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

[Nocte]

29 minutes ago, EG! said:

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

Actual gameplay content was gated behind grind etc. 

Blizzard only makes you grind for COSMETICS. See the difference? It’s quite huge, difficult not to spot. 

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, Eibe said:

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

Requirements of LTT TnR Section: Must contain an Opinion.

Quote

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

How?

Quote

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. 

That's not a fair comparison.

 

It's like saying "Buy our great $60 USD jersey and oh yeah you need to buy a ticket to a game this season to be able to buy the jersey".

[ItsMitch]

14 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

So while it is a not free game, double the percentage of Dota 2 microtransactions are being given. 

Yet I doubt Blizzard will be doing an International 26million prize pool anytime soon :

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

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.

Dota is cosmetics only. 

 

@Thread

I really don't see an issue with cosmetic microtransactions in any game -- whether it be a f2p game or a full price release. Don't want to spend the money? Then don't buy the skins. It's not like it impacts gameplay. 

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

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?

[1] Money from core game sales

[2] 50% of cosmemetic sales 

 

That's what I meant

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

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?

Nope. That's contradictory.

 

It could be that Statement A refers to COD e-Sports. idk tbh. Statement 2 is factually correct for Overwatch League.

[Bouzoo]

Just now, SC2Mitch said:

Yet I doubt Blizzard will be doing an International 26million prize pool anytime soon :

That is yet to be seen. Depending on the community, it may be even bigger, but it may be much lower. Who knows. 

[Energycore]

Just now, Bouzoo said:

[1] Money from core game sales

[2] 50% of cosmemetic sales 

 

That's what I meant

Cool thanks for clearing that up. It sounded like you referred to the same sales.

[EG!]

5 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

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

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.

Yes and fans stood up to EA showing them we don't take everything.

If it's ok for one of the biggest games atm all will follow that is why I'm against this, I'm not gonna buy skins in overwatch anyway but the freemium formula in a non freemium game is a no go, they should drop the upfront price if they wanna follow the path LoL and Dota have paved for esports.

[Bouzoo]

Just now, Energycore said:

Cool thanks for clearing that up. It sounded like you referred to the same sales.

Yeah my bad. Have edited it. 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

@Thread

I really don't see an issue with cosmetic microtransactions in any game -- whether it be a f2p game or a full price release. Don't want to spend the money? Then don't buy the skins. It's not like it impacts gameplay. 

It impacts people's enjoyment of online games and is predatory.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

It impacts people's enjoyment of online games and is predatory.

So someone else being able to buy a cosmetic somehow detracts from the game....a cosmetic that if you bought yourself you wouldn't even be able to see. 

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nope. That's contradictory.

 

It could be that Statement A refers to COD e-Sports. idk tbh. Statement 2 is factually correct for Overwatch League.

It has been edited. They aren't contradictory, I just forgot to add 3 words. Has been edited. 

And Jesus Christ, Blizzard has nothing to do with COD e-sports. I really try not to be rude, but can you please please please pleas learn who owns what here.

[Energycore]

5 minutes ago, Eibe said:

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

While a lot of news is objective reporting on fact, it's silly to think that this is the extent of journalistic work. Opinion pieces, also called Editorials, show up commonly in newspapers and journals. Keeping people who report the news from bringing up their opinion would make the point of discussion moot.

[Bouzoo]

3 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

It impacts people's enjoyment of online games and is predatory.

Cosmetics, I don't see a problem with that. I think loot boxes are what you actually mean here?

[EG!]

6 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Actual gameplay content was gated behind grind etc. 

Blizzard only makes you grind for COSMETICS. See the difference? It’s quite huge, difficult not to spot. 

Yes I know it's not the same but for the same reason you can't compare Battlefront II or  even Shadow of War to Overwatch is nearly the same reason you can't compare Overwatch to LoL or Dota 2, TF2.

I fear that all games will start doing this if the big boys start it, make a freemium game with an upfront price of €40, they will add dlc and season passes soon enough, make characters no longer all free but make it grindy.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

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.

Yup, exactly. If you want something nicer looking, you can pay for it. You don't have to. Depending on the scenario I can go either way *cough*rgb*cough*. There are arguments here there may be functional differences also.

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

They have to make the base game in the first place, that's one cost. If they make major expansions, that's another cost. Provision of servers, as well as minor content updates, that's the monthly cost. Cosmetic items, optional extra. In that sense, I'd argue if you find the right MMO for you, you get a lot of hours per $ out of it. Thing is, it can be a lot of hours so the $ amount isn't necessarily that low, yet value is still high. I estimate I spent around 60 days in it in my first year. That's 60x24h.

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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)

I've done that too. Early KS on Elite:Dangerous. A big gamble, but at the tier I went in on, I have lifetime updates at no extra cost. People going in now, have the usual base game + expansion costs. Unlike other MMOs, they don't charge a monthly fee though. They do supplement their income with cosmetic items, again you know exactly what you get, and how much it costs up front.

