I'm sitting on 700 currency after playing for 5 hours total. It's random but saying it's insanely slow is ignoring the fact that it very well might not be.
-
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
I'm sitting on 700 currency after playing for 5 hours total. It's random but saying it's insanely slow is ignoring the fact that it very well might not be.
Static Veins
Member
This has to be a joke right? The simple fact that all of the purchasable unlockables are only cosmetics and nothing impacting gameplay places this above any kind of micro-transaction system that lets people "buy-to-win". Not to mention that everything can be unlocked in game for free anyway...
Yeah, really not seeing how this system is any worse than some of them out there, never mind "the new low".
Yeah, really not seeing how this system is any worse than some of them out there, never mind "the new low".
With the lack of content this game launched with for $60 it's not a stretch to ask for voice lines and basic emotes to be included as well as some free updates. At $60 the included content is truly paltry.
That's higher than average and even then you have 3 more hours before you can buy one legendary skin. 8 hours of play time per skin is atrociously ridiculous.
You can buy the item you want with the in game currency you earn while playing. No need to play lottery if there's a particular skin you want.
Is it? I have roughly 300 coins so far after about 4-5 hours. Seems reasonable unless you are targeting legendary costumes.
I do think they should up the currency you get for a duplicate though, maybe 25 instead of 15.
I understand your point but it's like a fighting game. Unlocking stuff through player progression is one of the joys. I like unlocking some stuff and using it in-game later. But remember that all maps and modes in the future will be completely free.
brickwalker0
Member
so how many of you had to buy Overwatch because someone put a gun to your head?
the entitlement people seem to think they have is through the roof.
these threads are starting to look like everyone trying so hard to find flaws where there arent.
the entitlement people seem to think they have is through the roof.
these threads are starting to look like everyone trying so hard to find flaws where there arent.
Lack of content in this case is pretty subjective. Objectively there's definitely not a lot of variety in the maps--but 21 characters is a more meaningful amount of content compared to what most FPS games launch with (when taking into account the actual use of many of those unlocks--which is almost nil in the case of CoD or Battlefield). Personally I don't give a shit about extra maps.
Subjectively many people have a lot of fun with DOTA2 and LoL when those games have/had a single map and game mode. They don't have an initial buy-in, but the "lack of content" argument still applies. You're doing that thing where, yes. If I was playing purely because I want a skin 8 hours might be a bit much. What if I'm playing the game for 8 hours because I genuinely enjoy playing the game without the skin? I get the skin after 8 hours of having fun.
If you're grinding for the sake of grinding I don't think Overwatch is a game for you in general.
This isn't like SF5 where the game didn't have content people thought it would.
Also lol at saying free updates are something you're owed when you buy a game. That is factual entitlement.
StrangeADT
Banned
You know what content means to me? Hours of enjoyment - not hours of gameplay. I think those are 2 different things. With 50 hours already between the open beta and release, I'm still enjoying this game so so much. I will get hundreds of hours of enjoyment from the current map and character pool. I know this for a fact.
Would I like more maps? For sure - and we will get them. You're complaining about charges for cosmetic items that are going to fund future FREE gameplay content. The same lack of content you're complaining about. You're damn right I'm okay with this. I'd rather have this system and not have to pay for expansions and deal with the resulting splintered user base. We all still have access to all of this shit via lootboxes that are given to you in perpetuity with the infinite levelling system, and duplicates and some drops give you overwatch-bucks so you can directly purchase the items you really want. I want the mechaqueen outfit for pharah so once I have 1000 Overwatch Bucks I'll buy that. I actually enjoy getting these loot boxes every so often. It's a fun little mini game on the side and I'm not tempted at all to actually pay for it.
If they had released all of these things that are currently unlocks as part of the base game and made me pay for future maps and heroes I would be upset. I just know I'm going to look back in 3 years and be just fine with paying $40 and "dealing" with the current MT system (I enjoy the loot boxes so...) whilst enjoying all the free content updates.
