Overwatch's Microtransactions Detailed And Priced

[Steven Bogos]

Overwatch's Microtransactions Detailed And Priced

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1013/1013091.jpg
Blizzard did not confirm the game's microtransaction structure until right before its launch.

Overwatch [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/overwatch] has launched, and we hope you are all having a blast playing it. However, those of you who played the game during the beta may have noticed something new has been added: microtransactions. Yes, Blizzard has waited until the very last minute to pull the curtain on the game's microtransaction model, and now that it has launched we have all the details.

Overwatch's microtransactions will take the form of its in-game "loot boxes" - boxes that are earned every time you "level up" and contain a variety of cosmetic goodies such as skins and sprays. As well as earning a single box every level for free, you can purchase additional boxes at the following price points:

2 boxes - $1.99
5 boxes - $4.99
11 boxes - $9.99
24 boxes - $19.99
50 boxes - $39.99

While it is certainly very sneaky that Blizzard didn't say anything about microtransactions right up until the game's launch, they are restricted to purely cosmetic offerings - there is no "pay-to-win" here.

If you're worried about this eventually bleeding over to maps and heroes, Blizzard has stated that all post-launch heroes and maps will be free of charge [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/165362-Overwatch-Post-Launch-Heroes-Will-be-Free].

Permalink

 

[laggyteabag]

This kind of annoyed me. It was a very sneaky way of putting them in the game. I was very happy that the beta showed hide nor hair of microtransactions, but it appears that even Blizzard can be seduced to the dark side, when it comes to throwing in free 2 play monetisation elements into premium games.

 

[Newage]

This kind of annoyed me. It was a very sneaky way of putting them in the game. I was very happy that the beta showed hide nor hair of microtransactions, but it appears that even Blizzard can be seduced to the dark side, when it comes to throwing in free 2 play monetisation elements into premium games.

Well, it was known by people who played in the second phase of closed beta. We had a survey during the second half of it asking about the price range at which we would consider buying the lootboxes. While definitely not widespread knowledge (Blizz asked that we do not talk about the content of the survey), I know there were a few topics about it on the subreddit.

 

[Naldan]

Aren't the levels reset every time a new match begins? If so, this seems to be too OK to be true.

 

[Alfredo Jones]

I read somewhere that if you get a duplicate item from a loot crate it gets converted into in-game currency that you can use to buy whatever you want. If it's true then I think that helps balance out the RNG factor.

 

[Steven Bogos]

Aren't the levels reset every time a new match begins? If so, this seems to be too OK to be true.

Levels are persistent, like your "rank" in Battlefield games

 

[Silent Protagonist]

If I am expected to pay to play the game, then I expect there to be no microtransactions in the game. Purely cosmetic microtransactions that allow fans with extra cash to throw some additional support to the game and its devs is the best way to do microtransactions, but it is a matter of principle. Microtransactions turn playing the game into a psychological war pitting your patience against your wallet. I will only put up with that if the game is free and even then, only if I am unable(for whatever reason) to buy a microtransaction free game. If Overwatch ever becomes free to play, instead of pay to pay, I will give it a shot, but until then I will be giving it a pass. Shame too, because it looks like a real fun game, but microtransactions can be(and usually are) a cancer to otherwise great games and my only option is to vote with my wallet.

 

[The Enquirer]

This doesn't annoy me. It's purely cosmetic stuff. We are getting all additional heroes and maps for free. If they're going to keep updating this game, they need to make money on it other than on the initial purchase. I honestly would have been more surprised if they didn't do something like this. It isn't at all pay to win so I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[thewatergamer]

Meh, still feels a little bit scummy to only NOW reveal the microtransactions just before the launch of the game, but then again as long as they keep to the promise of free updates and they come consistently then its fine, not going to buy the game though, I'll wait to see if they stay true to those "Free updates" they promised

 

[-Dragmire-]

It'd be nice if there was a direct way to pay for a skin, even if the cost was equal to like 10 crates. Pay less for more random stuff or pay more for what you want.

It would be nice, but it won't happen.

 

[hentropy]

The loot boxes always seemed like something they would eventually charge for, I didn't actually know this was a secret or unsuspected.

I read somewhere that if you get a duplicate item from a loot crate it gets converted into in-game currency that you can use to buy whatever you want. If it's true then I think that helps balance out the RNG factor.

This is true, though I have not really figured out a way to redeem the coins. I wasn't paying much attention to it tbh.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh look, an Activision-Blizzard game has awful microtransations and in implemented in a scummy way.


Honestly, I don't really get why people are surprised by this kinda stuff, shitty microtransations have been common in Activision-Blizzard shooters for a while now.

 

[Erttheking]

Ugh. This annoys me on concept, but I am glad to hear it's purely cosmetic items this time around.

 

[JayRPG]

I just don't understand why Blizzard seems to get a free pass on all this crap.

In my opinion they are the absolute worst offenders for bleeding their customers.

Look at WoW, that is now using all 3 MMO payment models:
It is a full-price purchase for the game, as well as separate full price purchases for each expansion,
It has a monthly subscription fee,
And to top it off it has an obscenely over-priced Microtransaction store, which is edging ever closer to P2W territory.

Hearthstone prices are ludicrous - $13 for an alternate hero portrait, $30 for adventures (<1 hour of single player content) which are basically a requirement because essential cards are locked behind that paywall.

HotS isn't much better, and Overwatch will continue the trend.

They are one of, if not the, greediest companies currently in existence.

 

[Callate]

I'm glad that Blizzard is going the cosmetic-only route; in as much as this can be said to be done "right", they're doing it right.

That said, for #$%&'s sake. So damn tired of this idea that microtransactions are somehow mandatory in full-priced commercial games! It's like the worst combination of "if there's a nickel to be squeezed out of this, we've got to do it" and "keep proving your loyalty to our franchise, and maybe we'll keep putting out new content and/or keep the servers running."

 

[Rastrelly]

Yup, now I am absolutely sure I was right about not buying this game =)

 

[Saelune]

I'm glad that Blizzard is going the cosmetic-only route; in as much as this can be said to be done "right", they're doing it right.

That said, for #$%&'s sake. So damn tired of this idea that microtransactions are somehow mandatory in full-priced commercial games! It's like the worst combination of "if there's a nickel to be squeezed out of this, we've got to do it" and "keep proving your loyalty to our franchise, and maybe we'll keep putting out new content and/or keep the servers running."

People are too lenient with microtransactions. "Its only cosmetic" "Its not that much" "They need the money".

I remember when Oblivion had one of the first microtransactions, and everyone flipped. Atleast Bethesda has avoided microtransactions since. (Anyone who says ESO, that wasn't made by Bethesda)

 

[hentropy]

I just don't understand why Blizzard seems to get a free pass on all this crap... (snip)

Those are all valid concerns, but I think it's fairly obvious why Blizzard gets a pass- it's because they're stuff is fairly consistently good. I've never played a Blizzard game before Overwatch, so I can hardly be called a trufan, but the general consensus is they make good shit and support it pretty well. EA and Ubisoft get the shit that they do because not only do they pull scummy stuff, but the games they do it in are increasingly bland and less fun than the last. They may have high production values and are competently developed, but miss the mark in many other ways. People can take all the absolutist stances they want on how people should pay for games, but people will also be willing to pay more and tolerate more for actual quality.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Wow, a lot of people sure seem upset that in a game they don't play, some people are able to waste their money buying cosmetic items they can earn fairly easily through play.
Anyone who played the beta pretty much knew for sure they were gonna sell those loot boxes at some point, the only question was price. This comes as zero surprise to me.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Aren't the levels reset every time a new match begins? If so, this seems to be too OK to be true.

Levels don't actually mean anything.
Unlike saaaay Battlefield where you unlock weapons.
Every time you gain a level you get a loot box and the number by your portrait goes up by one.
Other than that nothing happens.