CountAntonius
Member
I always thought heroes would pay for themselves long term because it keeps the game fresh, keeps old players playing, brings new players in(at 40-60 dollars a pop) and offers another hero to sell skins, emotes, portraits for.
-
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
I already saw a long topic on the Overwatch subreddit about how people were saying they're worried the console version will harm the PC version...
Le sigh. I thought we were over this. Some even said they believe it will most likely flop similar to CSGO on PS3/Xbox or that they might handle it like that. As in, no future content stuff for Consoles..
I hope they don't. As I loved how they have been still patching Diablo 3 on consoles and now I'm more interested in Overwatch now that it's coming to PS4. D:
Le sigh. I thought we were over this. Some even said they believe it will most likely flop similar to CSGO on PS3/Xbox or that they might handle it like that. As in, no future content stuff for Consoles..
I hope they don't. As I loved how they have been still patching Diablo 3 on consoles and now I'm more interested in Overwatch now that it's coming to PS4. D:
If you're Valve.
Blizzard isn't Valve.
So they didn't ape Dota 2.
Notice how most stufios who are also not Valve don't just ape Dota 2.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
It's unknown whether future heroes will have to be paid for. It goes against Blizzards current statement of not wanting to stifle hero selection in a match.
Maybe because this model is not as good?
Good point. However, were going into this Overwatch discussion understanding that they are charging upfront for the game. They even said they want to "see how launch goes" before thinking about revising their model. With paid microtransactions, and paying for more for more heroes(guessing), clearly the end goal here is to make the game more profitable by charging up front as well.
If they gave the game for free then charged for everything else cosmetic, dont you think everyone would be more happy?
I think i understand your use of the word "Ape", but could you clarify just in case? Do you mean they just stole the Mod and sat on it to make a shit load of money?
That's what I'm afraid of and that's why I'm disappointed they're handling the PC and console versions the same way. It's a shame really. They NEED to get the game in front of the console paywall. I don't know what is required to be outside of the paywall but all F2P are. So release a glorified demo just to get yourself outside of it. 1. Offer 24 hours with all characters then after time is up a rotating selection. 2. Shit or even just let them download the game with all characters in what's essentially a tutorial/guide on how to use each characters abilities, game modes, etc. Tell them the lore strengths/weaknesses, get them attached to these characters (they're more likely to buy in if they actually care about those characters). I mean if they're going to make short films and put them on YouTube anyway why not incorporate them into this tutorial of sorts. If they want to play online they can either go out and buy it or simply be direct to market place.
These are simply ideas because I genuinely want this game to survive on consoles. Evolve is dead, csgo is dead, etc. there is precedence for successful F2Ps on consoles. I think warframe was highest grossing game on PSN for a while (I'm aware of other factors). Seriously though I can't iterate enough get out from behind that paywall blizzard!
This is okay, but they should still do a free to play version with hero rotation. That would make sure the game keeps a healthy userbase, and give people incentive to pay for more heroes and skins down the line. This model just means restricting their userbase, and very likely less income in the long run.
This this this. These sort of games live so much longer with no fee for entry.
capitalCORN
Member
Are we angry at a game that's not out yet, with decisions that have yet to take place?
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
I think everyone would also be really happy if Chipotle just stopped charging for food, that doesn't mean they should do it.
-MD-
Member
Correct.
This is the worst analogy I have ever heard in my life.
More like Overwatch is like charging you 5 dollar cover to get in to buy your food.
-MD-
Member
Were you trying to 1-up him?
By "ape" I just mean copy, yeah.
Everyone likes free stuff, but Dota is in a league all its own, in an environment that completely supports it staying that way and Blizzard isn't going to be able to just recreate that. It's not realistic.
Wth? No one is saying that at all. If your going to use a stupid analogy (incorrectly) then I'll use the same one. I'm getting my bowl I know that, my friends never had chipotle. We are asking that if chipotle gave my friend a taster that can sway him to make a purchase. They're not asking for a damn burrito.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
Except it's not because you pay for the game, get everything and that's it. You seem to be under the impression that you buy the game and have to buy more stuff once you have it.
And I'm glad the analogy sounded dumb because that's essentially what you said. Everything should be free because it would make people happier.
