Activision Blizzard adds 312 new skins to Overwatch to pay for e-Sports by milking customers using Micro-transactions

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I would really appreciate if Overwatch was Free To Play instead of the upfront cost.

Wouldn't work.

They have to make money somehow, and I don't think cosmetic-only microtransactions would be enough.

 

Overwatch also relies heavily on all people having access to all characters, so game changing things would not work either.

 

9 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Again, the purely cosmetic argument falls apart because in games like Destiny or Overwatch a character's appearance is important to players and affects how the game is played to some extent.

How is it important? It's a first person shooter. You don't even see your own character except when you die.

And no, it does not affect how the game is played at all.

 

You're grasping at straws.

 

 

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Wow, I thought 312 was a meme, that is WAY to many on one release.

I think it's only one new skin for each hero, and then they have done pallet swaps to suit each eSport teams' colors.

[RileyTheFox]

2 minutes ago, EG! said:

I'd have to pay another dime

No honey, you don't HAVE to pay for anything after the purchase of the base game, you CHOOSE to  

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Disagree 100% with this post.

 

Just because they charge money for something does not make it anti consumer. They're additions to the game, and they have no effect on gameplay. 

 

I think this is a totally fair way to do micro transactions. The fact they added 312 skins is frankly insane. 

While this button exist it actually does:

 

 

Sorry but there's no way to excuse micro-transactions on a game you already have to pay for. You can't have it both ways both you and @LAwLz need to understand that: you're either free to play with cosmetic things as optional for microtransactions or you cover your costs with the actual game sales: No double dipping.

[MageTank]

25 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

Of course, as I've probably said many times. I would not give overwatch half the slack I do if it was Free To Play. If it was completely Free To Play this would be acceptable.

But Activision Blizzard are greedy snakes and want customers to pay for a game's own e-Sports league. Oh well....

 

It's acceptable the way it currently is. These are just re-colored base skins that have team colors. It's not giving anyone a competitive edge, it's strictly aesthetics. If you want to show others that you prefer a specific team on the league, you can buy skins for that team and support them in doing so. It's no different than the people throwing hundreds of dollars at their favorite twitch streamers, except they get something in return for doing so.

 

I really don't get your disdain towards this specific practice, as it's not like other micro-transactions. This post just feels like it's trying to capitalize on the anti micro-transactions bandwagon as a whole. Yes, in specific contexts, micro-transactions are bad, but when it's harmless, and in support of players preferred teams, it's harmless. No different than selling jerseys or sports merchandise. 

[EG!]

9 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I think it is fair. It is skins only

In every multiplayer there are cosmetics which have a distinct advantage or disadvantage where their projectiles are less visible on some map (LoL has some skins that have less visible projectiles).

 

6 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

Then it would be more like League of Legends were you have to pay/grind for the characters AND the skins.

Yes that's how it should be when you start adding microtransactions a grindy way to get it without money.

 

1 minute ago, EvilCat70 said:

No honey, you don't HAVE to pay for anything after the purchase of the base game, you CHOOSE to  

If you want to be green instead of blue you have to.

I don't like overwatch but the reason I'm agaist this kind of crap is that once every big publishers sees that it works and get's away with it there won't be any games without microtransactions.

I don't want to pay €40 heck even €10 to get a game that follows the freemium game fromula.

There's no justification for paying up front if they add microtransactions.

[Teddy07]

Just now, EG! said:

In every multiplayer there are cosmetics which have a distinct advantage or disadvantage where their projectiles are less visible on some map (LoL has some skins that have less visible projectiles

1

I play exclusively LoL and never noticed anything bad about the skins

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

It's acceptable the way it currently is.

No it is not. You can accept it yourself but you cannot claim general acceptance. I do not accept it, I never have, I never fucking will. I doubt I am alone in this opinion: you're either free to play or you don't do fucking Microtransactions.

 

[AlTech]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Actually, I think these are really good news. I think this is a great example of how to do lootboxes properly.

1) Release the game at full price.

And have micro-transactions in them?

LMAO.

 

Nice joke. Games which are aimed at receiving frequent updates over the course of their lifespan should just aim to be Free To Play and offer Micro-transactions.

 

I will never buy a paid for service based game ever again if it contains loot boxes or Micro-transactions.

 

Service based games work best with Micro-transactions and Free to play (done properly) monetization.

 

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Riddle me this. If cosmetic items have no effect on someone's enjoyment of the game, then why do people buy them at all? They might as well stay on the vanilla skin and not spend as much money as people do on them.

This is exactly why many MMOs such as GTAO and Destiny 2 feature tons of Micro-transactions and focus heavily on cosmetics for monetization on top of their $60 USD upfront asking price.

 

Because the truth is they know the Micro transactions will sell because they know people enjoy an online game more if they can customize the look of their character and look different.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

3) lootboxes

4) lootboxes

Loot boxes? please. This is micro-transactions. Loot boxes are on their way to be banned in games targeted at minors. So hopefully that prevents loot boxes from appearing in future games once legislation is passed.

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Good job Blizzard!

*Activision Blizzard. That same company who patented techniques to manipulate players into spending money.

