Overwatch's Microtransactions Detailed And Priced

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
Nazulu said:
anthony87 said:
Nazulu said:
Anyone else want to share their awful defenses for WoW? Send it to Idon'[email protected]
Huh, for someone who doesn't give a shit you seem to have a lot to say on the matter.
Maybe I'm just tired of this thread.
Try doing what I do. Type out what you're going to say but before you hit the post button just think to yourself "Hang on....do I really care that much about this? If not, delete it. Saves you from a lot of headaches.

If I didn't do that my post count would probably be four times higher than it is now, then again I'd likely also be banned.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
Nazulu said:
elvor0 said:
It hasn't been a big deal to get a mount in over half a decade. There's no point, especially as needing a mount is almost necessary to traverse the terrain later on. It would just be hugely aggravating for newer players. The experience hasn't been "shit on". The experience no longer needed to exist. Your argument would hold water if it was still just as difficult to get a mount as it was back in Vanilla, but it hasn't for a very long time. They're not bleeding anyone, because anyone can afford a mount just by leveling now. You cut zero corners by buying the mount.

The addition of mounts to the shop isn't hurting /anyone/, the most prestigious mounts are still only found in game, and are still difficult to acquire.

Moaning that other games let you have more than one class on a character is moot. When WoW launched it didn't, they're not going to change that now. Nor do I think should they. Everyone got a free level boost for buying/owning the game, and will get another for Legion.

The WoW store is /nowhere/ near P2W territory. Not even close.
Nah, that's still rubbish. The mount experience was a great a one, so the fact that they changed that has shit on the experience even more, and putting some in the shop is icing on the cake. Cosmetics in a more than full priced game is utter bullshit and I am talking about when they first introduced real money mounts too (since it was still a challenge then). Also saying it didn't hurt anyone is a complete lie since the reasons my friends and I, and many other people who complained (and left) is because of these changes to the game and additions to the shop.
For someone that doesn't care, you sure are getting invested in this. Like quite passionately so.

The old mounting experience no longer serves purpose. The game has a 100 levels now, having the same grind for the mount would be unfeasible for a player getting into the game now. The landscape of the game has changed, and within that landscape the old mounting experience is obsolete. Even if the cash shop wasn't there, the old mounting experience would still be an obsolete relic.

I'm saying it doesn't hurt anyone in terms of causing damage to the makeup of the game. You are quite free to vote with your wallet and more power to you for doing so, many people don't stick to their guns when they say that. But in practice, being able to buy mounts on the store doesn't actually effect anything in the game. You don't /gain/ anything substantial, gain power or gain game changing attributes from buying the mount from the store. If the store mounts were faster or gave you special abilities you couldn't get elsewhere, that would hurt the game. Microtransactions for cosmetic mounts /don't/ actually effect the gameplay itself in any way.

Nazulu said:
Moaning hey? Well, that makes me want to respect your opinion. And again, your defense for this shitty, greedy, scummy as fuck move is amazing. THEY SHOULD'VE THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE!!! It's not hard to think what may happen when many players reach the end of the game, like the makers on Lineage 2 did, and they were never the kings of MMO's either. Hell! L2 didn't have it at launch either, they brought in the option 3 years later. It's never too late to do something good. It's just annoying to see that Blizzard South's and Activisions first plan was to take advantage of people first instead of providing those interesting options.
Or maybe, they didn't want all classes on a single character to be something that was part of the game. Not every MMO needs to share the same mechanics. Seriously dude, there are scummy moves out there. This is not one of them. Konami patching the game to take away your resources on MGS5 and locking them behind online only bases in an attempt to sell you base insurance is a shitty, greedy, scummy as fuck. Lets get some perspective here.