Okay, now thats the most valid argument i've heard in favor of not following the Dota 2 model, so thank you.
What makes you think Blizz can't pull it off though? They chose to do it in a quasi way with Heroes of the Storm and that game seems to only be gaining popularity?
capitalCORN
Member
Do you have any evidence to back this statement up? Because I have a report that says they are undecided.
http://kotaku.com/why-overwatch-isnt-free-to-play-1741226130
From the article,
EDIT: Also i did not say everything should be free, but that they should profit off the game through cosmetics as that has seemed to be extremely successful with Dota 2. I.e my first post saying they should copy that model. Please don't cherry pick my post, I have not done so with any of yours.
BlastProcessing
Member
It took Valve a long time to spin up that model. They had a ton of market power that they could leverage as well. I can see why Blizzard would play it conservative. They can always pivot to free later, but you can't unring that bell.
Well for one IT IS, and two we still don't know if we do have to buy more sstuff once the game is out because blizzard is for all we know intentionally leaving out those details. Having preorders out without essential information like that gets people worried.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
They've said that nothing is planned right now. Everyone saying "oh, well it's obvious this is what they're going to do" is just throwing out speculations. Because that worked so well for everyone who just assumed it was a f2p game, right?
Well, HotS isn't touching Dota, so that's probably motivation enough not to try a second time. Then you consider that Overwatch is a shooter. It has MOBA elements, but they're really almost courting a different audience when you get down to it. Then you consider its on consoles, too, which Dota isn't at all.
They have a ton of factors to consider and besides all of that, just kinda throwing stuff at a wall in the hopes it'll hit Dota isn't really productive. That audience has their game. They're not switching. They don't want to. Countless games have tried and failed. I feel this needs to be understood with eSports as it is with sports. My dad is a basketball man; he's not going to take up soccer (he actually watches everything else casually, but it's an example, you understand.)
I'm pretty sure the actual reason why it was so hard for us to have a FOV slider was because they didn't want to waste a bunch of time on a feature for one version so the console version does have an impact.
You could also say it restricts hero design as all heroes have a primary and alt fire and 2 abilities and they will never have more than that which is also the reason why it was obvious the game was always going to consoles.
A rotating selection of free heroes wouldn't work in this game. This is not the kind of game where you pick one hero and master them.
The game is balanced around you having a ton of options at your disposal. They deploy a Widowmaker, you deploy a Genji. They throw out a Bastion, you launch Winston at them. If you have no options, its quite possible, if not likely, that you could encounter a team comp for which your team has no counter.
Understood 100%. It is just concerning that they are going to charge us upfront without more details and basically see if enough people buy it before going F2P. I'd prefer a fleshed out model one way or another, but this seems like they are trying to hedge their bets rather than be confident in their product.
Very true. HOTS model wouldent work. Thats why i was advocating for the Dota 2 Model.
Only for a game like this. F2P model works for a Moba type game. And for those saying Dota 2 is an exception, Smite seems to be doing very well also, although to be fair some things are behind a small gem/paywall, but its not gouging.
CountAntonius
Member
The hate for well made F2P is stupidly irrational. Plenty of games do it well. Also a big bonus when it comes to F2P is getting friends to try out the game for free. Cosmetic microtransactions have never and will never bother me.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
And where pre-planned DLC announcements six months before release is mandatory. I've only ever seen people complain about that when other games do it.
I don't know if you play Smite, but I do all the time and literally everything is behind a gem wall except for the free rotation. You either have to slowly save up gems or grind out favor and slowly unlock them one by one or..... Wait for it.... Pay $30 and unlock all the heroes!
But this game isn't Dota 2. It doesn't have the same name recognition, it isn't a conventional MOBA, and it doesn't have the biggest online game storefront supporting it. And monitizing it similarly to Dota 2 would be bad for the game. If someone spends good money ($15-$20) on a skin or weapon for a specific hero, they're going to want to show it off. That means sticking with that hero, even if the situation calls for something better. They don't want that, and ripped out the hero levelling system right before the beta because of that.
