View Single Post
Old 02-07-2018, 06:09 AM   #15
Drunken Savior
El Psy Kongroo!
Drunken Savior's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 19,593
Originally Posted by Nem View Post
How on earth is it different? How many heroes does overwatch give you acess to and how many does HotS? I bet heroes still has more. Yet, you payed 60 bucks for overwatch's.
I don't see why genre matters at all as a distinction. Both are short duration team based multiplayer games. Btw... heroes gives you a free 30 heroes at the start, added to the rotation ones.
Overwatch on PC is $40, because you don't have to pay Sony/Microsoft licensing fees or ship physical media (which is irrelevant in an online game anyways).

And it's different because Overwatch adds a layer of strategy by allowing you to switch heroes mid-game in order to apply different strategies. If you don't have access to the full roster from the start, then you are at a serious disadvantage to your opponents who do have access to those heroes. If you had an advantage over your opponents because you could swap, it'd literally be pay-to-win.

HOTS immediately turned me off when I first tried it and wanted to try out a different character that wasn't on rotation. Luckily, I had the in-game currency given to me to buy her to try her in some live matches, but it quickly became apparent that I didn't want to play a game that forces me to pay for characters or pigeon holes me into playing only characters on rotation.

The problem I have with your argument (which is similar to other critics like Angry Joe and Jim Sterling) is that it's rooted in principle and not specifics and actual real life practice. It tries to take a very complex subject and make it black and white, whereas I see shades of gray. I've detailed specifics, cited examples, and all I've gotten back from you was incorrect examples (comparing HOTS to Overwatch in regards to available gameplay from the start) or a lack of understanding of the subjects you're arguing about (like suggesting that Overwatch shipped with content on the disc that was actually developed post-launch).

I still say lootboxes that contain cosmetic items that do not affect gameplay as a means to support post-launch content is perfectly fine and Blizzard has been upfront with their economic model from the start (even when they were still figuring it all out). The development of the game in the last 20 months has been very good and very substaintial. There's a clear customer-producer relationship and I know that I can't get something for free, so post-development cost has to come from somewhere. Before, we just shrugged off post-development in games and waited for a sequel after the coffers dry out from initial purchases to update the base game's content. Given Blizzard's history, I doubt we'll be seeing Overwatch 2 for many, many years. Hell, it took 12 years for Starcraft to get a sequel. I bet we'll see EA's Battlefront 3, 4, and 5 before we see Overwatch 2. And that's a good thing.

You just wanna say "...a premium game with micro-transactions is simply a clear scam." Which is a wholly naive statement and misses the point of why loot boxes are a hot topic now. The reason why people's hate boners are at full mast is because of the new Middle Earth: Shadow of War and Battlefront 2 games and how they utilize loot boxes. Both games LOCK literal gameplay behind a paywall. Middle Earth with runes (character enhancements) as well as orcs, and Battlefront with heroes (like Darth Vader). This was a clear and obvious negative impact on how the gameplay functions mechanically. That is in clear contrast to how Blizzard chose to use loot boxes in 2016 and why everyone's panties didn't get soiled over loot boxes 20 months ago.

And again, I'll state that I don't think Blizzard is perfect with their use. Like I said earlier, they should allow for a more direct way to allow people to buy a particular cosmetic item instead of buying loot boxes. But I know that in-doing so, it opens up large avenues for abuse and the last thing that Blizzard wants is for Overwatch to be entangled in a CSGO-like gambling scandal...especially when they have Hearthstone's Pay 2 Win model going absolutely bonkers right now. They also shouldn't make the limited event legendary skins cost 3000 gold when a regular season skin cost is 1000. So yeah, not perfect, but certainly nowhere near as egregious as what WB and EA did with their implementation of loot boxes.

Right now, Overwatch's loot boxes are just a fun way of expressing yourself and offer no real impact on the game. And if people want to buy that content, then let them. Personal responsibility and consumer responsibility, at some point, has to be mentioned in this discussion. It's insufferable when people try to act like they hold no accountability. But Blizzard is taking the revenue from loot boxes and using it to give additional content to the entire fanbase...and not just 'goodies' like you facetiously mentioned earlier...actual additional gameplay content to everyone who plays. The battlefield is always even and level (unlike F2P games) and player bases don't get fractured (like what happened when Titanfall 1 made DLC maps).

Is there a better way to fund post-launch games? Maybe, but like I said...if you know of a way that the public will like, get off Magic Box and go tell Blizzard and collect your millions.

Games I'm hyped for
The Last of Us Part 2, RE2 Remake, The Last Night

Current Platforms:
PC (i7-7700K, 16GB, GTX 980Ti), Wii U, PS4
Drunken Savior is offline   Reply With Quote