Also people need to quit acting like $40 or $60 is some massive investment. People spend $20 to go to the fucking movies for a 2 hour movie that they can only enjoy once. If you're bored within 6 hours, it's not due to a lack of content.
Glass Shark
Banned
I'm just curious, what would be a good amount of "content" to your for $60? What would you add to Overwatch to make it worth your money?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
ain't a problem, I loved it. Great unlock system. And you didn't NEED to purchase a got damn thing, goddamn.
yet I'm fine with the included content for the price I paid. Certainly you see that that value ratio is subjective... right?
You're including that you actually get legendary skins from drops, right? It could very well be one more box before you get the legendary skin you want.
This thread is the epitome of trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist.
Japanmanx3
Member
It's like people want the Evolve microtransaction scale. Weird.
partyphone
Banned
I'd rather have 40 poorly designed maps and 80 cookie cutter characters than have a small number of them that are well designed!
SocksAndShoes
Banned
This entire thread is like stepping into the Bizarro dimension.
You do know they're earned in drops as well, right? I've received two legendary skins, as well as plenty of other common ones, with about 4 hours of playtime. I haven't even hit level 10 yet.
SpiceMelange
Member
I this point I think some of gaf threads are bait posts here to attract as much pages as possibles.
Atraveller
Banned
That luck, I got 2 legendary skins with 17 hours clocked.
But it won't be 8 hours. As you level up you get more items. More items means more dupes as you continue which in turn means more of it gets turned to currency
Well, at least you weren't overly dramatic about it.
So...I guess my question to people who share this opinion is: How else exactly do you want Blizzard to handle this? Would you rather just have paid DLC?
Now compare this to Black Ops 3, where I have over 2 days worth of playtime at prestige 3, and have never earned a weapon drop outside of that free one they gave to season pass holders.
Instro said:
I've played for considerably longer than that and barely have over what you have. And that's without buying anything. I would say "drip feed" is a generous way to describe how they dish out their currency. I'm hoping additional modes or simply some currency for playing games becomes a thing. I don't need to have every unlock in a couple weeks but there needs to be a better pace to unlocking goodies for your favorite characters.
MiguelItUp
Member
I thought the gaming community reached a point where we were fine with micro-transactions as long as they were purely cosmetic? I mean, my close circle of friends that are huge Overwatch fans all kind of said, "Oh no, you can by loot boxes!" But it was said in a way where they were concerned about having the urge to BUY them, but knew it was entirely up to them and they didn't need to. Even though some of them REALLY want some of those legendary skins (me included). I guess this is just one of those scenarios where you can't make everyone happy, and I suppose it is what it is. But I hope the amount of people "offended" by this is incredibly minuscule, because Overwatch is definitely worth checking out.
Edit: If I had to nitpick, I guess I could say I wish the in-game currency dropped more frequently. But that's really it. I'm almost level 18 ATM and I believe I've only acquired 200-300 coins (or possibly even less). I'm kind of surprised you don't earn coins for winning / completing matches, I feel like that could be a potential addition in the future.
Edit: If I had to nitpick, I guess I could say I wish the in-game currency dropped more frequently. But that's really it. I'm almost level 18 ATM and I believe I've only acquired 200-300 coins (or possibly even less). I'm kind of surprised you don't earn coins for winning / completing matches, I feel like that could be a potential addition in the future.
Ah ok I must just have gotten lucky on that front. I believe one of my loot crates had like 150 or 200 coins in it so I assumed it was somewhat common.
It's 20% of the full price of that item
partyphone
Banned
OP just woke up from a 16 year coma.
HandsomeCharles
Member
They'll want it all for free, obviously.
Now, I'm not a fan of Micro-Trans in full retail games, but when you look at what the MT's are actually for (I.E superficial elements that don't actually change the gameplay experience) and that they will fund the future development of actual "tangible" gameplay content which will then be provided for free you'd have to be an idiot not to see that this is a system that provides great benefits to both Developers and Consumers equally.
People need to grow up. You want a game to continue development after release? It has to be bankrolled. This is (one of) the best method(s).