 

This is very different from the other lootbox scandals recently. In those cases, you could end up paying huge amounts, with absolutely no guarantee of getting what you want. This is key. If you know exactly what costs are, with no random element in it, people can make an informed choice if they want to do that or not. 

[Yoinkerman]

Lol the apologists are out in force

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

I've done that too. Early KS on Elite:Dangerous. A big gamble, but at the tier I went in on, I have lifetime updates at no extra cost. People going in now, have the usual base game + expansion costs. Unlike other MMOs, they don't charge a monthly fee though. They do supplement their income with cosmetic items, again you know exactly what you get, and how much it costs up front.

 

This is very different from the other lootbox scandals recently. In those cases, you could end up paying huge amounts, with absolutely no guarantee of getting what you want. This is key. If you know exactly what costs are, with no random element in it, people can make an informed choice if they want to do that or not. 

Well I disagree about being very different: the root cause is the methods publishers perceive as tried and true so I would say to you Good but remember you reap what you sow.

[Energycore]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I really don't see an issue with cosmetic microtransactions in any game -- whether it be a f2p game or a full price release. Don't want to spend the money? Then don't buy the skins. It's not like it impacts gameplay. 

While it may not affect the core gameplay loop (and anyone arguing that it does is objectively wrong), the presence of cosmetics does affect people's experience of the game.

Looking cool is important for the player, so much so that they're willing to spend as much money as they do (cfr. TI7's $24 million prize pool, of which valve only put in 1.6m and the rest came from cosmetic purchases related to the "International 2017 Pass"¹).

For this I find so little value in trying to dismiss cosmetic microtransactions as unimportant. They wouldn't sell if they weren't important. Whether or not their delivery method is manipulative can and should be argued about.

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, Yoinkerman said:

Lol the apologists are out in force

May I query, where and how? What kind of statement do you classify as being apologist of Activision Blizzard?

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

@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.

1) Disagreement noted.

2) You're poisoning the well implying the slippery slope is automatically fallacious here: It isn't when we already have seen the end result from other companies like EA doing microtransactions and loot boxes on games you pay for up front too.

 

The example Activision-Blizzard is giving today will be taken as a success story for their model by others like EA or Ubisoft which are much less concerned with quality control and don't enjoy or care about positive public perception like Blizzard does.

[Taja]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

Also, this is probably a highly unpopular opinion but I really think e-Sports is just a stupid thing and is pointless. If theoretically I played Overwatch and wanted to buy a Skin, I'd feel unhappy that my money was going to funding something I don't even like.

That is a bit immature. You cant just say something is "pointless" if affects millions of lifes. I hate soccer and think its stupid, but I know for sure its not pointless and its very important to society in general.

 

Also, everyones money fund a lots of things they dont want, and that haplens all the time. You just cant think about it that way, it does not makes sense. When the money is yours, you spend it how you like it - after you spend it, the next owner will also spend it how they like it, and thats that.

 

 

 

 

Thehe only problem I see with that "skin invasion" is that it uncharacterizes the gane to a certain point. Dota started GREAT with the skins (I never liked or used them, but it was ok)

Now there are so many, and they are so flamboyant (and with LOTS of particle effects) that IMO, it is affecting gameplay A LITTLE bit. Sometimes I cant identify a hero right away because his skin is crazy, or two different heroes have similar skins and that causes confusion...

I never played overwatch so I dont know if this is/can be a problem. But thats my 2 cents on the matter.

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, Energycore said:

May I query, where and how? What kind of statement do you classify as being apologist of Activision Blizzard?

I didn't go as far as to suggest anyone here is an apologist outright, however I do think that a lot of the support from the decision come from the fact that this is a Blizzard game and they do get a lot more tolerance. You can attribute that to the quality of Overwatch, the quality of their past games, whatever the case might be it's undeniable that Blizzard it's still a darling company to PC gamers everywhere.

 

If this entire situation was the same with just a name swap for "Ubisoft" instead of Activision-Blizzard my contention is that many of the same opinions wouldn't be as defensive or conciliatory and understanding and would instead focus on the quality of the game in question and track record of a negatively perceived publisher/developer/both.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

26 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

CSGO 11.99

VS
OW 29.99

Argument doesn't really work out here

I made that argument because I don't know if CS:GO has the same amount of content upfront and future releases as Overwatch. Comparing their prices assumes that they have the same amount of content.

23 minutes ago, EG! said:

they should drop the upfront price if they wanna follow the path LoL and Dota have paved for esports.

Honestly, I can get behind that. If they drop the upfront price, and make it so that you have to purchase/grind for most of the characters and skins, then it might work. As long as the users that have already purchased the game gets to keep the current content.