PedroLumpy
Member
I've been pissed off about XP booster, grinding unlock bullshit for years, but somehow THIS is the game people get up in arms about? You people are nuts.
-
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
KaoteK
Member
Lol this thread.
"Love, D.Va"
"Tick tock tick tock tick tock"
"A-mei-zing"
"You gotta believe!"
Are examples of the deep characterisation we are missing out on.
OP, you'd have had a much better argument if you'd have just said "MTs don't belong in a 40/60 dollar game" and left the hyperbole at the door.
"Love, D.Va"
"Tick tock tick tock tick tock"
"A-mei-zing"
"You gotta believe!"
Are examples of the deep characterisation we are missing out on.
OP, you'd have had a much better argument if you'd have just said "MTs don't belong in a 40/60 dollar game" and left the hyperbole at the door.
tintin1029
Member
It's all just cosmetic stuff and you're all getting the actual expansions for free, so no big deal.
There's at least three heroes in testing according to various dev videos.
Really stupid bet to make.
Shhhhh it's funnier this way lol
SolicitorPirate
Member
I can't help but feel this is basically Don Quixote distilled into a thread on a gaming forum.
To be fair it could take a lot longer then 3 months to fully playtest those heroes, especially if Blizzard is doing a lot of rebalances of existing heroes.
looking at hearthstone and hots, major content came out for both within a few months of release. heck even wow has typically seen new content within a couple of months after the last content (until the end of the expansion at least)
honestly I am expecting the first major content to be released by August. and we'll probably start seeing "new content" within the next 3 weeks, cosmetics, maybe a new map, etc.
W-why do i need to bother myself with these kind of calculations or line of thought? How about that tried and true process of: 'Hey, i want this. I'm cool with giving you my real money for this thing. Here you go. Great, Thanks, bye'.
Why can't i do that in Overwatch? Why is Blizzard accepting my real money to buy loot boxes but won't accept my real money to directly buy the item i want or in-game credits? How is that good or fair to the players? What's the supposed argument here that makes this a positive?
It's a compromise. In order to justify handing out skins, etc, Blizzard needs to create scarcity in order to motivate cash purchases.
Because they bet, rightly, that people will want these skins enough to drop hundreds on cosmetic gacha, the rest of us non-MTX people can get them for free with some grinding and luck.
Is it? Blizzard takes a long long time to release content this we already know. They also announce content usually months in advance. I'd say it's an easy bet to make to prove a point which is content is not on the horizon in my fairly certain opinion.
3 weeks for a new map folks you heard it here first. I wouldn't doubt a few new cosmetics hidden behind rng blizzard wants you to pay for. New maps? No.
That would be 24 boxes to get the skin I want? Odd I'm level 31 (30 boxes) and I still only have 770 gold. So you would be incorrect there. Every item in the game would cost 1,000 easy. The More I play this game the worse the rng gets.
you're on. on your side, starting from today (September 4th) we will at most see two new maps. I'll even throw you a bone and NOT count competitive mode as they already said June. On my side, anything more than or besides two maps, not including competitive mode.
p.s. btw, you're right.. I am confidentYou just bet against blizzard on post-launch support. I feel so good right now. In other "no-duh" business bets, I am also willing to bet that Apple will release a new iPhone this fall, and that MS will release security updates for Windows 10 within the next 30 days.
Since you've spent ~$200 on the game so far I'd imagine you would be. Remember this is free content we are discussing nothing tied behind rng or in game gold.
So you're saying if it had no transactions at all, the game would be unfair as well? Because it didn't for all of beta and nobody complained (We did get stuff tweaked, IE: no rare sprays/voice lines anymore)? It's a system that is perfectly fair without microtransactions, with no changes made other than an option for someone to spend some money to essentially xp boost themselves (not exactly, but the closest analogue).
If you have 770 gold at level 31, you've gotten SHITLOADS of stuff with barely any dupes, and the more you play the less rng can possibly fuck you, definitively. "The more I play the worst rng gets" is actually impossible with this system, the more you play the more it favors you.
