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.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Overwatch marks a new low in Unlocking and Microtransaction systems that I'm aware of
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
Interfectum
Member
The random box of goodies can also include in-game currency so you can purchase specific items.
MMaRsu
Member
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?)
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
People who don't play the game apparently. Speaking of which, time for a round !
Pinko Marx
Banned
A lot of people apparently with all the OW bashing threads.
The Dear Leader
Banned
Absolutely disgusting, I will not support a game like this.
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.
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).
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"
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.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Did you just read the OP and then immediately made this post? if not, get over yourself.
Atraveller
Banned
LOL you
Heavy_D206
Member
I spent $10 on loot boxes and didn't get shit. Just a bunch of sprays and like 2 blue skins.
Never again!
Never again!
GitarooMan
Member
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
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
BRocknRolla
Member
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.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
KillerDark
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Affeinvasion
Member
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.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
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.
Crankshaft
Member
This thread marks a new low in Try Hard Complaining
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. This thread has kind of been a circus.
Interfectum
Member
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.
EnlightenedMint
Member
A new low for mircrotransactions? Go play a F2P game that isn't made by valve and see if that holds true.
There's the preorder skin and the origins edition skin.
PedroLumpy
Member
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.
Felix Lighter
Member
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.
AHA-Lambda
Member
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??
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??
LurkerPrime
Member
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.
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.
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.
That's the point. To make you say fuck it, I'll buy it with real cash.
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.
I've already outlined fairer alternative's in this in the thread, twice, including in the post you responded to.
It's a pretty slow drip. Like insanely slow.
Atraveller
Banned
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
I'll take "funny things to be outraged about" for 100, Alex
I want to believe.
partyphone
Banned
spacemonkeynation
Member
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.
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
Night Angel
Member
This thread doesn't work for a game with completely cosmetic microtransactions. Like, at all.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
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.