I disagree, your using rational thought here and that makes you wrong (I'm only half joking sadly). People with all characters will still pick and choose their favorites and only use those. Your expecting people to play the game correctly and learn the ins and outs. I'd say if you are going to play right you are going to buy the 'bundle'. There's going to be a bunch of casuals that will try to force a play style that's not meant for that character and that's an absolute given. I'd also argue that you don't NEED genji to counter widow maker other characters can do that same job but with a different play style. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your planning on buying the game?
TheRedSnifit
Member
I don't see how this is an unreasonable fear. The reason Counterstrike and TF2 didn't take off on consoles wasn't solely because of the strict update model in place on those consoles, but because they're fundamentally almost unplayable on a gamepad. Overwatch looks a lot less "shooter" than either, but they're still going to have to balance it for PC or console.
Okay i'll drop the F2P conversation. I do get the paid model merits.
Moving on from that, do you guys really think this game is wroth 60$??
I feel like at the very least the console versions should be 39.99$ and that ideally all versions sould be 19.99$. The mainstream price point is going to lose them a lot of potential players and if paid content comes later the community could become split.
Moving on from that, do you guys really think this game is wroth 60$??
I feel like at the very least the console versions should be 39.99$ and that ideally all versions sould be 19.99$. The mainstream price point is going to lose them a lot of potential players and if paid content comes later the community could become split.
Yeah I agree on the 40 that PC is getting.
CountAntonius
Member
All the heroes forever. Wish we got the same promise here and I would be okay with the price tag.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
I think this game would be terrible if it were F2P. From day one I've been able to play all the heroes and figure out my groove with them. I've had great games where a Widowmaker was making my life hell so I switched to Reaper, teleported behind her and took her out. That stuff wouldn't be possible if I had to buy characters and I didn't own Reaper. I would have had to put up with a shitty match-up because I didn't have the tools to adapt.
Everything they have said seems to indicate there will be no hero store. My guess is they will release expansion packs with additional heroes and maps, which is a-ok in my book.
Everything they have said seems to indicate there will be no hero store. My guess is they will release expansion packs with additional heroes and maps, which is a-ok in my book.
I'm in Beta, so I don't need to think about buying the game yet
I don't disagree that people will try to force a character or playstyle when the situation doesn't call for it. Just had a game with two Widowmakers and a Hanzo. I mainly think that good players could be easily disheartened if the characters they have are all poor responses to the enemy team's strategy. Trying to go up against a Bastion without Symmetra, Winston, or Reinhart, for example. Sure, it's possible without them, just much harder.
Games $89 AUD that makes it a insane purchase for me unless they can guarantee no paid heroes/maps along with a shit load of content. Don't even have to pay that for most AAA Games these days, hell Fallout 4 is $59 physical.
That's thinking of the game at the pro level, and then it also becomes true for limited selection hero games like LoL and Smite. The vast majority of the userbase aren't going to make these decisions. They're going to grab the person who looks cool, and shoot at shit until they die. Rotate the heroes so that they have access to every class, and the selection would be fine for low level play, especially if you give them the option to earn credits and unlock heroes without spending real money.
AU man, u guys need to pass a bill or something to get those gaming prices fixed. I mean you guys are constantly getting the shaft.
It really is the most consumer friendly model, without question. The big thing to remember though is that Valve has the luxury of having hundreds of people contribute content which then valve gets to cherry pick through to sell. Blizzard does not have an open model and instead has to create or outsource the content themselves. The volume isn't there, and they probably want to maintain a level of quality firsthand.
however, I think the game costs money simply because blizzard can. I hope the heroes stay free though. Cosmetics is the way to go.
Its Blizzard being shitheads, game is roughly $57 on their website with the current exchange rate..Hopefully a cheaper deal rolls in >.<
I don't get this sentiment at all. I'm not asking for one or the other. I'm going to buy the game but I have friends who will not. Why not have some kind of version for them (call that version what ever you will)? Say it has a rotating roster so what he doesn't have a hard counter, I do because I bought the game. Now my friend is having fun and wants to be more competitive he goes out and buys the game. I don't know call it a demo I guess. Would the word demo with a rotating roster make people feel better? Because it seems like people just really hate the word F2P.
Dude you're comparing a multiple world spanning RPG with thousands of items to a game with 21 heroes within a handful of maps. Way different in terms of scope of games.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked