View Single Post
Old 02-08-2018, 07:15 AM   #16
Smash bro!
Nem's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 9,275
Originally Posted by Drunken Savior View Post
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.
Tell you what, i obviously disagree with the other parts, but i can agree with this paragraph. Blizzard is not as bad as WB and EA. I do think they did it right with HotS. I dunno if you tried it since 2.0. They gave everyone a pack of characters from the off-set and while they do have too many currencies, you have the cosmetic lootboxes and ways to buy any skin you want.

I wouldn't have a problem with Overwatch if it weren't for the game box charge, because it is essentially an F2P game that is supported by loot boxes. Eventually it will go F2P baseline aswell. So, all the box is giving you is early acess. I don't find that worth it, you do. Fair enough.
"Only those with narrow minds fail to see that the definition of Impossible is "Lack of imagination and incentive"" - DUNE:BJ
Nem is offline   Reply With Quote