Nazulu said:
And the level boost thing, it sounds stupid to me. I wouldn't want a level boost if I'm enjoying going through the game. Including the option of adding more than one class to your already high level toons still sounds a fuck ton better to have.
I've been through the game many, many, many, many times. I do enjoy it, but you can only do the levelling experience so many times before it becomes tedious and repetitive. Plus you know, if you don't want to buy the boost, you can still level to max level in a very short space of time with heirlooms.

Selling cosmetic junk is really very harmless in terms of business practices. It's hardly the greedy scummy practice you make it out to be. Perspective. They're not selling an infinity +1 sword here, they're selling a cosmetic horse.
 

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
The Lunatic said:
For a $40 game at release?

Yes?

It's great you're having fun and all, but, it's not really a price I'd pay for a game with only two modes and multiplayer only.

I mean, TF2 is free, for example.
It wasn't always free. And there was a period of time where TF2 was both a Paid product AND had the Mann-Co Store.


anthony87 said:
Try doing what I do. Type out what you're going to say but before you hit the post button just think to yourself "Hang on....do I really care that much about this? If not, delete it. Saves you from a lot of headaches.

If I didn't do that my post count would probably be four times higher than it is now, then again I'd likely also be banned.
Well you evidently can't be that good at it, because despite repeatedly claiming very loudly about how you "really don't care that much about this" you're still here.

Or is this one of those rules that's for everyone else to obey?
 

joshuaayt

Vocal SJW
Nov 15, 2009
1,988
0
0
Like, I understand why they make you buy random boxes, but it's still annoying that most boxes I buy will give me shit for characters I don't use

No problem with a cosmetic store at all- especially since there's nothing you can buy you won't eventually get anyway
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Silent Protagonist said:
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.

What principle? A principle that's been dead in gaming for about a decade now? I think its about high time people got over this notion that publishers can't charge for extra stuff. Especially when its not free to have art teams and voice actors make that extra stuff. All of which you can get by just playing the game.

The game also came out at $40 so its not like its a full priced title with a season pass AND microtransactions.

If it helps the game get continuous support, then I'm all for it. Better that than have another shooter coming out at $60 with a $20-30 season pass that'll only get half assed support before its annual sequel comes out.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
Aeshi said:
anthony87 said:
Try doing what I do. Type out what you're going to say but before you hit the post button just think to yourself "Hang on....do I really care that much about this? If not, delete it. Saves you from a lot of headaches.

If I didn't do that my post count would probably be four times higher than it is now, then again I'd likely also be banned.
Well you evidently can't be that good at it, because despite repeatedly claiming very loudly about how you "really don't care that much about this" you're still here.

Or is this one of those rules that's for everyone else to obey?
Y'wha? Repeatedly?

You sure you're not confusing me for someone else? Because I haven't a notion what you're on about.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
Silent Protagonist said:
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.

What principle? A principle that's been dead in gaming for about a decade now? I think its about high time people got over this notion that publishers can't charge for extra stuff. Especially when its not free to have art teams and voice actors make that extra stuff. All of which you can get by just playing the game.

The game also came out at $40 so its not like its a full priced title with a season pass AND microtransactions.

If it helps the game get continuous support, then I'm all for it. Better that than have another shooter coming out at $60 with a $20-30 season pass that'll only get half assed support before its annual sequel comes out.
Not $40 for console users.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
RaikuFA said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
Silent Protagonist said:
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.

What principle? A principle that's been dead in gaming for about a decade now? I think its about high time people got over this notion that publishers can't charge for extra stuff. Especially when its not free to have art teams and voice actors make that extra stuff. All of which you can get by just playing the game.

The game also came out at $40 so its not like its a full priced title with a season pass AND microtransactions.

If it helps the game get continuous support, then I'm all for it. Better that than have another shooter coming out at $60 with a $20-30 season pass that'll only get half assed support before its annual sequel comes out.


Not $40 for console users.
That sucks for console users.

My original point still stands though. Its not a "principle" for the gaming industry to not feature any microtransactions in a game you pay for. Especially on online only game. Hasn't been for a very long time.

