. You don't have to do some bs daily everyday to earn a small amount of credits or anything, just play the game and get loot boxes. If you really want to buy something specific then you know what you want to spend your credits on. Not a big deal at all.
 
SocksAndShoes said:
It's not going to get better though. We turned that corner a long, long time ago when some of the first whales bought horse armor.

There's a reason this system is getting praise. This is literally the best we're going to get in regards to AAA games with MTs.
Click to expand...

Well its certainly not going to get better if people think that this is "the best we're going to get". I do think the "No microtransaction" fight is lost, but that doesnt mean we cant demand fairer more consumer friendly micro-transaction systems. The core idea of using microtransactions to replace DLC is getting praise, and for this genre of game its a good idea, but I dont see why anyone would praise the current implementation over fairer alternatives.

Interfectum said:
Valve gets a free pass in their loot store because the game is 100% free. I can't even imagine Blizzard attempting to sell a legendary skin for $35-40. Christ we'd have 20 threads a week here on that.

Honestly I'd rather have the chance of getting a legendary loot drop and/or purchasing the legendary with in-game gold than having Blizzard locking that behind a $10-20 buy.

Blizzard sells cosmetic items on HotS and I'd love to see them switch to loot boxes in that game too so I at least have a chance of owning the skin.
Click to expand...

It doesnt have to be an either/or implementation, Blizzard could retain the loot boxes for levelling up, they could even retain the ability to buy loot boxes and implement the ability to straight out purchase cosmetics alongside it. I dont think there's any way of getting around the fact that not including a way to straight out purchase cosmetics is because random loot boxes offer them a significantly better return. I'd also suggest that in a theoretical "straight buy" cosmetic system the prices would reflect the fact that the game wasnt F2P.
 
It's not something worth getting upset about, especially when it's something as trivial as voices. As long as you can get them for free by playing the game normally, I don't see it as a problem.

Unless getting the stuff for free was a difficult task that forces you to buy them to enjoy the game. There is where the line should be drawn.

Also , there are mobile games that did worse than that. It's hardly a new low.
 
How is getting loot by leveling up any different than say the CoD model? OW is purely cosmetic skins, sprays, and emotes, which I find even better. I don't have to grind to get a more competitive weapon. The entirety of the gameplay is unlocked from the beginning. It's basically a better version of the loot crates from ME3.
 
Uthred said:
Well its certainly not going to get better if people think that this is "the best we're going to get". I do think the "No microtransaction" fight is lost, but that doesnt mean we cant demand fairer more consumer friendly micro-transaction systems. The core idea of using microtransactions to replace DLC is getting praise, and for this genre of game its a good idea, but I dont see why anyone would praise the current implementation over fairer alternatives.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, what could Blizzard have done to make these MTs more fair?

Because It's easily the most "fair" system in any AAA title I've played.
 
Uthred said:
It doesnt have to be an either/or implementation, Blizzard could retain the loot boxes for levelling up, they could even retain the ability to buy loot boxes and implement the ability to straight out purchase cosmetics alongside it. I dont think there's any way of getting around the fact that not including a way to straight out purchase cosmetics is because random loot boxes offer them a significantly better return. I'd also suggest that in a theoretical "straight buy" cosmetic system the prices would reflect the fact that the game wasnt F2P.
Click to expand...

So your complaint is not the loot boxes but the fact you can't buy a legendary skin out the gate for $20? Eventhough you could have that legendary skin, for free, within a week's playtime on OW? How is this better or more consumer friendly?

Seems like you are critiquing Blizzard for not fitting a very narrow definition of what you consider to be acceptable MT practices.
 
Wow, the game has zero grind for characters/weapons/skills etc. and this is what what people complain about. We truly deserve our grind treadmills while they sell us XP/credit booster nonsense.
 
My line is simply drawn at cosmetic vs gameplay relevant whether the game is free to play or has a buy in price. However, I understand others put more value in the skins, sprays and dialog, so I can fully understand some criticism. I can't see how this could ever be described as a "new low" for anything microtransaction related. These impact the play of the game 0% and I've had no desire to pay a single extra dime.
 
Really OP?

A purely cosmetic system that can be fully acquired in game is the worst microtransaction system out there?
Never mind the litany of exploitative yet some how popular mobile titles out there?

Really??
 
ObiDin said:
This is always the issue I have with micro transactions. And the way the game systems are built/designed to take these transactions into account.
Click to expand...

Oh, make no mistake all of them are built to accomodate the microtransactions. It's just a question of how much. Some games do it well, in an inoffensive way (Overwatch; entirely cosmetic unlocks) or in an offensive way that makes sense, and is thus not that bad (Mass Effect 3; progression-gated, but along with the game) while scores of others do it in a bad, offensive, or gross manner.


I think the major factor is how competitive said game is. If there are gameplay unlockables behind any kind of paywall that game immediately becomes pay-to-win--there's always that spectre behind the dude that killed you, potentially having paid for some (or all) of his gear, and thus his victory. It cheapens the pvp elements.

Conversely, in PvE games, it just seems inoffensive. Like, who cares if an ally paid money to boost themselves if it only helps you anyways?

Keeping unlocks cosmetic is really the best solution to satisfy all parties involved.
 
