And everyone got called a “doomer” that had any form of critic on OW 2.
A lot of these “shills” are children. They are ignorant and don’t even see why the system designed to exploit them is so bad. You can find plenty of adults too who don’t know what’s going on and act on instincts. There is a reason why these bad deals make so much money for game dev companies.
The forums currently look like discussions around politics before big elections: there are usually two big groups defending two liars. Those with the power and money are shaping the landscape and manipulate the narratives while the unimportant masses are too busy with the heavily polarised heated debates that are ultimately pointless.
1 Like
The main problem is that:
“Liking the direction of OW2” → shill
And this is completly nonsense. As soon as you understand why OW1 failed and look at OW2 you will see that OW2 is a lot more sustainable in terms of direction and content than OW1 mostly because of the way they finance the game (like 5 bucks a month for BP in that way) while in OW1 they just were slowly bleeding out.
I dont want another “diedown” like OW1 and thats why I like OW2.
2 Likes
It’s more likely to be ignorant and/or unintelligent than shill.
2 Likes
“How dare people have a different opinion than me!”
2 Likes
The problem isn’t a different opinion but an unwillingness or inability to see the big picture. Petty debates over unimportant details of the battle pass are a clear indication of that. All battle passes are bad, the only question is how bad. As Moira said: “Clearly evolution does not distribute its gifts equally.”
AAA game developers can make a lot of money without producing much gameplay content only because certain types of people make it possible. It makes more sense for Blizzard to invest developer resources in implementing exploitative money making machines than using the same (actually more) resources to create entertainment products (meaningful amount of gameplay content in Overwatch or in new games).
Every game dies at some point and nothing can change that. An exploitative moneymaking machine will not extend the “useful” enjoyable lifespan of an old the game from the perspective of a gamer. What it helps in is maintaining an unhealthy relationship.
Most of the prey are ignorant (this includes a lot of children without life experience so it makes a lot of sense for businesses to target them). Some of them are downright unintelligent, they are the ones who don’t understand what’s going on even if you try to explain. Attributing zero value to their time is also very alarming.
1 Like
How ironic…
1 Like
Many players like them why do you project this idea they don’t?
Did we really have to resort to the “think about the children” argument for a game that asks a paltry $10 every 20 weeks? It’s about $30 per year for character unlocks OR if you play enough (and ‘children’ have the time) it’s free. Kids today have money even with inflation accounted for in larger amounts than ever in history. They can do it.
They like them the way heavy smokers like cigarettes.
They are a primary target of these systems and they are easier to exploit due to lack of experience. The problem isn’t money but time and the unhealthy engagement it is wasted on in a lot of cases.
1 Like
Show me the legions of broken children on battle-passes. Not buying it. They will waste time, they are children. There is a 13+ advisory on Overwatch btw. Its just a weak argument, and it isn’t going to change anything. Battlepasses are what the market wants now.
Is it? Or is this what companies have brainwashed them into thinking is normal? Most people don’t have the willpower to boycott or quit a product so they will accept anti-consumer practices just to get their fix. Doesn’t mean it’s what they wanted though.
1 Like
You get three options:
-
Fixed price, limited DLC
-
Subscription
-
F2P with in-game monetization like Battle-Passes
Pick your poison. The market seems to have settled on option 3 currently.
I don’t believe the market ever decided. What happened was BR became the hot new thing and they just happened to be F2P. It was a style of FPS that was new and fresh that a lot of players gravitated towards. Now you’ve got other companies like Blizzard and 343 Industries thinking that F2P is what makes Fortnite, Apex and Warzone successful when that’s not the reason. It’s because BR is mainstream.
Just look at the mainline Call of Duty games. They are still the best selling games every single year at $60. So there is still a massive market for complete MP games at one boxed price.
1 Like
I mean at the end of the day, the consumer has a choice. Sure it’s influenced, and they can walk away any time. They choose not to. To the point - why is it so bad to ask for a BP at say $30/yr to unlock characters BUT it’s okay for COD to ask $60 every year?
Call of Duty games are made by 3 different teams. Each one is a brand new game with a 3 year dev cycle. That’s entirely different than what Blizz is trying to pull with OW2 which is 90% recycled content with a BP added. They could give us a lot more for $30 a year than what they are. Look at the massive expansions Bungie releases every year for Destiny 2 for $40-50.
I’d gladly pay Blizzard $40-60 a year if OW received a substantial amount of new content. Not 3 heroes and some worthless weapon charms after they sat on their butts doing nothing for 3 years.
1 Like
I might shill, depending how much it pays. I could talk trash about competing brands too.
Fortnite? More like “Bored, rite?”
I mean that’s how it is, take it or leave it. I mean at a certain point, you get what you get. I mean no offense, but OW players expecting scads and scads of content are not going to get it. That doesn’t make it bad for the price. I just don’t feel cheated here in the least despite whatever COD does. I’d argue the quality of COD games is not all that in comparison, but that’s a subjective feeling.
$30/Yr for new characters, maps, cosmetics including Mythics (remember when everyone was convinced they’d be $44.99) is a deal any way you look at it.
Again, it isn’t about the money but the unhealthy engagement. Battle passes want to control your time (e.g.: daily and/or weekly challenges). That can degrade the experience even if the base game is otherwise good. Couple that with a well designed in-game store and they can expose players to non-stop FOMO. These and the substansially less gameplay content are the difference between something like OW+battlepass and an oldschool boxed game. $30, $40, $50 or $60 per year? It doesn’t matter, it isn’t a significant difference.
A decision isn’t necessarily well informed.
The reason to start playing OW might be as simple as wanting to play Mei or Mercy. It may be peer pressure. The same player might know nothing about the manipulative techniques around monatisation and getting hooked in an unhealthy releationship that turns out to be longer than expected.
I’d say that the content of the base game in OW still looks like a decent package for a new player. However, it is an old PvP game full of experienced players and the smurf concentration is increasing. The experience can be further degraded by daily/weekly battle pass challenges that encourage players to launch the game even when they aren’t in the mood.
1 Like
Keep telling yourself that. There’s no battle pass in Elden Ring and that game did fantastic. Gamers what what’s hot, not battlepasses specifically.
1 will always be more preferable than 3.
1 Like
LOL I will because its the truth. People want zero cost of entry but a way to monetize the game has to exist. The consumer in general supports it, if you have evidence to the contrary show it.
To you, which is why you are incapable of seeing the change in the market.