This doesn’t get said enough on this form. The comp mode SUCKS the majority of the time and is only amusing the rest of the time. Slow to release anything that improves the game, focused on features no one on earth cares about, making terrible hero changes.
I mean really, you CANNOT do anything that the player base really wants. The ONLY mode that is partially amusing anymore is deathmatch - and you can’t even keep THAT part of the game available each week…shesh.
This is no longer a valuable, innovative game company. It is a slow moving, customer ignoring, misleading-data-obsessed, pile of garbage.
This game only gets played because it has a low cost of entry, and zero monthly fee.
Ok, by inference you are stating you have never played another game since touching Overwatch. Maybe even never before. Thus any comparisons you make to other games is from a position of ignorance. I’ll keep that in mind.
Now, with playing more than one game (which people can do, I recommend it) a statement like:
Is 100% accurate. People already have the game and continue to play it because it costs nothing.
Maybe I should be more specific. They’ll play it less frequently. Since they are playing other games too.
They then compare this game and its progress to the other games, and note which they prefer. OP has decided he didn’t like it to the point that he will avoid the company in future.
Not even remotely true. I’m beginning to question whether or not you actually believe the pseudo-intellectual nonsense you’re spewing.
Sure, if you completely neglect the fact that he’s implying the game is played because it’s cheap, and not because people already own it, that’s a 100% accurate statement. Great point. Got any more points to make without reading the comment first?
There are countless games you don’t have to pay any upfront or ongoing fees for. Unless they were interested in Overwatch or already believed it was a game worth owning, a sale price isn’t going to be a major factor in people playing. Particularly not in them putting dozens to hundreds to thousands of hours in.
First half: There are games with no upfront costs or ongoing fees. (Implying Overwatch isn’t one of them)
Second half: A sale is not going to be a major factor in people putting time in on Overwatch. (Implying that if cost is a major factor, no one who isn’t already interested in Overwatch is going to buy or play it)
Do you run everything I say through Google translate multiple times in random languages? Because that’s what it feels like when you repeatedly respond to things I haven’t said.
Jesus. Okay…
People do not typically buy games they have no interest in, regardless of sale price. So, we can assume virtually everyone who has purchased Overwatch, purchased it because they were interested in it. That disproves the, “it’s only played because it’s cheap,” argument.
People do not typically continue playing a game they have lost interest in, regardless of whether or not there are ongoing fees. That disproves the, “it’s only played because it doesn’t have monthly fees,” argument.
There are many games that do not have an upfront cost or an ongoing fee. These are called Free-to-Play games, and are widely available to just about anyone with an internet connection. The existence of these games disprove the, “Overwatch is only played because it’s cheap and doesn’t have monthly fees,” argument, because if that were the primary incentive, then those players wouldn’t have purchased Overwatch in the first place; they would have downloaded a Free-to-Play game.
People purchased Overwatch because they were interested in Overwatch. People play Overwatch because they are still interested in Overwatch. If they were not interested in Overwatch, they would not be playing it.
Plenty of people download free games barely knowing what to expect. Not many pay upfront costs to do so.
Except I never said, “no one has ever purchased Overwatch just because it was cheap.” I said, “people do not typically buy games they have no interest in, regardless of sale price.”
So, once again, you’re replying to something I never said. You’re not even building a straw-man; you’re attacking someone else entirely.
Some do. Most don’t. Sadly, “some,” does not equate to, “all,” so you’re still in the wrong because you defended an absolute earlier.
You went from defending an absolute, to pretending I used an absolute when I didn’t, to indicating you’re not speaking in absolute terms in a condescending manner. Cool, cool.
Not really. I just think it would be more helpful if you just told me which language(s) you actually speak, so we could be a bit more aware of the situation and context.