EPTPersonally the worst part about this is that I won't be able to play this with most of my friends since they don't have that much money to spend :/
General Discussion - Page 81
| Forum Index > General Games |
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. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
Personally the worst part about this is that I won't be able to play this with most of my friends since they don't have that much money to spend :/ | ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:29 synapse wrote: Isn't overwatch purely multiplayer? I'd probably begrudgingly buy it for 40 bucks but 60 is a little overboard. Personally the worst part about this is that I won't be able to play this with most of my friends since they don't have that much money to spend :/ I guess it will be cheaper in China just like SCII | ||
|
Elerris
Australia137 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:29 synapse wrote: Isn't overwatch purely multiplayer? I'd probably begrudgingly buy it for 40 bucks but 60 is a little overboard. Personally the worst part about this is that I won't be able to play this with most of my friends since they don't have that much money to spend :/ This is pretty much my situation as well. As soon as I told my friends it was $70 AUD all of them bar one said they weren't going to get it. Really sucks because I was looking forward to playing in large groups ;_; | ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:29 synapse wrote: Isn't overwatch purely multiplayer? I'd probably begrudgingly buy it for 40 bucks but 60 is a little overboard. Personally the worst part about this is that I won't be able to play this with most of my friends since they don't have that much money to spend :/ Well 40 is the known price right now, 60 is just collectors edition | ||
|
boon2537
United States905 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
I'm thrilled that they will presumably follow a traditional model of offering all features required to be competitive, from the get-go. Any FTP model would have been difficult to implement, and Hearthstone and HotS have totally blown it in my opinion. I would have been quite sad to have been offered up a "Free" game where you only get access to a couple characters at a time on a rotating basis unless you shell out tons of money. Speaking of money, $40 is totally fair for this game, especially since you get all required components to play without a disadvantage. Everything above that amount is cosmetic. That's great! The one downside is that it opens up the possibility for expansions, in which they might offer a lot of new content (maps, characters) for a relatively large amount of money, say $20 to $40 each. This could add up in the long run and make the full version of the game quite demanding on the wallet, which would be a shame. On November 07 2015 06:08 jcarlsoniv wrote: phew, crisis averted Blizz has restored my faith by following Smite model Wow, never mind. That's great. Thanks, Blizzard. | ||
|
hariooo
Canada2830 Posts
On November 07 2015 09:20 yamato77 wrote: Hariooo dude, I don't think this game will be less popular than HotS "by a factor of ten". In terms of number of active players? One is free the other is $40. I'm not talking about value is rather pay $40 for OW than play HotS for free but one will have way more players based on cost of entry alone that's a really simple statement to make. For the rest of you, do you really think an incredibly important statement like "future heroes and maps are for free" should come from the mouth of an official Blizzard press release or as an aside by an employee streaming the game? If they had already decided on that why on earth would they announce something so crucial in such an indirect way? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I think thats a pretty clear answer. So the typical Blizzard "we work in the present not the future" answer. I loved the mac support question in the Q&A ... just when he asked that windows 10 sign popped up on the stream. | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
On November 07 2015 13:24 FeyFey wrote: the question actually came up in the Q&A and they pretty much said they had currently no plans to add more heroes and have no idea how they will implement new heroes if they do so. I think thats a pretty clear answer. So the typical Blizzard "we work in the present not the future" answer. I loved the mac support question in the Q&A ... just when he asked that windows 10 sign popped up on the stream. Blizzard had backpedaled on their "solid" decisions before based on community responses. See the stern "no flying" for Draenor before they finally caved in at the latest patch. Additionally seeing as nobody really knows the development team for Overwatch we can't really take their words at face value. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:33 Elerris wrote: This is pretty much my situation as well. As soon as I told my friends it was $70 AUD all of them bar one said they weren't going to get it. Really sucks because I was looking forward to playing in large groups ;_; I don't know 5 people who'd be willing to pay $40 for a game like this when the market is already saturated with free and cheaper options. The local price is likely to run $60-65 after taxes and $90 after taxes for the CE. You can buy CSGO for like $7 and it has a proven competitive scene, and TF2 which is still a competent game today for $0. As for anyone who's not that into FPS, there's all that free MOBA stuff. Looks like a good time but I'm not going to pay $40 for a goofy multiplayer only game to play it alone. If it can save us from a terrible microtransaction system though, maybe it's better that way in the long run. Especially since in FPS, f2p -> hackers (which are particularly irritating). I'll have to wait 2-3 years for it to drop to $20 or some shit. Maybe by then though the game's novelty will have totally waned. | ||
|
kongoline
6318 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
On November 07 2015 14:30 Djzapz wrote: I don't know 5 people who'd be willing to pay $40 for a game like this when the market is already saturated with free and cheaper options. The local price is likely to run $60-65 after taxes and $90 after taxes for the CE. You can buy CSGO for like $7 and it has a proven competitive scene, and TF2 which is still a competent game today for $0. As for anyone who's not that into FPS, there's all that free MOBA stuff. Looks like a good time but I'm not going to pay $40 for a goofy multiplayer only game to play it alone. If it can save us from a terrible microtransaction system though, maybe it's better that way in the long run. Especially since in FPS, f2p -> hackers (which are particularly irritating). I'll have to wait 2-3 years for it to drop to $20 or some shit. Maybe by then though the game's novelty will have totally waned. Those are alternatives, but they're also completely different, old games. How many times have they remade and re-released CS over the years? My friends and I want something completely new, and Overwatch is that. TF2 doesnt get all that support, and like I said , like CS, its an old game. Plus, it's F2P and rampant with kids and hackers. I don't know. I've gotten so much value out of Blizzard games and games like TF2, 40 dollars does not seem much at all. | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
I'm sure Blizzard went through plenty of pricing models at different price points including F2P. I'm also sure Blizzard has contingency plans for eventually reducing OW MSRP and/or making it F2P. so I'm guessing $40 is what Blizzard considers the safest bet from a revenue standpoint considering PC & console sales. from a multiplayer standpoint, the $40 price point is more likely to limit its growth though. we'll eventually see what additional content gets added to OW before the 6/2016 full release, but a multiplayer game like OW is dependent on its matchmaking ability and if the multiplayer population gets too low, then the casual population will eventually become too discouraged from playing due to high skill disparity in matches Blizzard will likely do sales to see how it affects population growth and eventually cut MSRP if the multiplayer population gets too low my preference would have been Blizzard being more open to risk and have OW at a $25 MSRP with a cash shop consisting of cosmetics like hero skins, weapon skins, different ultimate animations, different taunt animations, different voice dialogs, etc, and Blizzard sustaining game interest through free content updates consisting of new heroes, maps, game modes, etc also Seagull has a really good McCree against randoms | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 07 2015 17:01 zev318 wrote: isnt it 60 if youre in NA? Is NA shorthand for "have to by skins and WoW pets"? | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
| ||
|
Rocket-Bear
3070 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22070 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: Oh hey, Hakumen-guy is finally revealed. Surprised it took this long considering he's been in every promotional piece ever released for this game. You mean the ninja? Seagul mentioned on his stream that Blizzard was having issues balancing him as a melee hero. Hence the long wait. | ||
| ||
