EPTOn November 07 2015 14:51 kongoline wrote:
isnt it 40euro not dollars in eu tho ? that makes it even more expensive LOL
isnt it 40euro not dollars in eu tho ? that makes it even more expensive LOL
Don't know about euro but for brits its £30
General Discussion - Page 82
| 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. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
Don't know about euro but for brits its £30 | ||
|
iXphobos
Germany1465 Posts
On November 07 2015 20:29 Reaps wrote: Don't know about euro but for brits its £30 Keep in mind that 40€ official Bilzzard price most likely means ~30€ actual price. At least it was that way with all Blizzard games in the last years. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On November 07 2015 20:29 Reaps wrote: Don't know about euro but for brits its £30 Is that another edition? It's asking me to pay £45 ($68) in the launcher for the only option | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
Edit: yea just checked again it only shows the origin edition at the moment, was different last night. Just go to the Overwatch website, you can choose standard edition from there. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
game prices are a little wild sometimes. On the other side we have EA charging £50 for the base battlefront game plus around that much more for new maps. | ||
|
ETisME
12778 Posts
I ain't a big fps fans and if it was f2p I would just play the game a few times a week and buy cosmetic once in a while. Right now it's a little bit pricy and not to mention I can't try it out first I hope it works out well though | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On November 07 2015 15:31 lestye wrote: 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. CS is old, CSGO's mechanics are largely timeless and doesn't feel that aged frankly. And CSGO is not f2p (shows how much you know) and it's actually not rampant with kids nor hackers. It had a hacking problem for sure but that's largely resolved (much faster than Blizzard deals with its hacking problems, might I add). And the kids are in casual where you can easily mute them, and you should, if for some reason you feel the need play casual. That said, I understand that you'd want something new. I'll have to see what they do with it first, but I feel like there are currently better options for cheaper. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
Overwatch - $40, PC only, includes all of the heroes. Overwatch Origins Edition - $60, PC, Xbox One, and PS4 LOL :D bit of PCMR there | ||
|
nighcol
298 Posts
On November 07 2015 02:50 nighcol wrote: CS:GO now is a huge improvement over the first release version. Valve took a shitton of work into it to make it the best competitive shooter there is atm. Still, are you saying every single 1.6 player is just happy with the game or that it's successful because of that? The first would be unheard of for any game ever. The second also seems unlikely. | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On November 07 2015 11:49 Meta wrote: Wow, never mind. That's great. Thanks, Blizzard. Yeah, they never said that. I just re-watched the panel and they dodged the question by saying that they had no plans to expand the roster because 21 felt like a good number and there was really no reason to make more. They refused to comment on whether or not they'd charge for map packs or any future heroes. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
they dodged the question by saying that they had no plans to expand the roster because 21 felt like a good number and there was really no reason to make more worst case i think would be following the league model of just add a bunch of heroes and worry about it later. 20 is a very solid number! that doesn't answer the question of future development though. And i'm not going to buy without in-engine experience, even if it's only a minute. You can tell some engine quirks within seconds like the characteristic microstutter/lag of starcraft 2 + heroes of the storm. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On November 07 2015 23:05 Cyro wrote: And i'm not going to buy without in-engine experience, even if it's only a minute. I kinda have to agree with this. I'm incredibly hyped about the prospect of this game but I'm also incredibly sensitive to FPS engines. It HAS to feel right to me or I just won't be able to play it. Which means I absolutely must try it out before putting down money for it. Its a huge risk otherwise. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Where are new game modes? I think Overwatch should have had different gamemodes when it launched the beta, but there is imo no good explanation why Blizzcon didn't announce other alternatives... I think people will soon get bored and the hype will slow down a lot because of this. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46221 Posts
On November 07 2015 19:50 Rocket-Bear wrote: I remember when every game pretty much costed this much and ppl didn't complain Yeah I agree... it's been like that for at least 20 years lol... the N64/PS1 generation (~20 years ago) had each new game cost $50-70, as well as each console game in the next generations too. I forget how much an SNES cartridge cost, but I have hundreds of games that cost as much as any of these Blizzard ones, so I'm really not salty about paying $40-60 for Overwatch or LotV or anything else for that matter... because I know how much time I'm going to dedicate to these games. It pays for itself a hundred times over for me. And if a non-F2P model works for Blizzard or any other business, then I'm not at all surprised that they charge money. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
hariooo
Canada2830 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46221 Posts
On November 08 2015 03:50 hariooo wrote: You guys are arguing against ghosts. No one is saying $40 is unreasonable by itself. Have you been reading the TL and b.net threads? A ton of people are whining about how games aren't always F2P in the year 2015, especially Blizzard games, since some games are. Some are also worried about additional costs too. | ||
|
Parametric
Canada1261 Posts
On November 08 2015 03:50 hariooo wrote: You guys are arguing against ghosts. No one is saying $40 is unreasonable by itself. But Blizzard is going to either sell expansion packs (pure or standalone like SC2) or implement some kind of monetization that will include gameplay elements. If both future heroes AND maps were not going to be paid for, you can bet that they would be announcing that over every outlet possible. Personally I think an SC2 style expansion in 2 years is more than fine. But Blizzard saying things like "we have no plans for new heroes at this time" is just a crock of BS. Of course they're going to develop content for their new IP and attempt to grow it. It just remains to be seen if it will be in a consumer friendly way. You have to remember they're developing skins for all the heroes, and no one should ever underestimate the revenue of skins in a popular game. I think that will sate some of the money hungriness from Acti-Blizz; however I do believe there will be expansions in the future, I just hope it's like an SC2 timeline on expos so it's easier on the player base. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46221 Posts
On November 08 2015 04:09 Cyro wrote: I don't mind paying but i expect to know what future additional costs will be before laying down a penny This is something I definitely agree with. A consumer doesn't want to pay $40 for the opportunity to pay $40 more in hidden/ eventual costs. We should be aware of future expenses ahead of time, so we can project how much money we'd be expected to pay in total. Transparency should always be the case, regardless of what the costs are. | ||
| ||