Cave Johnson said:
Let's talk about this statement for a bit: First you imply that "free" updates MUST come from "optional MT", in which case, the alternative scenario would be no updates if the MT did not meet the required of funding. This of course is NOT implied by Blizzard (if it was please point them out), which would mean you're making this all up just to guilt ride the people who are against MT in the first place.

Then there's the issue with $60 price point. Yes, games are getting more expensive on the run, but this is entirely on the scope of the developers and they are NOT required to go higher than what they can afford. If Blizzard could sell even 5 million at $60, that's 300 million DOLLARS, even taking the 20% share out for keeping, that is a lot of money for 1 game, especially in this generation. Going by the beta, reception they can make much more.

The point of MT is that it justifies an alternative funding for FREE games. That is when your argument makes sense. Just because you go AAA doesn't automatically mean charging a full priced fee gets to have the same benefit as well.

Just imagine the world you live in where MT's are mandatory for the escalating scope of development. That would mean the AAA industry is going to be even more saturated that it already is, because not ALL game genres resonate with MT receptions in the same way.
Click to expand...

They typically are though. Maybe it's because I come from MMOs but I'm used to having to pay for continued support of a product I enjoy. Income alone isn't enough--as very clearly proven by the number of sequels that make their way onto Kickstarter despite their first go-around being pretty successful.

You're also ignoring the fact that it is mandatory for AAA games to embrace the rising cost of development because it's what consumers expect. It's a grave they dug on their own; But it's also not a bad grave. It's one that's inevitable in just about every consumer media. Prices have to go up or other sources of funding have to be discovered as technology advances faster than people can develop for it.

How many times do you see people bitch and moan about "indie" games because they look cheap and don't have the glitz and glamour of AAA games despite them oftentimes having better gameplay systems.

Better yet, do you think Uncharted 4 would have received the praise it had if it didn't have that glitz and glamour? The SP doesn't have MTs because it likely isn't going to expand for free.

So, yes. I feel secure in saying that free updates have to be paid for somehow. Or would you rather people only make one bulk of money and piss that away on further updates without charging more for them? What about the games that don't make that huge bulk of money? What about updates that seek to continue on past the cost of the initial sell-through?

Personally I prefer MTs that I have no need to engage with compared to needing to buy a season pass sight-unseen or wait and pay more for DLC down the line. Your mileage may vary, but calling a game out that does it "right" in regards to MTs is asinine.
 
Comparatively there is a significant amount of flavor text/voice in the game that is not controlled by the player so it seems like a wash to me. I would say what is more bothersome is that you can't equip more than one special voice line and emote at a time.

Given that Blizzard will be adding features and content for free going forward, the MT system being purely cosmetic is a welcome sight. As long as they keep their word on that end, I have no issues.
 
Gnomist said:
The hyperbole in the first post is hilarious but I don't disagree that the way the unlocks are being handled isn't sometimes frustrating. I'd love a better way to zero in on character unlocks I desire without relying on acquiring fun bucks or hoping they drop. The prices on some unlocks are very high compared to the rate I'm acquiring money so that entire portion of the game is just a source of frustration for me.
Click to expand...
That's the point. To make you say fuck it, I'll buy it with real cash.
 
Interfectum said:
So your complaint is not the loot boxes but the fact you can't buy a legendary skin out the gate for $20? Eventhough you could have that legendary skin, for free, within a week's playtime on OW? How is this better or more consumer friendly?
Click to expand...

No, my complaint is the loot boxes, what it isnt is the inclusion of microtransactions. I've already outlined why it's more consumer friendly in this thread, and in the Overwatch OT, specifically to you in fact, within the last day or two. So you'll forgive me if I'm not interested in explaining it yet again.

SocksAndShoes said:
In your opinion, what could Blizzard have done to make these MTs more fair?

Because It's easily the most "fair" system in any AAA title I've played.
Click to expand...

I've already outlined fairer alternative's in this in the thread, twice, including in the post you responded to.
 
What in the world? This is the biggest over-reaction I've seen in a while, and I surf NeoGaf regularly. If anything Blizzard is one of the few developers doing it right by not locking characters or any other gameplay elements behind a progression or pay wall.
 
Regiruler said:
There's the preorder skin and the origins edition skin.
Click to expand...

Oh you are right, the preorder skin for Widowmaker and the origin skins are not available for purchase in game, on a side note, those are really weak skins compared to the ones you can get in game and the reason why I went for th $40 pc version
 
Uthred said:
I've already outlined fairer alternative's in this in the thread, twice, including in the post you responded to.
Click to expand...

You really didn't. Buying a single overpriced skin for $20 isn't any more "fair" than randomly getting it for free. You would have more people complaining that the skin they want is $20.

As I said, this is the best you're going to get. There is no revolution coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why are the CPU clocks of Switch 2 so low in docked?
2 3 4
173
426
Walliwallipaloo replied
  • Locked
Sony has forgotten that yesterday marks the 2nd anniversary of PlayStation VR2
31
2K
James Sawyer Ford replied
I'm becoming convinced that games are a tool to pacify us
3 4 5 6 7
305
2K
Hudo replied
What are some of your favorite jRPG games (from ALL consoles) and why? I'm in the mood to try a new jRPG.
2
75
3K
Krathoon replied
Latency with older systems and newer TVs
2
61
1K
Topher replied
Top Bottom