|
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 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.
First of all, it's been said time and again that it's probably just a holder date. Because Gamestop is not a good solid source of information.
Second, how do you know what the development cost is? Do you think it was just one dude who sat down on his own time and made the whole thing for free? Companies have these things called "employees" that they need to provide with "paychecks" for "hours worked". Unless you know how many people worked on it and over how much time, you don't hell butts all about development cost.
The only people who say that it's cheap to develop any game are the ones who don't know a thing about the games industry or development in general.
|
On November 06 2015 07:35 Requizen 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. First of all, it's been said time and again that it's probably just a holder date. Because Gamestop is not a good solid source of information.Second, how do you know what the development cost is? Do you think it was just one dude who sat down on his own time and made the whole thing for free? Companies have these things called "employees" that they need to provide with "paychecks" for "hours worked". Unless you know how many people worked on it and over how much time, you don't hell butts all about development cost. The only people who say that it's cheap to develop any game are the ones who don't know a thing about the games industry or development in general.
Heck Overwatch may well be the most expensive FPS ever produced if you count the work on Titan aswell, its been in development since 2007 then.
|
Development costs is a sunk cost. Completely irrelevant to the discussion of pricing which is about optimizing earnings.
|
lmao guess duken nuken forever should cost 300$ a copy since it was in development for years
|
the plan is to pick cowboy and yell REVOLVER 'REVOLVER OCELOT' OCELOT every game
|
Ok played some more games and i have to say that it already gets kinda old :/
Give me a better mode pls...
Interested to see what happens at Blizzcon though, hopefully exciting news
|
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.
Valve was not selling TF2 for $60 ($50 with the orange box which included 2 other games, $20 by itself) and that was before they even started selling cosmetics. $60 for a multiplayer only game is incredibly ridiculous if it's true.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
20 euros sounds about the price I would pay.
|
http://i.imgur.com/MKCnXjy.jpg
So, it seems that there are two types, one is 40$ and other one is 60$. I guess that 60$ one comes with the Widowmaker skin, some poster and other stuff.
Super disappointed either ways because I really like the game but I would only play it with friends. Knowing this I am 100% positive that almost none of my friends will play this when it isn't F2P.
|
Mind you those are placeholder prices that every store puts on games when they aren't certain, and this is also a leak/rumor. Blizzcon is coming up and we'll have the proper information then.
Nevertheless, I was always okay with an upfront cost (helps keep cheaters out, allows access to all the content without microtransaction nonsense and so on). The problem is that TF2 only cost $20 when it came out, and then it even turned free to play later. If Overwatch wants to compete with TF2 - a free game - then aping Titanfall is not the way to go.
Similarities with Titanfall: That game had a ton of hype as well, but the price tag for a multiplayer-only title ended up being a problem for a lot of people. The limited game modes and maps were a common criticism of Titanfall from day one, and Blizzard have said that they want to limit the amount of game modes for frankly fairly arbitrary reasons. Titanfall is now dead with no possibility for any kind of competitive esports scene beyond hardcore enthusiast level.
This is unlikely to be a good sign, but it will depend on how expensive the cheapest pack will be.
I think everyone was hoping for Dota style monetization: A free to play game with cosmetics and a client which lets you buy tickets for esports events. For big IPs backed by huge companies this model has proved to be a massive success, so it will be disappointing if Blizzard doesn't follow suit. An upfront price tag - especially if it's higher than $15-$30 - is going to limit its ability to compete with TF2, and it's going to deter a lot of people from buying the game, all of which means the game won't ever be as big as it could have been.
Ten years ago I would have paid $60 for this game -- I have the money, it's not a question about my wallet. The problem is that I know this kind of price tag will limit what Overwatch can do, and will decimate (using the proper definition of the word decimate) the potential player count. I just won't pick it up if that turns out to be the case, because I'm not interested in just a fun shooter I play for a month. I want a fun to play competitive FPS title with a vibrant competitive scene that I can follow, and that won't happen if the actual price of entry is high.
|
I spend like 20 euros on skins in cs go this week since lotv is down. I was really impressed how I can buy stickers of my favourite players and teams, put them on my weapons, give back to the team and support the developers. Blizzards buisness models are ancient man.
Totally gonna bet skins next tourney, see how much more involved I become in cs matches.
Not gonna buy it for 40 nor 60, same problem as most peoples, would only play with friends and they are cheap.
|
To me "Origins Edition" sounds just like "Founder's Pack". Which is exactly what I believe this is. If you buy this you will get instant beta access and some skins and stuff. Some of it might only activate when the game officially launches.
Selling these "Founder's packs" with beta access is also a very good reason for why they let so few people in beta. Why give people beta access for free if you can sell it?
I dont get where people see a second "20 $" version here. And I stil think there is a good chance for the game to be f2p.
|
40$ with paid content in game? I know its just fluff but it sounds greedy to me.
|
On November 06 2015 10:41 Redox wrote:
To me "Origins Edition" sounds just like "Founder's Pack". Which is exactly what I believe this is. If you buy this you will get instant beta access and some skins and stuff. Some of it might only activate when the game officially launches.
I dont get where people see a second "20 $" version here. And I stil think there is a good chance for the game to be f2p.
I agree. I consider this the most likely possibility right now.
|
On November 06 2015 10:42 Superbanana wrote:
40$ with paid content in game? I know its just fluff but it sounds greedy to me.
Don't buy the other stuff. Its Blizzard, whatever they release will be a complete product and the extra stuff will be cosmetics and non-gameplay perks.
|
|
|
Some guy bought the pre-order thing for 40 dollars on reddit so i wouldn't get y'all knickers in a twist lol
FWIW, i'm totally about quality >> price
I really don't care how much a game costs if i get hundreds of hours of solid exciting gameplay from it
Whereas i really do care when i drop small amounts of money on games that only last a few unsatisfying hours
Ultimately it's just how satisfied i feel at the end (or during!) not how much money i've spent
|
On November 06 2015 07:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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!
thanks for the laugh.
10m in sales at $60 USD each?
Titanfall became an insta-discount title.
Titanfall fell so flat that EA revenue fell in the quarter it was released and EA released ZERO sales info about that game.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/05/06/ea-net-revenue-down-releases-no-titanfall-sales-numbers/
The less sales info a publicly traded company releases about a game the worse it did.
Notice you have no trouble finding out how many people bought and subscribed to WoW for its first 11 years? Notice how easy it is to find out Pacman made $3.5 Billion in 1990 money. ATVI can't publish fast enough how much money Skylanders is making.
you gotta be kidding me about the $600 million.
the game came out in March 2014 and was heavily discounted from June 2014 onward.
EA's Q2 2014 revenue #s reflect just how crap Titanfall was.
|
|
|
I'm fine with b2p for this title. But the fact that the pre-order skin hints at paid content as well is actually a huge turn-off for me.
Guess I have to wait if the public beta can change my mind. So far I am not impressed by the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