Yes I have a shit load of voice lines and sprays. I have 1 non palette swap skin and various color changes for various characters which I couldn't care less about. That's it. Actually I have so many voice lines I get dupes often. Lucky for me it's 5 gold per duplicate.
the bet is they are releasing new game play content by Sept 4th. Your ban will come way sooner. I will miss these chats. At least you will have free content (and no skins) to dry your salty tears.
p.s. you are welcome for that free content that.. you know... myself and others happily paid lots of money to blizz to create.
p.s. you are welcome for that free content that.. you know... myself and others happily paid lots of money to blizz to create.
There's no need to motivate cash purchases other than in making good content. You like some skin and wanna buy it? Go ahead. Manufactured scarcity shouldn't play a part in it. If you make good content, your players will buy it.
And you're basically saying Blizzard is introducing second or third rate content so that the headliners (Character outfits) won't be given out by the loot box system too frequently in a way that de-incentivizes loot box purchases. Which in turn, as evident partly in this thread, displeases players when they get boxes only to discover they contain mostly secondary content.
If Overwatch had no MTA's i probably would be fine with in. In that situation there can be debate and discussion over the unlock system in a purely game design terms and considerations rather the current affair where you have game design decisions informed by the not-so-secret agenda of monetization.
The moment that happens (and you don't also offer spending real money for items or game currency) is the moment the title's system stops being fair and , coupled with how the unlock system is designed, starts to take advantage of players. It's the moment were game design choices about what's better for the game and for the experience are sullied by decisions about what's better for the developer's pockets and bottom line.
You can monetize these type of games fairly. Blizzard chose not to. The thing is (leaving aside voice lines or the different Ult sounds for some skins) it's all easily 'fixable' - which makes their intention to maximize spending they way they do all the more apparent.
Ideally, but also idealistic and unreasonable to expect given realities of the industry and current business paradigms. I take what good I can get within reasonable margins, and Overwatch does represent an improvement in modern game trends. I don't spend time getting upset we don't live in a perfect world.
Yes. The whale factor is important for long-term profit. I'd rather they do it this way than other ways of whale hunting. I don't think Overwatch would be made if they couldn't confidently guarantee whales at all, and direct skin purchases, as far as I can tell, is counterproductive to whale customers. They can't sell heroes without ruining the game entirely, so what is a company to do?
People keep forgetting Overwatch is the leftovers from the financial black hole that was Titan. Do you honestly think they set out, from the beginning, to make the TF2 of 2010s? I don't. It's a good game, and no doubt the team is passionate but I can see, or at least I believe I see, the shadow of Titan's failure looming over it.
Maybe you got logged out somehow?
I mean the system in place is there to generate MORE revenue. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise (again, I don't think). Yes more people (non-quantified beyond "more") would be happier if they could just buy the skins they wanted outright, but sales would drop. Period. The $600 paid by my friends and I, and those like us, would have dropped considerably, and the amount spent by others currently opting out would be insignificant by comparison. Is this good (for us) or bad (for blizz)? Mostly irrelevant. All that is for certain is less revenue, meaning less money going into development of new content.
I mean who has insisted that blizzard isn't trying to bring in money here? How else do the lights stay on for the upcoming years, or new characters or game modes or maps get released? Look at how many copies Diablo 3 has sold over the last 4 years, and outside of the RoS expansion, look at the relatively small amount of extended content that game has received. I mean shit GTA V has sold 65m units, and look at likewise the relatively low amount of new content introduced in that game. I think everyone has much higher expectations for new content in Overwatch.. and clearly first sales at retail (or online) don't cover those expectations.
People want their cake (tons of new content) and to eat it too (not funding that tons of new content). Seems pretty entitled.
whoa whoa whoa whoa.. "fair"? on an entirely optional and non-impacting purchase? I mean... huh? Does it give them a better experience than not paying? No. Does it give them an advantage over anyone else in game? No. Are their lives/experiences worse off not paying? No. Unfair implies that the character is left unfairly treated without paying money.. but here the player isn't treated negatively. They still have the exact same gameplay experience with or without buying loot boxes.
blizzard chose to not monetize the game fairly? By giving us all future gameplay content for no additional charge? By limiting post-purchase revenue to come solely off of objects that can be 100% avoided/ignored to play the game? You and I have VERY different definitions of "fair". I mean, fuck....
