[Gaming] Overwatch (#boycottblizz)
- Thread starter Ravenpoe
- Start date
That face in the third panel, it's perfect.
According to Coelasquid's news post, the events of the comic happened as depicted during a match by one of her friends, and they all agreed that was kind of the most Junkrat thing ever.That face in the third panel, it's perfect.
Honestly, I am surprised no one has attached a massive beard to Fixit Felix and replaced most of his lines with Torbjorn as he randomly hammers things.
I still don't know how to do a spray.
Really, I just don't care about them.
But I can totally see that happening in game. Now if only you could throw the trap the same distance as the mine for consistency's sake, I'd be happy.
--Patrick
I assume that's just so they can keep their game where you repeatedly murder people as rated T for Teen.
--Patrick
Yeah I've seen enough TF2 "haha I used a half-naked girl spray to get a backstab" videos to know that'll never happen in OW.
GasBandit
Staff member
TF2's not rated M. And there's a report feature for overwatch's most egregious abusers.
Well duh, there's no backstab class.
It won't happen though, because sprays are part of the reward system. Adding custom sprays means people can just download the spray file and make it a custom one, thus defeating much of the purpose of them as a possible reward. It's the same reason we likely won't see custom skins.
What I really do hope for someday though, is custom maps. There is a lot of possibility there without breaking the reward structure.
What I really do hope for someday though, is custom maps. There is a lot of possibility there without breaking the reward structure.
GasBandit
Staff member
The reward structure of this game is idiotic. Sprays shouldn't be rewards. Skins, ok, maybe. Player icons? Insulting. Nobody's happy when they get player icons.
But "sprays as rewards" is a diamond-consortium-level con job. It's living proof of the concept of artificial scarcity.
Well then, what else do you propose they add that is A) extremely easy to make, and B) can fill up the loot boxes enough to keep skin acquisition at a slower rate? Yes, it is designed to create artificial scarcity of the skins, but that is the purpose. There is no point if you get the skins filled out in the first 100 boxes. As much as people can disagree, this whole loot box system is Blizzard's way of making extra money after the games shelf life, and so they need to make purchasing those boxes at least somewhat desirable, and they do that by giving more skin chances that through regular play would take way, way longer.
GasBandit
Staff member
You are arguing from a standpoint where the "they need to make extra money after the full price purchase" statement is valid. I'm not so sure it is.
But if that's the way they want to go, get rid of Baby's First Gambling Game and just put up the skins in a market for real cash.
Hooray for the invisible hand!
That does not sound very Libertarian of you. If Blizzard has the ability to utilize a system for higher gains at no actual required cost to the player, with all possible payment and chance of reward being optional to the consumer (as all rewards can be gained through gameplay with enough interest) then who are you to tell them to change the system? As a consumer you have a right not to take part in the system, or at least engage your displeasure of the system, obviously, but that does not make the standpoint any less valid. They are a business, after all.
They don't have enough heroes to just put up all the skins for real cash, as people will just purchase the first skin they want and then never purchase again (this isn't LoL with it's 130+ champions) There is not much longevity in that system unless they also remove the ability to gain such skins through natural game-play, which in turn would be detrimental to the general player way more then a random loot box. In other words, Blizzard is taking advantage of "whales" to fund further skins / maps / heroes that, in turn, can be gained by us through game-play or free through patches. I would much rather have that system then one that forces me to purchase skins through a shop, all the while the whales can boost themselves for better chances with their cash. In the end I reap the rewards.
We simply don't live in a world now where the base game cost covers all expenses of a game including future development, more so one that is expected to have general servers and upkeep well into the next century. This is why every multiplayer game is going this direction, from Mass Effect 3 to Team Fortress 2, and honestly the Overwatch system is way more lenient then either of those other games since the rewards don't alter gameplay, making them highly more optional.