Yeah don't have a problem with the cosmetics, the problem is the drip feed and possible dupe, level 24 and don't have a single Epic or Legendary skin and only have 300 currency.
maybe they think they'll unlock a spray if they manage to reach to certain amount of post
HyperCubed4
Member
It depends on how vocal they are in the game. If it's only a couple of lines, this seems a tad sleazy. If it's a ton of lines, paying for extra ones doesn't seem as bad.
I get where you're coming from, though. Their character is shown through their speech and actions. You shouldn't have to pay for characterization.
EDIT: alright, I understand it better now. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I guess there isn't anything wrong with paying for extra voice commands, but it's a little odd. Not wrong, necessarily. But it's something easily missed in the midst of combat, I don't know who would pay for that.
Many voice commands have different variations.
Every character has different lines for mostly different actions while playing, including when Dominating a specific class as another specific class (also Revenge against said class).
Cosmetic changes ≠ voice commands.
I get where you're coming from, though. Their character is shown through their speech and actions. You shouldn't have to pay for characterization.
EDIT: alright, I understand it better now. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I guess there isn't anything wrong with paying for extra voice commands, but it's a little odd. Not wrong, necessarily. But it's something easily missed in the midst of combat, I don't know who would pay for that.
Many voice commands have different variations.
Every character has different lines for mostly different actions while playing, including when Dominating a specific class as another specific class (also Revenge against said class).
Cosmetic changes ≠ voice commands.
The actual voiced characterisation, the stuff that references the actual lore of the game, is all included and entirely unaffected by the voiced lines you equip
Yes, because clearly if you could buy a skin it would be a) overpriced and b) $20. I mean there's nothing wrong with reframing an alternative in the worst possible way to support your point is there? Perhaps I didn't fully outline how it was fairer because after fully outlining the main issues with the current system I assumed that the reason being able to buy cosmetics directly is fairer would be obvious. Clearly I forgot what they say about assumptions.
The current system uses blind buy random distribution. The only thing the consumer knows when they spend their money is a) how much they are spending and b) how many loot boxes they will get. The consumer has no idea of the actual value of what they are buying either in terms of value to themselves or some more objective measure of value. Contrast this with the ability to buy cosmetics directly, they consumer knows exactly the value of what they're buying, both to themselves and in a more objective sense. To give an illustrative example, Consumer A wants Legendary Skin X, they have $10 to spend. With the current system there is a very small chance they will a) get what they want and b) feel like they got $10 "worth" of cosmetics. The fact that didnt get what the want incentivises them to spend more, all with a similarly tiny chance of getting what they actually want. In a fairer system the consumer would get what they want and feel they'd got their moneys worth. That's at the most basic level, companies dont predominantly use blind buy random distribution systems because they are bad at making money. Once you start to factor in the fact that the system is designed to prey on the psychological vulnerabilities of sub-sections of the consumer base I really dont see how you can defend it as being fairer than the alternatives. A direct purchase alternative could be over-priced, that would of course be against the publishers own interests so unlikely, but even if a direct buy system was overpriced the transparency and lack of psychological manipulation would still make it slightly fairer.
Again "this is the best we're going to get" will remain true only so long as consumers refuse to criticise it or push for better alternatives. Overwatch implemented its current system in part due to complaints about existing DLC models, so clearly we can get better than the best we're going to get.
Hopefully for the final time in this thread, you're not paying to make the character talk or grinding to unlock that ability either. The characters chat away with each other as is in game, the one liner is literally a one liner you can spam like a taunt.
Acorn said:
They won't get a cent out of me for loot box packs. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and guess the real reason is not quite so cynical. I think they want to have a constant source of "loot drops" to reward continued play. The issue is in the execution and the lack of any type of control I have over getting something I'd enjoy. If currency was their answer for that then they should be a bit more generous with it because as it stands right now after hours and hours of play I barely have enough to buy a stinking pose. Bleh. I know they have people in that building who solved shitty loot drop problems in their other games...they should stroll over to their desks and have a chat.
Gotcha, so it does scale up higher for dupe legendaries at least?
