-
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 (PC/XB1/PS4) releasing by June 21st, "Origins Edition" [Up2: Not F2P]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Thanks, looks really good, and that baby winston
This is from Lore panel's Q&A.
From reddit
Metzen then said they have ideas for a theme park map with all Blizzard games and easter eggs.
Very cool.
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIHKbDbx8y8
From reddit
Metzen then said they have ideas for a theme park map with all Blizzard games and easter eggs.
Very cool.
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIHKbDbx8y8
BreezyLimbo
Banned
http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/7/9688324/overwatch-buy-to-play-blizzard-pricing-model-plans
Bluzzard talks about why they didnt choose f2p. On phone so cant copy paste quotes
Bluzzard talks about why they didnt choose f2p. On phone so cant copy paste quotes
"A lot of the free-to-play models that we were exploring involved people not having access to enough heroes to make those team compositions actually viable. We really didn't want to change the core gameplay and limit it in some way just to make the game free-to-play."
Bit of a BS comment, you don't need to lock Heroes behind a paid model and many games don't.
"It's not our intention to dodge the question," Kaplan said. "We don't have a concrete answer on what happens after the initial launch in terms of heroes. There was one misconception that we're gonna have 21 at launch and then we're going to have a hero store with additional heroes, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
Were not dodging the question..but were going to continue dodging the question.
Blizzard hasn't exactly been the most trustwothy company lately the fact they are not going into detail about if future content Heroes/Maps will cost money while allowing people to preorder just comes across as scummy as it gets.
With these details being unknown I sure as hell ain't dropping $90AUD (Yes NINETY DOLLARS) On a Multiplayer only game that doesn't even know if its going to lock more content behind microtransaction. If there are skins and Heroes that can be unlocked in the future by a in game currency..im cool with that but any heroes\maps that I HAVE to pay real money for then the game can get fucked.
Annoying that none of my friends will end up playing this, $90 is alot of money especially when something like Fallout 4 can be bought for $60 at some places.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
Pretty sure a vast majority of f2p games with multiple characters like this have it so you have to pay/grind to unlock characters, the only one I can think of that doesn't is Dota 2. It's really shitty because it just leads to everyone using the same characters because no one wants to burn the points (or w/e) they spent all their time grinding for on a character who isn't the best, or you get stuck using the free characters. I think it's pretty great that they're aware of this and want to let people have variety and be able to use all of the characters.
theSlacker
Member
I like how this desire of theirs for people to use all the Heroes and switch between them has also led to them removing unlockable perks and skills, since that led to people not wanting to switch to other Heroes when they were trying to unlock something.
CountAntonius
Member
I have faith that thanks to Reddit being very vocal they won't charge for new characters or maps. I will treat the 40 dollar price tag like the 30 dollar Buy all heroes old and new forever that Smite has. New heroes don't need to be sold because they bring new players in and get people playing again. Not to mention they can add cosmetics dlc for that new hero and make a killing off that too.
Perfect would be a 40 Dollar base price. Heroes and Maps, gametype updates free. A shitload of cosmetic dlc like skins, sprays, emotes, character portraits, announcer packs etc.
Oooooooo k
Balmung421
Member
What a drive by comment. Are you even watching the 7 game SC2 tournament right now? Have you played diablo 3 recently?!
Every company would love to have a model like Dota 2's, but not every company owns the leading PC storefront that makes them money from other companies games. Dota 2 is an exception because it has steam to fallback on.
And exactly what is wrong with paid dlc after the game comes out? Fighting games do it all the time. If you feel like 40$-60$ is worth the 21 characters, maps, and game modes, then it's worthy of a purchase. If not, then don't buy it. Many people are getting way too upset when they have no idea what the plans will be. The entitlement of "needing to know everything now" is creating some unwarranted reactions by some.
Not to mention that a large majority of the content added to Dota 2 isn't even made by Valve.
Nothing. People just don't want the community to be segregated if they release post-release content (which they will.) It's understandable, but the Jump-to-Conclusions mat that some people seem to be bringing out is very far removed from the way Blizzard has ever supported any of their games, ever. Well, some people just want the game to be free because they absolutely can't stand paying money for their games, but I think everyone glosses over their comments with the same glazed-eyes.