could blizzard have monetized it more generously (I will "assume" this is what you meant.......)? of course. they could charge for items outright. Or charge a penny for loot boxes. or less than a penny. or made loot boxes only skins. only legendary skins. etc. They chose what they chose based on a balance between profit and investment in future development. Changing the monetization to be more generous to the player obviously lowers that amount. Making it even less generous raises that amount. We can fucking armchair quarterback this all day long but ultimately the system is what it is and the choice we are all left with is "do we open our wallets to it?".. but standing on some moral high ground with terms like "fair" and "developer's pockets" and "agenda" or other sanctimonious bullshit is just fucking deluded. I mean look here, you call it "unfair and greedy" and I call it "fair and investing to more content". How is one any more valid than the other?
Nah I'm not logged out, relogged just to be sure. Going to my account page on browser shows that I do own overwatch, idk what the issue is. Was playing a few hours ago. Tried Hots and I can log in that just fine.
Even restarted my pc. Hmm, I'll run the repair to see if it fixes it.
Edit:
Oh just noticed this isn't the OT thread, I'm sorry.
Noticed that this was posted by blizzard cs eu twitter :
We're currently investigating an issue affecting our authentication servers, which may result in failed or slow login attempts. #BlizzCS
We are aware of an issue affecting our European authentication servers, which may result in slow or failed login attempts. We are currently investigating the cause.
Please follow @BlizzardCSEU_EN on Twitter for further updates.
so my issues must be linked to that.
Interfectum
Member
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTsJZD3YFQ
Oh Shit Jim Sterling doesn't like overwatch's MTs
GIT'IM
Oh Shit Jim Sterling doesn't like overwatch's MTs
GIT'IM
BumblebeeCody
Member
But that's the point of pre-order bonuses. It's not an incentive for you, it's a lock-out by the publishers to get you to put money down before the game has even been made. If you don't put down money early for this game, then they will withhold content from you. Content that, if this was 90's and early 2000's would've just put in the game anyway. But since Blizzard and other companies have the ability to do these pre-order bonuses, then they have the ability to lock away skins/content and call it a "pre-order bonus". Correct me if I'm wrong but you can't actually unlock the Widowmaker skin. So if you do get this game used/pre-owned, you'll never get access to it.
Maybe I'm old fashioned in this type of debate but there is no incentive or benefit to the consumer when it comes to unlocking cosmetic stuff in video games. That's the reason pre-order incentives exist, they never have been at the benefit of the consumer. They're for the publisher to get statistics such as how many people are willing to buy a game when it launches. If you don't pre-order the game, then you get that nagging feeling you're missing out on content that if you just put £5 down, you would've gotten. At that point then, this trivial cosmetic skin does in fact have a value and does has some effect on the enjoyment of the game you're playing. It's bothered me when I play games like Gears of War or Transformers: Devastation. I may have bought those games on launch but apparently my purchase is worth less because I didn't pre-order and thus I don't get to play as Nemesis Prime.
I still remember unlocking colours and costumes in games so when a full priced shooter comes out from a giant well established gaming company and publisher, the last thing they should be doing is putting in microtransactions. They're aren't an indie developer that you can say "yeah I'll help out by throwing a few quid you way" but a company that is already raking in a huge amount of money from the sales alone.
As a consumer I'm saying you should be trying to get as much out of your money as you deserve. This isn't the "entitlement" card people play but clearly spotting a shitty practice even for content as "trivial" as a skin.
Would be interesting to see if that is actually the case and such a system was in the game.
TF2 does it. Dota 2 does it. CS:GO does it. In fact, and while i don't go look for them, i don't know how many games from esteemed devs like Blizzard that have MTAs don't allow direct purchase.
You are making it a way bigger than it is. Just add direct purchase. There.
Again, you're over-estimating things. Players will still buy shit-ton of stuff if they had direct purchase option on top of buying loot boxes. They would buy both systems. Blizzard will still making money hand over fist. The reality you are trying to paint is exaggerated beyond belief.
