This.
Although there’s so many games out there that one can get for the current consoles that I’m not sure many are even worth it. (I know eventually I’m going to have to bite and $60+ for Elden Ring)
FF14 gives you the original game + the first expansion completely free as well. That’s a lot of gameplay for free.
wrong not every skin costs that much in fortnite…
ALSO HOW ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU STOP DISMISSING THAT FORTNITE GIVES BACK MORE CURRENCY THAN THE PASS COSTS AND IS MORE FAIR THAN BLIZZ u shill.
1 Like
The price is higher then even they are use too. Most other games are 10-15 with FAR more effort put into them.
Not to mention THOSE titles offer ways to earn enough by playing to buy them in a (more) reasonable about of time without spending money.
So naw. Blizzard is taking the piss on this one.
You ppl paying for skins need to wake up. Why would you ever pay $20 for a cosmetic?!?
2 Likes
Not really. They are skins, and this has been proven to be a price point people are willing to pay.
Really isn’t much more to it from their side.
From us, if we all agree to not buy it, then they will have to change. Otherwise we are just peeing into the wind.
1 Like
Great. Glad this standard is making news within the content creation circle. Gaming media, and the like. Really hope these standard prices appeal to the audience who played Overwatch for 6 years as that is their audience, not Apex. Apex players are playing Apex, a game that was free to play at launch, a game I never paid $60 for.
Thank the lord this monetization model is standard. It should be a real success in that case!
1 Like
Most games also don’t have mobile phone requirements which drastically increases the price of this game.
1 Like
The F2P + cosmetics business model essentially relies on donations by players who don’t mind the expense. Skins aren’t worth 20 bucks, but they also aren’t worth 10 bucks or 5. Whether to “donate” is entirely up to you and skins should be seen as rewards for those donations, nothing more.
This is still a far better situation to be in than the pre-Dota2 days when F2P games were either pay to win or locked much of the actual gameplay content behind a paywall.
I get that if you really love the skins, OW1 was a massively better deal. But the price to pay for that was the required admission fee which would always limit the game’s potential reach.
Personally I also think the prices are too high and would be more likely to buy some skin on impulse if I thought they were more reasonable. But that’s Blizzard’s problem to figure out, I don’t need those skins and never will.
2 Likes
Is it also standard to break most abilities and balance whenever the company feels like it?
Consider me an old fart then because I don’t want the industry to take that path.
We are at a point where free-to-play makes me long for the piracy days.
2 Likes
same with OW2…
Oh. Okay.
I still don’t care.
Most games also don’t have mobile phone requirements which drastically increases the price of this game… so far.
At least indies are gaining popularity year after year, an alternative to the ceo-scum development corp.
Denying reality doesn’t make it any less true. You can dislike it but burying your head in your sand helps nothing
you can earn a legendary after 8 months of grinding /hj /hs
I do want to point out, again, after 300 levels and about 300 hours, I still do not have enough crafting metals in apex to buy a skin.
Because I’m not talking about if the practices are good or not, obviously they are not good. That’s not my argument and people CONTINUOUSLY assume that it is. My argument is that people who aren’t them are going to continue paying for skins regardless of if they like the price or not. “Boycotting” skins as OW1 players is the equivalent of boycotting new underwear as a straight man, you’re not buying it often anyways so your market is basically dead. Old players already have skins so there’s less incentive for them to buy new ones. New skins aren’t marketed towards old players because they’re not profitable anymore.
Okay let’s be dead honestly for a minute. Any skin under 975 RP is probably not a skin worth buying. It’s the equivalent of Overwatch’s recolors.
Honestly I just don’t understand why people value them so much. There’s only like four skins total that I’d ever spend more than 10 dollars to buy and even then 3 of them are for the same character (and hence, I’d only consider buying one since buying multiple skins for 1 hero is redundant)
Maybe I just have a different view of the game, though.
That’s such a strange false equivalence to make.
Is Overwatch actually 500 dollars because that’s the price of a PS5?
Shilling for anticonsumer practices helps even less.
2 Likes
It’s not shilling to point out that something is industry standard. It is ignorance to pretend it isn’t though. Make no mistake I’d rather just bought the game at a box price and continue with the lootbox system. I’m also not going to act like $20 for a skin isn’t commonplace either though
And how did it become “standard” on the first place?
Back in my days you buy a game and you own a full game.
1 Like
Well, this may sound bit dickish, but if people keep constantly misunderstanding your point then maybe you should be more clear about it instead of just assuming that it is obvious because it sure wasn’t from your replies?
Now i’m kinda confused about this whole thread so i’ll try to summarize it. Correct me if i’m wrong:
monetization in ow2 is bad.
Same monetization system is used in other games, which is equally bad there.
People who have played games with same monetization system before are more likely to pay for it in ow2 as well?
1 Like
I don’t know, look back to the 1880’s.
Games that have expansions/cosmetic content have existed forever. Card games are one thing that comes to mind, but even decks of cards have cosmetics.
It’s very obvious. The reason people don’t understand it is because they don’t read my post.
1 Like