There's another PC Gamer article about Overwatch that just went up with even better quotes.
http://www.pcgamer.com/overwatch-director-not-sure-how-and-when-new-heroes-will-be-added/
Although I agree with what your saying, come on its blizzard. If they can make money forcing full price while keeping micro transaction(or monthly fee) they will (see WoW). In my opinion best way to make money and keep your audience was go F2P. For consoles that means NO gold/+ requirement, population stays high because no barrier for entry and no risk. Keep the box 'bundles' to keep as big a piece of the pie as possible on each character sale. Sale characters separately on psn/live but advertise the hard copy and inform it's a better deal, etc. Now for those that go F2P route give them 2 characters from each class (support,etc,etc) that change every week (day if you want them to no have accessibility to a fav and force a buy). They even mention that there's some overlap in abilities, you can do the same thing a different way with different characters. So there's no excuse for that. That's what dirty bomb does and it's got me to buy characters I otherwise wouldn't have. It just sounds like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. On PC the same is true, But to a lesser degree. The population will be largest on PC but should still try and keep the population high using F2P and sale charcters in packs like dirty bomb. Pack of support, etc and they get all the pie on PC sales so they can afford to sell single characters. Which would work if they give 2 characters per class like I mentioned earlier. I don't know just more logical ways to approach this in my opinion. Looks like they're to make as much money as possible (I don't blame them they're a buisness) but I fell like they're better off making more if you get more people to play that wouldn't normal give a MP only game a shot.
Edit: I wouldn't have any issues with the current model (including buying new charcters in the future) if my bought content went with me to other platforms. If I have to buy it for Ps4/PC/X1 to play with different friends so be it but I better have my skins, bought characters, etc. because I'm not buying them on each platform.
Kane Zakharov
Banned
I don't think you're fully aware of how important it is to have all the characters available for all players in Overwatch. Dirty Bomb limits you to 3 mercenaries to choose from in a match. Overwatch, on the other hand, lets you pick any character in the game during the match, which means you are generally going to keep changing characters often as both teams try to counter-pick each other. Not having all of those characters readily available for everyone would significantly hamper the gameplay.
With that in mind, the only way they could've approached selling the game was either using the Dota 2 model, or simply selling the game for full price. Evidently, they went for the latter.
People are fine with them doing this, they're just worried that Blizzard might decide to start charging for heroes (expansions, individually, etc) that release after launch. The lack of a definitive answer adds to that worry, because people are seeing a AAA game from a multi billion dollar company that excels in raking in huge amounts of money, and hear them essentially say they aren't sure of how exactly they're going to continue monetizing/supporting the game after launch.
With that in mind, the only way they could've approached selling the game was either using the Dota 2 model, or simply selling the game for full price. Evidently, they went for the latter.
People are fine with them doing this, they're just worried that Blizzard might decide to start charging for heroes (expansions, individually, etc) that release after launch. The lack of a definitive answer adds to that worry, because people are seeing a AAA game from a multi billion dollar company that excels in raking in huge amounts of money, and hear them essentially say they aren't sure of how exactly they're going to continue monetizing/supporting the game after launch.
These answers to the business model are actually so alarming that I feel considerably more wary about purchasing the game. How can a company this big be so lacking in foresight?
Blizzard should not be unfamiliar with multiplayer practices. Post launch content support is the lifeblood of games in the online multiplayer space, and it's the essential component to having regular and renewed interactions between the developer and the userbase. If Blizzard has no idea what they are doing after launch with their multiplayer game even on the most base level of how it will operate I'm sort of just...blown away.
Blizzard should not be unfamiliar with multiplayer practices. Post launch content support is the lifeblood of games in the online multiplayer space, and it's the essential component to having regular and renewed interactions between the developer and the userbase. If Blizzard has no idea what they are doing after launch with their multiplayer game even on the most base level of how it will operate I'm sort of just...blown away.
See the thing is I understand that point but it completly fails when they also want you to pay for new characters. So you want everyone to have every character then want to charge for more (I'm aware they haven't said anything on the matter, but let's be realistic)? I think 2 of each offense, defense, tank, support no matter the character is more then enough to choose from to counter team composition.
They want as many preorders as possible before dropping the fine details on people.
Yes, Blizzard wants as many preorders as possible before bending you over and fucking you in the ass right before release (so that you can get your no-hassle refund on the preorder that they offer for every game.)
Wow you couldn't make that anymore eloquent could you?
Well I am, of course, being tongue-in-cheek. But yeah, people are being really silly about this. A lot of hubbub over something no one knows about.
Kane Zakharov
Banned
Well, right now we don't know if they will be selling new characters after launch, no thanks to how they're answering some of the questions they're given. I disagree with your last point. I think since this game relies so heavily on those heroes, doing anything other than having them all readily available would really hurt the gameplay, a lot more than it does to Dirty Bomb IMO.