Y'know, I still wonder how they're going about it with Diablo III. The RMAH was an absolute disaster and sucked the life out of the game, but there's no way left to spend RL money on it even if I wanted to. There's been - small - extra content patches, but the expected second expansion pack is long in coming...
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not saying the government should make it illegal
private parties can still object to terms of business arrangements without getting government involved.The fucking customer who is dissatisfied with the product. I might spend money on specific skin I want. I have spent no money on Baby's First Gambling 2016, and I don't see myself ever doing so.
That's what I am, and that's what I'm doing. Expressing my displeasure with the product.
That's baloney. This is not a free to play game, it's $40/$60 (and the console peasants don't even have the $40 option). ME3 aside (which is a whole 'nother discussion) you are comparing a AAA full price game to free to play games, which is apples to oranges. Blizzard wants to have their cake and eat it too (and who doesn't?), with the up-front price to get in plus microtransactions later as if the game was free to play. They can do that if they want, but don't expect people like me to not call them on their shenanigans and identify dipshittery for what it is.
Unfortunately, this is a false assumption, as there are rewards which cannot be gained through gameplay (e.g., Noire Widowmaker skin, golden Elite Tauren Chieftain card, Wings of Mercy -- items only available with a purchase of some sort), or which have extremely limited availability (e.g., Summer games rewards) which would require a time investment beyond the sane.
--Patrick
Except you didn't just object, you said it wasn't valid! That cashflow is pure free market at its finest. If that isn't valid...?
Then don't, you are free to avoid it and lose nothing.
Other then LoL, which other game did I mention that was F2P at release? TF2 used to cost money too, and even when it did go F2P they added micro-transations to recoup costs. This all for a game that actually does not even have to really host it's own servers, since it has custom servers, but they do it anyways, because they can, and they will. I don't fault them for wanting to make money on their franchise, I choose to not play it though.
Mass Effect 3 had micro-transations for it's multiplayer portion right out of the box too (not even going into DLC), and those ones actually were important for gameplay, as they gave you upgrades, accessories, and weapons. Good luck going into gold or platinum without busting out that credit card.
You can call them out all you want as it being dipshittery, but that does not make the strategy and the need any less "valid", which is the crux of the discussion here. Disagreement does not in turn prove invalidity. They want that money, for upkeep or gold plated orc statues, and the only way we can tell them we disagree is through our wallets. I am just saying as a player of the game you should feel lucky the system we have now allows you to "opt-out" entirely, many other developers (both freemium or AAA) wouldn't even give you that option because they want your sweet, sweet green.
Last edited:
Just because you believe the time investment required to get the summer games is beyond sane, does not mean the items can't be gained through game-play over time. Plus, I think you are assuming the summer games are a one time event, they are going to happen every year during the summer with the same rewards, much like WoW has holiday events with rare mounts. You are supposed to get them over years of play.
As for the Noire Skin or Origin items, those were paid box bonuses and not technically "rewards". You don't win them, so they are beyond the scope of what I was talking about.
GasBandit
Staff member
Now you're just splitting hairs as to what "valid" means. It doesn't mean "legal."[DOUBLEPOST=1472576042,1472575627][/DOUBLEPOST]
Yes, it USED to cost money. THEN it went F2P and added microtransactions. Overwatch has not switched to F2P, even though it wants the revenue to come in as if it had.
And that was also Bee-Ess. You realize you are now holding up an EA game as a comparison for revenue models - which should not ever be done in any context except for "here's how you DON'T do this."
I should "feel lucky?" Fuck that shit, they should "feel lucky" they get my money, and if they want more of it, they should find less dipshitty ways to get it. I've bought cosmetic items before, even in games that weren't F2P. Overwatch's system is just the wrong way to do things at every single turn, however.
I don't mean legal either! I think you misused the word valid, honestly, which kicked this whole discussion off.
GasBandit
Staff member
Then feel free to substitute any of its synonyms: reasonable, justifiable, defensible, etc.
That is because Overwatch is still a new game. Even WoW started a "F2p" account setup at one point, but it has no reason to do it when the market is there willing to give them money for it. 10 million people purchased the game on release. All the butt-hurt in the world by a small minority can't stop the fact this was a massive success for them, even with all that double dipping.
I have never hated EA as much as some people, so I am fine making the comparison. People seem to get their panties in a wad over a game and then go buy it anyways, which is their own problem. If I don't want to support a game, I don't purchase it, that is the way of the free market. If they still make money, in the end, they had an audience willing to live through what I thought was bullshit, and thus their strategy is valid.
That is the funny thing, in the end, they don't need you at all. They got enough people purchasing loot boxes that any money you may have put into the system is tears in the rain.
Also, technically "valid" does mean "legal" depending on context. Just wanted to throw that out. =P
GasBandit
Staff member
They did, but that's still irrelevant, as is any other comparison to WoW as the long term overhead of running an MMO are vastly different than a TF2 clone.
If you're actually defending Mass Effect 3, I think we've reached a rhetorical impasse. I didn't buy that one either, incidentally.
Well, that has been the attitude consistent with their customer support over the years, in my experience.
Yeah, and "gay" means happy depending on context.
Well, from a free-market perspective, they are all of those too.
I don't defend it as a GAME, but once again we are not talking about game-play here. You like Overwatch enough to play it most nights, so it's obviously not the problem here.
The reason this discussion started is because of the implication that the system they are using, even involving a full priced game, is invalid, which is grossly false. The money they make on the game is only what players are, in the end, willing to pay for it. If you have people willing to put that much money into a game, whether Candy Crush Saga, Overwatch, ME3, etc on infinitum, then how can such a system not be valid by the definition of the term? The rest is just personal opinion, which holds no sway to claim validity on it's own. It requires cold, hard facts to be involved, and logically introduced for such a conclusion to be reached.
Of course, you can DISAGREE with the direction the loot box takes, or prefer other ways of gaining said rewards. I never argued you couldn't. You have that right. I just find the implication of invalidity to be grossly false.
To be fair he seems to be gritting his teeth and dripping scorn most nights.
GasBandit
Staff member
[DOUBLEPOST=1472578108,1472578072][/DOUBLEPOST]
And that's not just in overwatch! HEYOOO
It basically comes down to this. I would love the ability to just purchase the skins I like and not have a random loot box. That is my PERSONAL opinion on the matter.
However, I am also not self-contained in my own little bubble of thinking and selfish needs, and understand that a company by it's very nature exists to make money, whether for those that work on it, or shareholders, to the CEOs, or all the little other people outside the company that rely on those bigger companies for business. I firmly believe, that in a free market, a man can ask $5000 for a pen, and while I find that ridiculous, it does not make it any less valid as long as he has rich people willing to put that type of money on a writing utensil. A claim like that from me would be silly, because it's steeped in my own personal bias outside the facts.
The only place I, personally, get pissy about the free market is when those markets become EXPLOITATIVE. Raising prices on life-saving medication that someone needs just to live a normal life is inexcusable. I don't really put Overwatch in that boat though, because A) The system is entirely optional, as you can get everything in the game through enough playtime for free, and B) It's a video game, by it's nature a luxury, which means someone isn't going to drop over dead because he can't afford his favorite S76 skin. If they wanted they could offer a solid gold plated Ps4 disk dipped in chocolate for $10k, and while I would never buy that, I say more power to them for at least giving it a try.
If the market deems such a system stupid, then it will die or change on it's own when the company realizes the error (aka the D3 RMAH). I am fine with that give and take relationship.
Ah. I had assumed they were going to be releasing new ones every year, but only for a few weeks each time so as to make it almost impossible to acquire them all through play before the deadline came.
As for the F2P+μ$ model, I honestly don't mind it at all UNLESS it is obvious that the company in question is artificially limiting gameplay somehow so as to encourage the µ$'s (i.e., just about any mobile game featuring a yelling face).
--Patrick