The principle lies with the consumer on that one, which I have no problem with, but making it seem likely it outside the conventional relase style of gaming today is naive as hell.


Maybe we should go back to the good o'l days of when video game prices went from anywhere between $40-$120+. Like the early to mid 90s.

Hell, I don't even think the $60 standard was set to the GC/PS2/Xbox gen.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Why is it that I read the word "microtransactions" the same way I read the words "plague" or "pandemic?"
 

Naldan

You Are Interested. Certainly.
Feb 25, 2015
488
0
0
jayzz911 said:
You are now comparing buying skins to something that is way closer to hextech boxes. And no there is no level cap (or atleast im fairly sure i ran into people that were level 150+ in the beta) and the xp per level is capped at a certain amount from like level 20(not sure if that's the exact level)
This is the first time I've ever heard of hextech boxes. Gave up on LoL a few years ago.


Thank you all for your replies and informing me. It seems to be way more fair than the average game nowadays.
 

gsilver

Regular Member
Apr 21, 2010
381
4
13
Country
USA
AzrealMaximillion said:
Maybe we should go back to the good o'l days of when video game prices went from anywhere between $40-$120+. Like the early to mid 90s.
Hell, I don't even think the $60 standard was set to the GC/PS2/Xbox gen.
PS1/2 were $50. $60 was the standard for PS3/360.

There also weren't any $120+ MSRP games, at least for standard releases. Even the (notoriously expensive) N64 had cart prices topping out at $90.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
Laggyteabag said:
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.
How were you not expecting this? Seriously did anyone really think they weren't going to sneak something in? Sigh. NO small coincidence that price point seems to be rather close to tf2 keys.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
What bugs me is that the loot boxes are random, so the item or skin you want may not be in the ones you purchase, and they fill them with "junk" items like sprays and player icons.

Currency is also a drop but that's even rarer, so you could open 50 boxes, not get what you want and only have enough currency to buy 1 legendary skin.

One youtuber opened 101 boxes, got a handfull of skins, a few legendaries, and about 4k in currency. Not getting the ones he wanted.

It's a very sneaky way to keep people buying boxes, and a tad underhanded.
 

ScorpionPrince

New member
Sep 15, 2009
105
0
0
It makes sense. The continious revenue stream means they can keep a team of developers making and testing new heroes, new maps, new game modes, to really extend the lenght of the game. They don't want to split the playerbase, so they don't want to do dlc map packs. More importantly, in a game about switching to heroes to suit the situation, having some heroes available to some players but not all, would ruin that mechanic. So, I think they're being smart.
 

Adeptus Aspartem

New member
Jul 25, 2011
843
0
0
Way better prices than what HotS has, which is still way to expensive, because it there the prices are between 50%-100% higher than in LoL, which is not a situation you wanna be in if you're fighting for the same customers against one of the biggest games ever.

Anyway, even though these RND-drop systems are really a non-factor (e.g. TF2, CS:go, DotA2) to the game itself i can't stand microtransactions outside of F2P games. I already paid for the game, so give me the content please.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
gsilver said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
Maybe we should go back to the good o'l days of when video game prices went from anywhere between $40-$120+. Like the early to mid 90s.
Hell, I don't even think the $60 standard was set to the GC/PS2/Xbox gen.
PS1/2 were $50. $60 was the standard for PS3/360.

There also weren't any $120+ MSRP games, at least for standard releases. Even the (notoriously expensive) N64 had cart prices topping out at $90.
Early to mid 90s encompasses SNES era as well which were famous for having a wide price range. Also back then, there was no MSRP. For example, Street Fighter 2 came out at $75. And to your point about the PS1 era capping out at $50, FF7 came out at $70. As did a bunch of JRPGs.

Also, inflation.

SF2 is almost $122 in today's dollars.

Most games in the 90s are over $100 in today's dollars due to inflation alone.