Definitely.
I mean...that doesn't really explain anything. Do new maps have to be paid for? Do just new heroes? Split communities over paid DLC in a shooter is a problem I thought we were moving away from.
It really is, but it's also not surprising. Their games are often getting entirely new game systems just a couple months before release. It really does seem to be the Blizzard way to honestly not know what the hell they are doing until they are doing it. It also often seems to work very well for them, though. I've been unhappy with very few of their products and usually these huge changes are for the better.
It's a question I ask myself with pretty much every Blizzard game. And the answer is probably that are simply too big to fail.
It's also Activision.
http://www.pcgamer.com/overwatch-director-not-sure-how-and-when-new-heroes-will-be-added/
Maps no but probably new heroes.
Spiritreaver
Member
I feel so out of place being someone who doesn't care whether the game is F2P or B2P with DLC. I play and enjoy games with all sorts of business models and as long as they're aren't especially scummy (mobile games, pay to win MMOs).
If Blizzard has announced a founder's pack alongside this I'd be upset though. Founder's packs and paid alpha's/beta's are a really shitty thing.
If Blizzard has announced a founder's pack alongside this I'd be upset though. Founder's packs and paid alpha's/beta's are a really shitty thing.
Would you say my proposed model would be pay2win then? I'm speaking from a console perspective I think that's the best possible way to handle things. Those who chose to buy the game (bundle) are going to buy it regardless. Now those that have no intention to can try it or play it it with friends who did (I won't get into the positives of that). I'd have to look at the roster further but I truly believe for FREE that's the best that can be done and keep those people competitive. Also being realistic the general consumer doesn't need to be "competitive" (have a specific character to counter) if they're just playing to try the game out or simply have fun with friends. If your planning on playing the game competitively you more then likely already purchased the game. Any way the biggest take away for me is that they really should have gone F2P on consoles to be outside of each platforms paywall. Also feel like the handling of console and PC the game the same is just a poor show. What works on PC won't on console. PC will surely have the largest community.
TLDR: My proposed model is enough for those who weren't serious enough to make a purchase in the first place. They may now make a purchase/or word of mouth is always good.
Thats kind of why there is a hubbub in the first place.
What's more likely to happen - someone playing for free will encounter a comp that none of their available heroes can counter easily. They end up getting extremely frustrated as they bang their head against a Bastion or Widowmaker without any clear way of taking them down, ultimately just leaving (with perhaps a post on Reddit on how OP they are).
If Blizz wants to get people in the game before they buy, I'd rather they do a timed trial or allow paid players to hand out temporary buddy passes.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I'm going to quote this 5 times. People will compare it to dota 2, but they are the exception. By no means should other mobas or hero shooters or what have you, by no means should they follow dota 2. The way DotA2 is integrated into steam, and how huge steam is, to bring up the pay model they use is incomparable, because the ecology DotA 2 is in is much grandeur than the one Overwatch would enter.
40 dollars for a PC version, 60 for the console version...if they can follow through with their pipeline of content they have planned, then that's great. We still haven't seen everything the package will contain, all we know right now are the heroes and maps, and that there are maps/modes as yet to be revealed. 25 playable characters isn't a bad amount either.
As for what else they'll contain, we know from mining the beta there will be a progression of sorts into unlocking additional things for your characters and what not...
..The important thing is whether they will continue supporting the game after release. If they can nail that, then the game will be fine..
CountAntonius
Member
I am betting no.
Lol like Blizzard couldnt have done a workshop with user created shit if they actually cared (they are certainly big enough and their ips have enough clout). I think they are just too incompetent considering how much they screwed the pooch on Battle.net 2.0 and SC2 custom games and the auction house to make player created content a part of their business model. Controlling it all is safer. Plus they see a game like LoL doing even better with an inferior model and why would you copy second place?
Lol to be fair people who buy the game will do the same that's in every community. If those people are playing the free version theyre most likely on the fence already. If they love what they play they'll buy in (if blizzard is confident in their product I see no issue) if they don't like it so what it not a lost sale. They weren't sold on the product to begin with. Heck why not go free to play and allow all charcters for 24 hours then go the route of 2 per class after. If they're not sold on the game with all characters they weren't going to buy anyway.
Unlikely
This is where I am at the moment. I'll buy the game on multiple consoles no problem but I'll have an issue with multiple skin purchases.
I like Street Fighter V's Model. Pay for initial release... then unlock currency for more characters or just pay with real money to unlock now. Cosmetic dlc could work the same way.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked