Is it your money?
This is a sad argument honestly. It doesnât matter if itâs your money or not, this style of monetization should not be in a video game unless itâs strictly categorized under the gambling section of app stores and is always set as M/18+.
2 Likes
If itâs not your money, then you donât get to say how other people spend it. And you certainly donât get to shame them because they spent money on something you wouldnât. Thatâs the sad part.
You are also bringing up a different topic.
Iâm not saying how they should spend it, Iâm saying video games shouldnât incorporate such monetization models. Those are different things.
2 Likes
Not a chance. Paid heroes would break the game. Imagine losing competitive games because your teammate didnât pay for the new Support hero. Not going to happen.
I could see them allowing premium battle-pass owners âearly-accessâ to new heroes/maps in a separate mode (essentially a replacement for the PTR) for a couple of weeks before public access is granted, but thatâs not really the same thing.
Yep. The ones that think companies do anything to benefit the consumers are the funniest of all. Blizzard is taking them for a ride.
Pointing out that an idea is dumb, the equivalent of a company shooting itself in the foot and is thus unlikely to happen is a little different to âtheyâll do it to benefit the consumersâ. Sometimes thereâs a mutual benefit.
As Iâve pointed out, there are much better ways they can monetise new content than the monumentally stupid, game-breaking approaching of having to pay to unlock new heroes.
It already happens in games far more popular than OW. Valorant, Apex and LoL all do it. Blizzard doesnât care about you winning or losing comp matches. They just want your money.
3 Likes
None of the games you listed break in the same way that Overwatch does if you lock one team out of picking a bunch of heroes while not restricting the enemy team. Have you thought about how that would affect the game for even a moment?
Now youâre moving goalposts. âItâs okay for those games to do it because X and Y reasons, but it would kill OWâ. No it wouldnât. People would just pay for them just like they do with those other F2P games. Look how many people just spent $15 for a Brig skin lol.
Just because you can pick a certain hero doesnât mean you should anyway. Most people are good at like 2 or 3 heroes max and wonât swap no matter what.
I havenât moved goalposts at all. My point was always that paid heroes would always be game-breaking in Overwatch.
Ironically, youâre attempting to move the goalposts.
It should be game breaking for any game, but it isnât because too many players have accepted it. Even paid games like Rainbow Six Siege lock operators behind paywalls.
League of Legends is probably the most popular PC game in the world and it starts you off with like 1 or 2 heroes out of 150.
I donât support these business models at all. Just read around this forum, Reddit and look at other games that do it though. There are too many apologists who defend it and donât care.
1 Like
$50 million in a month is a epic fail on Blizzards part as their big audience in China got blocked from accessing the game lol Diablo 3 in its first 24 hours of launch made over $200 million so donât act like Blizzard should celebrate this joke of a game that is meant to rip you off.
You can unlock every hero in Valorant for free, you just have to play a lot of unrated games. And by the time youâre even allowed to play rated games, youâd have unlocked most of the agents already anyways.
Also, Valorant isnât one of those games were you automatically lose if you donât play X hero like in Overwatch. Thereâs no hard counters in Valorant nor is there any requirement for you to pick a certain agent over another in most elos. As long as youâre not in a super high rank, you can pretty much hard carry games even if you donât have a smoker on your team.
Doesnât matter, a poor purchase is a poor purchase. And Immortal is an objectively poor purchase
1 Like
I was going to say âIn before someone claims that because Diablo Immortal, OW2 monetization will follow the same modelâ but I was too late.
IDK what is worse, seeing this kind of bad practices triumph or people using that as a Doomsayer point to claim OW2 will be the same ⌠when the OW2 has already been released and its clearly different.
They are. Maybe next time try not insulting an argument youâre not even responding to.
It does matter. Theyâre still not spending your money. Itâs theirs.
Making fun of others because of how they chose to spend money looks bad on YOU.
Diablo Immortal just shows that Blizzard has no integrity left. They do what ever is necessary to get money, even if that is the most despicable monetisation ever, they will do it.
If Overwatch doesnât make them a truckload of money within the first couple of months, they will change what ever they have to change for it to happen. Increase prices on Battle pass, put new maps and new heroes behind âexclusive time limitsâ that you can only get through some legendary battle pass scheme, episodic PvE that has 20 minute of gameplay to it and cost 15$ per episode. Nothing is sacred to Blizzard any more. Anything goes.
3 Likes
For a given (debateable) standard of âreleasedâ
Even if we give you that itâs hardly unheard of for games to be released without such models and then have them added in later. ActiBlizzâs own Crash Team Racing (or whatever it was called) for one.
Mobile Gaming has proven on more that one occasion to be the canary in the coal mine when it comes to this sort of thing.
1 Like
The forums state a lot of things. 
I donât think thereâs any chance of this happening. Would utterly destroy PvP.