|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On November 06 2015 05:38 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 06 2015 05:31 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 06 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On November 06 2015 05:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:
But guys let's think about it, console versions are pretty much confirmed i think, the whole game already seems very console friendly to me.
If there are console versions, f2p simply won't work, no? There are several free to play games on consoles, including Warframe. But I bet its a boxed release that will have DLC later on if people want it. Wouldn't doubt if Blizzard put it out for like $30-$40 since they are all about trying smaller games and different price points. Hm i just thought you cannot really do microtransactions in a good way on consoles, i guess that isn't the case though^^ On November 06 2015 05:24 jcarlsoniv wrote:On November 06 2015 05:23 The_Red_Viper wrote:
But guys let's think about it, console versions are pretty much confirmed i think, the whole game already seems very console friendly to me.
If there are console versions, f2p simply won't work, no? 1 - Most people already agree that F2P model would not work for this game in any capacity. 2 - F2P in general could theoretically work on consoles - they have marketplaces Why wouldn't free to play work? You still could have all heroes to be available, you just have to include microtransactions in an intelligent way (dota2 for example, csgo) Valve isn't Blizzard. Blizzard doesnt' have a store front selling other peoples games that they can use to fund weird development projects like Dota 2 and CSGO. The reason those games exist is that Valve can wait years for them to become profitable. Blizzard, despite all its money from WoW, doesn't have that option. They are owned by share holders. Well they already have some free to play games in their portfolio. I could see that it's not possible for this game because it probably is what is left from project titan, which means that a lot of money already went into it. Might be safer to publish it traditionally.
Yeah, and they can't go the route of Valve where they release full games and just fuck around with a market place until it starts to pull in money to support it.
|
I think B2P could work, if there wouldn't be things out like CS:GO and TF2. But since those games exist it would really turn into Titanfall and the sorts that tried this.
That being said Blizzard actually has marketing now and knows what they are doing.
So if they really make it B2P, they just don't want to bother with hackers. Or they don't mind that it will do a Titanfall, because they will still get big bugs even if the games gone within a few weeks. (they need to recover the cost of a 7 year project afterall)
But yeah activision handling things might also be the answer haha. But in any other case I am pretty sure they'll make it f2p. And you basically unlock the cool sprays and everything if you pay em tons. (I would pay 10 dollar for the bunny icon in a week moment >.< )
|
On November 06 2015 04:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
edit: One big reason also could be that it will get released on consoles as well, kinda hard to justify a f2p system for pc that way (which would kinda imply that consoles are their main target, which would be :/ )
A console focused development strategy should've been self evident. The M.O. for (modern) Blizzard is casual titles for consoles and mobile devices.
Even if you don't take the company into account - Overwatch has very slow movement and the majority of the damage sources are hitscan. These are key characteristics of a console focused FPS game. It also means the game is going to devolve a lot when played competitively on the PC when top tier aimers get their hands on it as there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check.
I wish Blizzard had someone high up on the Overwatch team that knew why the Q3A community made CPMA back in the day.
|
“Console Casuals” and the glory days of Quake 3. Smh. Didn’t take long for the FPS gate keeper talk to begin.
|
On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:
there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check.
Can you expand on this? I've not played CS in any in depth manner, so I don't know how the "flaws of hitscan" are kept in check.
|
On November 06 2015 06:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:
there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check. Can you expand on this? I've not played CS in any in depth manner, so I don't know how the "flaws of hitscan" are kept in check.
Bullets don't travel, the game just calculates if the shot would hit or not based on a line from where the cross hair is. Literally point and click.
|
Even if it's buy to play which I would actually approve I don't think 60$/€ is realistic for what the game is, if you cut that to half or 1/3 you got a deal.
Still seems more likely to me thats it going to be some form of F2P considering the current trend that even Blizzard jumped into already.
|
On November 06 2015 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 06:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:
there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check. Can you expand on this? I've not played CS in any in depth manner, so I don't know how the "flaws of hitscan" are kept in check. Bullets don't travel, the game just calculates if the shot would hit or not based on a line from where the cross hair is. Literally point and click.
No, I know what hitscan is. I'm more asking how "CS's gunplay" counteracts the flaws.
|
On November 06 2015 06:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 06:04 Plansix wrote:On November 06 2015 06:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:
there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check. Can you expand on this? I've not played CS in any in depth manner, so I don't know how the "flaws of hitscan" are kept in check. Bullets don't travel, the game just calculates if the shot would hit or not based on a line from where the cross hair is. Literally point and click. No, I know what hitscan is. I'm more asking how "CS's gunplay" counteracts the flaws.
I have no idea what that is. Its likely one of those ethereal arguments about “core game design” and “skill based gameplay” that boils down to him liking quake and wanting more of that.
And something about console casuals.
|
On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 04:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
edit: One big reason also could be that it will get released on consoles as well, kinda hard to justify a f2p system for pc that way (which would kinda imply that consoles are their main target, which would be :/ ) A console focused development strategy should've been self evident. The M.O. for (modern) Blizzard is casual titles for consoles and mobile devices. Even if you don't take the company into account - Overwatch has very slow movement and the majority of the damage sources are hitscan. These are key characteristics of a console focused FPS game. It also means the game is going to devolve a lot when played competitively on the PC when top tier aimers get their hands on it as there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check. I wish Blizzard had someone high up on the Overwatch team that knew why the Q3A community made CPMA back in the day.
Think you got it all backwards, the fact that the majority of weapons are hitscan will suit pc a hell of a lot more than consoles as gamepads will never give you the aim accuracy as keyboard/mouse (obviously).
As for your CS comparison (CS being point and shoot realistic shooter with one shot headshots) I would say Overwatch will give the top tier aimers a lot more to play with as its a fire from the hip while moving while tracking crosshair on target FPS, the possibility for high level plays will be much higher than CS imo.
|
On November 06 2015 06:01 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 05:54 Aurra wrote:
there is no equivalent to Counterstrike's gunplay to keep the intrinsic flaws of hitscan damage in check. Can you expand on this? I've not played CS in any in depth manner, so I don't know how the "flaws of hitscan" are kept in check.
Sure.
The problem with a traditional hitscan damage source in a FPS game is that a player's impact on the state of the game is incredibly binary. You either have your cursor on your target or you don't. The implications should be obvious, and you probably already know what hitscan is. I just wanted to throw this out there just in case. Most FPS games put mechanics in place to make it harder in some way to apply hitscan damage.
Virtually every weapon in Counterstrike has a recoil or spray patterns[csgoskills.com]. These patterns mean in order to for you to actually apply damage you have to apply some serious mechanical gymnastics with your mouse to get every shot to land on your intended point in the game space. Each one of these patterns are magnified by movement in various forms. To hit even a stationary target with every bullet in an AK47 or M4 is very difficult despite the damage model itself being instantaneous. Very few people, even at a pro level, can to it with extremely high consistency.
Edit: And Reaps, I think you missed my point. I'm saying that hitscan damage without hurdles for the player to overcome gets very boring from a competitive standpoint. I mentioned Q3A earlier because even with the general game speed that game has it wasn't enough to prevent the LG and Rail from becoming too dominant. This was the initial problem that sparked the creation of CPMA. Even Quake Live recognized the problem and had balance changes applied to both weapons due to the choice of sticking with VQ3 physics.
|
On November 06 2015 05:43 FeyFey wrote:
I think B2P could work, if there wouldn't be things out like CS:GO and TF2. But since those games exist it would really turn into Titanfall and the sorts that tried this.
That being said Blizzard actually has marketing now and knows what they are doing.
So if they really make it B2P, they just don't want to bother with hackers. Or they don't mind that it will do a Titanfall, because they will still get big bugs even if the games gone within a few weeks. (they need to recover the cost of a 7 year project afterall)
But yeah activision handling things might also be the answer haha. But in any other case I am pretty sure they'll make it f2p. And you basically unlock the cool sprays and everything if you pay em tons. (I would pay 10 dollar for the bunny icon in a week moment >.< )
Titanfall isn't a good example of a game that couldn't do well (financially) due to upfront-cost. Total sales were + 10M. That's $600M in revenue!
What Titanfall is a great example of is a game that fell over extremely quickly. It couldn't keep players interested. For a PC game, I think its absolutely essential that a competitive scene is developed so players can keep motivation. They see their rank and set goals to get to even better. Then they watch pros' play, and see some awesome and get inspired to do even better.
Titanfall didn't have that and as a consequence the player-retention was very low. Overwatch on the other hand will have that (almost certain).
My estimate for OW is $20-25 upfront + microtransactions along with 30M sales within 12 months.
|
And if OW has an upfront cost, would you buy it instantly ? Seriously, it seems very fun but very repetitive to me to really be a costly game.
|
On November 06 2015 07:04 WhiteDog wrote:
And if OW has an upfront cost, would you buy it instantly ? Seriously, it seems very fun but very repetitive to me to really be a costly game.
Depends on what the upfront cost is. It's almost guaranteed to not be $60, and if it is, it will definitely include more than what we see here right now.
|
On November 06 2015 07:05 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 07:04 WhiteDog wrote:
And if OW has an upfront cost, would you buy it instantly ? Seriously, it seems very fun but very repetitive to me to really be a costly game. Depends on what the upfront cost is. It's almost guaranteed to not be $60, and if it is, it will definitely include more than what we see here right now.
$60 game would need a single player campaign.
|
On November 06 2015 07:17 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 07:05 Requizen wrote:On November 06 2015 07:04 WhiteDog wrote:
And if OW has an upfront cost, would you buy it instantly ? Seriously, it seems very fun but very repetitive to me to really be a costly game. Depends on what the upfront cost is. It's almost guaranteed to not be $60, and if it is, it will definitely include more than what we see here right now. $60 game would need a single player campaign.
And honestly that would not surprise me. Blizz loves their stories, even HotS has a backstory as to why everyone is fighting. Let's see what this weekend brings in news.
|
I never would pay more than $20 for Overwatch tbh. So yeah will be interesting to see what happens
|
60$ is not an appropriate price for Overwatch. Neither the development cost nor the content of the game could justify such a steep price. The Dota2 business model seems like a good idea here.
|
On November 06 2015 07:30 Scorch wrote:
60$ is not an appropriate price for Overwatch. Neither the development cost nor the content of the game could justify such a steep price. The Dota2 business model seems like a good idea here.
Literally impossible since Blizzard is not valve. But $60 is a place holder, just like the release date.
|
On November 06 2015 07:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2015 07:30 Scorch wrote:
60$ is not an appropriate price for Overwatch. Neither the development cost nor the content of the game could justify such a steep price. The Dota2 business model seems like a good idea here. Literally impossible since Blizzard is not valve. But $60 is a place holder, just like the release date.
Not impossible. A F2P would give them the game much more marketable in the east. Hence its a tradeoff. How much will the playerbase increase if it becomes F2P relative to a $20-25 upfront cost?
I think there are financial arguments for both sides, but the safe bet is the upfront fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