That's good to know, but I still wish they'd abandon dupes entirely tbh.
Maybe I'm just spoiled by Halo 5's packs not having duplicate drops for cosmetic items
I would say that every time Blizzard tries to "fix" the loot in D3 and WoW they create a half-dozen more problems.
StrangeTaco
Member
This is by far one of the dumbest complaints I've ever seen for a game. There is literally no reason to buy them whatsoever if you don't want to. The game itself is 100% complete without them. Would you seriously prefer Blizzard release expansion packs and split the community that way? Or would you prefer having cosmetics and let the people who want to buy them do so and fund actual gameplay affecting content for everyone? Because those are really the only two options since this is the real world and things cost money.
it's literally an equipable catch phrase that you can choose to activate by going into the communication wheel... characters interact with each other and say things regardless if you've unlocked voice lines. like have you even played the game?
Overwatch has all cosmetic loot, doesn't lock you out of characters or weapons, maps, modes or abilities. and all that loot? yeah you can get all of that by just playing the game.
Overwatch has all cosmetic loot, doesn't lock you out of characters or weapons, maps, modes or abilities. and all that loot? yeah you can get all of that by just playing the game.
SocksAndShoes
Banned
I just can't take anyone seriously that thinks that publishers, when given the opportunity, won't price everything as high as people will buy it for. Because that's exactly what happens in the real world.
And my "this is the best we're going to get" comment is going to be true for our lifetimes. Even if everyone on NeoGaf united together and stopped buying games with poorly implemented MTs, the market would remain exactly the same. We will never win this battle. Please accept this.
Even if they abandoned dupes it would take ~285 crates to get every item, which would take a fair amount of time, so they wouldnt be losing that much. Of course they'd lose out on loot box sales because there would be a max spend for every player.
Raven117
Member
Ha, apparently so.
Guess some folks really care about cosmetic stuff.
I've always and forever will be in the "just let me play the game" camp...and don't care much for cosmetics. . . but that's just me I guess.
Cave Johnson
Member
MMO's are not a compatible comparison, you are paying expecting the massive amount of content updates upfront and server upkeep for that experience.
False. It is the scale of development have grown thanks to they performance delta of these machines. GTA V had more more money put into that game than a few AAA PS3 games put together and that is because they can afford the scale. I'm not one to cry over the fact these developers are digging their own grave with this if they are willing to risk it.
Irrelevant to the topic but games like Gone Home, Brothers, Undertale and The Witness, show they can fight all these "bitchy and whiner" consumers while enjoying the reception and success that they have.
There are those like me who would've done away with "glitz and glamour" in favor of playability and 60fps response time. No one would've properly estimated what this or that scenario would be. ND is already both a media and gamer darling so you can expect a lot praise even if it didn't hit the high note of this alternative scenario. And yes, I am fine for paying DLC that is worth the price than an arbitrary income that comes in the form of "Early Access" funding benefits.
Free updates aren't mandatory just so you know. You're trying to pull the argument back to an OPTIONAL aspect of the development process. And if Blizzard/EA/Acti saw it that way to justify that argument, they would be shouting in the rooftops baiting "free" content if more MT's were purchased.
But funnily enough, the last time some developer tried to bait consumers into early funding to get "free" benefits was Deus Ex Mankind Divided ... Gee.. I wonder how that went? Good thing they didn't market MT's the same way, doncha think? Or should they, since your are so supportive of it?
Publishers, or any seller, can only price things as high as the market will support. That what happens in the real world. But its ok, I cant take anyone seriously who refuses to engage in the actual main point of an argument and instead tries to sideline it by exaggerating unlikely theoretical's, so either way we're done here. So, for the last time, I find it amusing that you're using "this is the best we're going to get" to defend a game who's monetisation is in part a direct result of people complaining about the previous "this is the best we're going to get".
SocksAndShoes
Banned
And yet we're still going to get hundreds of AAA games with poorly implemented MTs.
Which is exactly my point. The entire thread is about Overwatch being the exception, not the rule.