There's a fair way to monetize a game and there's an unfair way to. I'm not sure why it shocks you. What Blizzard is doing is unfair and preying on weaknesses of players. Jim explains that in the video as well.
Stop pretending that the way Overwatch does it the only way it can be done unless we want to buy heroes. There are many steps in-between and measures to take that Blizzard chose not to take in favor of their exploitative system.
--
i'll probably be hanging in Jim's video's thread for a while for now.
n00bsauce87
Member
I was looking for this thread. I wonder where the people in this thread will lay their loyalties now. Maybe they needed a legitimate person to make their issues clear
Now go play CS GO and TF2. Come back and let me know how many drops you got for free.
this is... umm.. flat out false. At least TF2 and DOTA2 do NOT allow you to buy items directly from Valve. The items that come cirectly from Valve are handed out in randomized boxes. The ONLY way (that I recall) that you can buy items directly is from Steam Marketplace which is user-to-user private sales.
I've already addressed this numerous times. Yes, Blizzard could offer direct purchase. Yes it is a more generous MTA system than loot crates. It is also a drastically lower average per user spend than loot crates, meaning significantly less money funneling into the service. "I don't give a shit." is a perfectly valid opinion to this. I mean they could also just give you everything for free, not charge for the game, or even pay you to play it. Endless variations on how a game could be marketed. They obviously ran the models they ran and decided on what they decided. Arguing that "they could do it differently" is basically.. "well no shit"
lol... these models are not new... I mean we have DECADES of data from the collectibles market. Randomized blind pack buying increases average per participant spend dramatically over "buy what you want". AVERAGE per participant spend.
This is all 100% opinion. Please stop stating it as some sort of fact. You feel it is unfair. I feel it's fine. There is no objective measure here.
Yes, there are steps blizzard could have taken to make less money, and steps they could still take to make more money. No shit. Who is saying otherwise? The only thing I have said about buying heroes is "Games that allow you to buy what you want directly ALSO put game play elements behind grind walls that you can pay to remove, AND don't typically allow you to earn the cosmetic elements for free." None of that is wrong. Buying what you want directly lowers average per customer spend... hence why they usually put game play elements behind removable grind walls, and make cosmetics non-free; to at least raise the average spend back up a bit.
but at the end of it, it comes down to "they can make decisions to make more money or decisions to make less money". The converse side to that is they can be more generous to the player (less money) or less generous to the player (more money). There is no fair. It's a balance scale that is subjective to every single participant.
yeah... he clings to those.. but it's a totally misguided cling. The only way to buy stuff directly from most Valve cosmetics is third party. Obtaining stuff directly from Valve is either a hideous grind or a randomized loot box almost always. The Compendium is a perfect example of direct-from-Valve monetization.. getting stuff and unlockables out of that is a huge money sink. Not that I'm calling it out. These companies, especially Valve and Blizzard... are providing services to MILLIONS of people every day. It's not cheap. Yet both of them offer incredibly low price ways to participate gaining most of their funding from "pay what you want" extras. Yes Overwatch puts a $40 fee upfront, but at the same time Blizzard isn't Valve, who gets a cut from a 99% market share of PC game sales. $40 in the world of f2p for never having to pay for a content update again is not bad compared to what the same thing would cost from other places (valve games notwithstanding. aka see above about Steam)
https://playoverwatch.com/en-us/heroes/ana/
on test today. should be on live in the next week or two by normal blizz time tables (based on HOTS). Roughly a month and a half from this argument.
KojiKnight
Member
Oh my... we normally wait 5 years for this kind of bump and burn.
until the next new character or the next two+ maps
Yyyyyyyyyikes
Grats on winning. I always believe in Blizzard
if they do or don't, I don't care
It was basically a "double dog dare". I certainly wish no ill will... just happy to be right
PERMABAN HIS ASS!!!!!!!!!!!! j/k
lmao this is amazing
KojiKnight
Member
gatti-man...
To be fair... With it being blizzard and Soon and all, I would have likely put Gatti-man in the safer side of this bet.
KZXcellent
Member
Then he should have used 'and' instead of 'or'.
You thought he was implying maps AND characters, when he posted maps OR characters?