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Sorry but there's no way to excuse micro-transactions on a game you already have to pay for. You can't have it both ways both you and @LAwLz need to understand that: you're either free to play with cosmetic things as optional for microtransactions or you cover your costs with the actual game sales: No double dipping.

This ^^^ . Games should be F2P or Paid for. Not both.

[RileyTheFox]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No it is not. You can accept it yourself but you cannot claim general acceptance. I do not accept it, I never have, I never fucking will. I doubt I am alone in this opinion: you're either free to play or you don't do fucking Microtransactions.

 

Or you be a whiny prick on the internet that no one can please? I think you chose that option. 

[Bouzoo]

34 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

It has been stated that 50% of the micro-transactions will go directly to the e-Sports teams

But Activision Blizzard are greedy snakes and want customers to pay for a game's own e-Sports league. Oh well....

 

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Why should anybody playing Overwatch pay Activision to host an e-Sports tournament? They're a AAA publisher who can afford to pay for their own tournament. They pay for COD "e-Sports" tournaments just fine without dipping their fingers into Players wallets.

Ok ok ok, now let's take a deep breath. First of all, and I have said it already, Overwatch is a Blizzard game. Activision isn't working on it, same how Blizzard doesn't have their fingers in Call of Duty. You don't hear people saying "Oh my, that new Lamborghini Egoista and Bugatti Chiron are too expensive, Volkswagen is too greedy" for obvious reasons. Just look at whose logo is on the box of Overwatch. Here you go. Also here you go for the Overwatch eports page. Look at the damn logo. Many of us don't love Activision, but this is not their show. They both have the same parent company but that's where it all ends. Both of them are independent from one another.

As I see it, the Dota 2 international prize pool last year was $24,787,916. Was Valve supposed to give all money from their pocket? In that case the prize pool would be much lower, which is less money for the teams. I don't see how taking 50% of money that they could just take for themselves and giving it to prize pool is bad. They would make the money either way. 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, EvilCat70 said:

Or you be a whiny prick on the internet that no one can please? I think you chose that option. 

Yes I forget that I indulged in the cardinal sin #1 of the internet: Thou shalt not speak ill word against God-Emperors of Blizzard.

[EG!]

2 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

As I see it, the Dota 2 international prize pool last year was $24,787,916. Was Valve supposed to give all money from their pocket? In that case the prize pool would be much lower, which is less money for the teams. I don't see how taking 50% of money that they could just take for themselves and giving it to prize pool is bad. They would make the money either way. 

Dota 2 is a free game unlike overwatch so that logic can't be applied here.

[Eduard the weeb]

14 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I would really appreciate if Overwatch was Free To Play instead of the upfront cost.

Quote

they plan on having no payed DLC, season passes, and  other stuff and for that I am happy I have owned the game two years almost and I am happy with my purchase 

 

14 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Again, the purely cosmetic argument falls apart because in games like Destiny or Overwatch a character's appearance is important to players and affects how the game is played to some extent.

h0w thought ? 

once you make the purchase of the game you never have to pay for the game again and you can still get skins without buying them bye playing the game and alot of people don't really care for skins and how can it affect the game play like it doesn't expand or shrink hit boxes or anything like that for the most part like it can change how a character ulti looks and what they say after a kill or just randomly a bit but that is all.

[EG!]

8 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I play exclusively LoL and never noticed anything bad about the skins

iBlitzcranks grab is less visible, BoomBoomBlitzcranks fist are bigger and apear to be harder to miss.

Oktoberfest gragas is smaller than the vanilla skin (same hitbox ofc) but people are more likely to miss.

These advantages are very small but they are there it's the reason Faker refuses to play with a skin and the reason that some pro players pick that specific skin.

 

Sidenote have you ever encountered Underworld Twisted Fate on Aram you barely see his cards.

[porina]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They have to make money somehow, and I don't think cosmetic-only microtransactions would be enough.

I'm not experienced in either, but aren't LoL and Dota2 f2p cosmetic transaction funded? 

 

On Overwatch, I have no problem with this. It isn't pay2win. You know exactly what you get for how much you pay. Take it or leave it. I also don't mind it is a paid for game, it does get rid of quite a lot of the trash that gathers on f2p games.

 

In my other existence, I do just that on FFXIV. I have to buy the game. There's also a monthly sub, but I also occasionally buy cosmetic items if I like them. It doesn't help me complete any of the game content any better, but I will look nicer doing it.

 

Should also be added, there is absolutely no need to buy all the cosmetic items. Just get what you like, which can be nothing.

[The Benjamins]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

I think it's only one new skin for each hero, and then they have done pallet swaps to suit each eSport teams' colors.

 

Ohh, well I would of called it 26 team skins or chromas or something.

[Bouzoo]

22 minutes ago, EG! said:

Dota 2 is a free game unlike overwatch so that logic can't be applied here.

It absolutely can. Both have microtransactions from which they are funding the tournament. The difference is that Blizzard is not giving money from core game sales towards the prize pool. You can buy the game for $20 on discounts. But here is the thing, Blizzard is giving 50% of cosmetic sales to the prize pool while Valve is giving 25%. So while it is a not free game, double the percentage of Dota 2 microtransactions are being given. 

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm not experienced in either, but aren't LoL and Dota2 f2p cosmetic transaction funded? 

I can't speak for LoL but Dota and TF2 and other games are cosmetic micro-transaction only.

 

In many F2P games, the majority of players do not spend money on the game. In those cases, generally the tiny minority pay ludicrous amounts of money to support them. Generally speaking.

These players who spend tons of money on F2P games are called "Whales" by game publishers.

2 minutes ago, porina said:

Should also be added, there is absolutely no need to buy all the cosmetic items. Just get what you like, which can be nothing.

This argument is basically the same thing as saying they're no need to buy a Gucci handbag because you can still carry your essential items in your AmazonBasics budget backpack. lmao. As an aside, I do own an Amazon basics bag and it is quite good for the money imho. lol.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

20 minutes ago, EG! said:

You said it here "Once you buy the game", Overwatch isn't LoL or Dota the price of overwatch isn't even near cs:go it's still damn expensive for a game that implemented lootboxes and microtransactions.

I haven't played CS:GO so I can't compare it to Overwatch.

20 minutes ago, EG! said:

Everyone said EA was bad for implementing is yet Blizzard can do this?

The reason I am defending Blizzard on this is because EA made you buy the game AND you had to pay or grind for the characters.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm not experienced in either, but aren't LoL and Dota2 f2p cosmetic transaction funded? 

 

On Overwatch, I have no problem with this. It isn't pay2win. You know exactly what you get for how much you pay. Take it or leave it. I also don't mind it is a paid for game, it does get rid of quite a lot of the trash that gathers on f2p games.

 

In my other existence, I do just that on FFXIV. I have to buy the game. There's also a monthly sub, but I also occasionally buy cosmetic items if I like them. It doesn't help me complete any of the game content any better, but I will look nicer doing it.

 

Should also be added, there is absolutely no need to buy all the cosmetic items. Just get what you like, which can be nothing.

This also isn't ok: The entire reason MMOs created their model of "pay for the game AND a monthly fee" was to cover the cost of not only the servers (which is highly overstated imo) but on-going development costs.

 

I am sorry but so many of you are becoming extremely undiserning customers here: Next thing you know you'll throw your support behind a game that does all of the payment methods: Kickstart the game, pay the base game cost, DLC cost, Monthly subscription, cosmetic upgrades for microtransactions and loot boxes (i.e. if Star Citizen actually sees the light of day and does all of this I think a lot of it's backers would pay for all of that)

 

Is there a point in which you say "This is enough fucking money you greedy fucks" at all? Or would you honestly pay hundreds of dollars if the game was really good in your opinion? Because you're going to ruin things for everyone, yourself included: Once EA and Ubi and Beth and the rest catch on then their much shittier games will also start triple and cuadruple dipping and then you'll come out here and claim "OMG keep digging" and other memes and wonder "Why is EA so fucking greedy and shit overall"?

 

Well Overwatch and FFXIV would be why: you taught them this abuse it's ok as long as the game is good and they just did the numbers and said "We only need 20% of the user base to actually really like the game to make a healthy profit" and won't care the game is a pile of fucking shit.

[Nocte]

News should be objective and non-opinionated, or at least try to be. 

This is anything but that, plus your arguments do not even have a logical support. 

 

People are fine buying a football jersey for $60, but players should get an in-game jersey for free? It’s only a couple dollars and fans get to support their own teams. 

 

This is great to support the rise of eSports. Gives companies more reasons to remain competitive and keeps the league more alive. 

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm not experienced in either, but aren't LoL and Dota2 f2p cosmetic transaction funded? 

In LoL you have access to only a handful of characters, and have to unlock more either by grinding or by buying them. Each week there are 10 characters which you can play without having unlocked them too, and that selection changes every week. It's basically like a trial to see if you like a character or not.

Not sure about DoTA 2 but I think that's cosmetics-only.

 

 

@Misanthrope

Look, we clearly have different opinions on this. You are strictly against any type of lootboxes or micro-transactions from what I can tell. I don't think the world should be that black and white, and that the acceptability of micro-transactions is a spectrum.

I think all the reasons I listed earlier is more than enough to push Overwatch into the acceptable part of the spectrum.

 

And come on, a slippery slope argument? You're better than that.

[ItsMitch]

3 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

I haven't played CS:GO so I can't compare it to Overwatch.

vs 

Argument doesn't really work out here

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure about DoTA 2 but I think that's cosmetics-only

DOTA 2 is fully cosmetic only

[Energycore]

10 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

The difference is that [1]Blizzard is not giving money from sales towards the prize pool. You can buy the game for $20 on discounts. But here is the thing, [2]Blizzard is giving 50% of sales to the prize pool while Valve is giving 25%. So while it is a not free game, double the percentage of Dota 2 microtransactions are being given. 

Aren't these contradictory?

[1]: Blizzard is not giving money from sales towards the prize pool

[2]: Blizzard is giving 50% of sales (some money) to the prize pool

 

Am I missing something here?