What’s absurd is you don’t have to buy it to get access to all the PVP elements that OW 2 brings… and the graphic “upgrade”… I mean, I don’t think you could make this more fair…
1 Like
Why is that absurd exactly?
So only 6 new heroes ? Beside the ones they had in mind for OW1 but delayed to pad OW2 numbers.
I mean do they get entirely new enviorments or are there some that are reused ? Is the new gamplay mechanic a talent tree that is onl 6 talents long ?
Sounds not worth 60€.
Only information we have currently is minimum 5 heroes.
I’m assuming by “environments” you’re talking about maps. Jeff has confirmed bare minimum 8 maps, not including the Push maps.
You’re just gonna ignore the entire full PvE campaign. Righteo.
No. I’m pretty sure there’s going to be atleast 8 heroes since some have been teased and Jeff said there’s going to be multiple new heroes for each role. That means the total is already above 3. I’m just saying the minimum is going to be 12.
It’s an improved engine. For the story, nothing can be realistically reused since the engine was redone just to commemorate OW2’s PvE focus.
Tbh, I don’t think it will be 60 dollars. Not even OW1 released for that much when it first launched.
For every hero? That’s huge. The only people who will have problems with this are one tricks because they literally won’t use the other 200+ talents (assuming every hero manages to get a talent tree). Also, they could end up adding more to it. We don’t know because it’s nowhere near finished yet.
1 Like
Well I just did.
There are far better PVE options out there versus Archives. If you Archives fun, you must like watching paint dry too.
Its actually not full retail price. It’s by far the cheapest form of entertainment and they should technically be charging more for what it’s worth.
I mean Mobas have a lot more talents and tbey are free so its not really all that huge.
1 Like
Full pve campaign ? Thats what greexfal had anf it was only 45€, same as remnant and hellblade. And those were completly new ip-s ehre evrything had to be made from the ground up. So no Overwatch “full pve campaign” is most ceartinly not worth 60 €
1 Like
Base game for 40 dollars; expansion for 60? Nty, the game its self is already loaded with flaws that Blizzard will never fix. I don’t really feel like playing Destiny 3, which is what OW2 is more than likely going to feel like.
Too many re-used assets to justify that price, generally speaking sequals are a lazy cash grab.
I mean, Overwatch is mix between FPS and MOBA so you shouldn’t really have the same expectations. Remember than Overwatch 2 is expected to come with new heroes so that’s a couple more talents that are necessary for the game. If we were to go by already existing heroes, OW2 would have 192 talents in total. That’s a lot, especially with all the other content that’s coming with it.
Again, I sincerely doubt the game will ever be 60 dollars unless we’re talking about bundles. The OP’s premise is wrong but he’s right in the sense that any price range from £40 to £60 can easily be justified.
Because $60 is a lot for an expansion pack.
Doom Eternal, worth it, Borderlands 3, worth it, OW2…ehhhh, maybe $30 or $40?
2 Likes
This is probably what it’s going to cost since this is was OW1 launched with. I don’t know where people got the 60 dollars tbh. The price could be justified ( the 60 dollars ) but there’s no point estimating it now since we don’t know enough about the sequel.
Also, it’s not expansion. Expansions expand on a fundamental part of an already existing game. A PvE story mode is not an expansion because that never existed in OW1. Yes, Archives exist but that’s a limited time event that happens like once a year and is not available 24/7. Then there’s the fact that the engine for it was not and still isn’t made for PvE.
Because, based on what we know so far, it’s not going to be a “full game”. It seems like the PvE is a side-project that isn’t the main focus, so paying $60 for that is a little rough.
It’s also likely to include lootboxes and potentially other forms of microtransactions because Activision.
It’s also likely to not get much post-launch support.
Outside of $60 being the norm right now. Why should it be $60? Assuming that it has microtransactions, there’s a very very strong case to make it free. In fact, there’s a very strong case to make almost all AAA releases free. The companies themselves have admitted that less than 40% of a game’s income is from innitial sales with a profit margin large enough to still make a profit from giving the base game for free.
It’s easy to point to people and call them entitled, but when the same people have watched the quality-per-dollar dropping over the years, and the average expendature on AAA releases being in the 80s-90s of dollars per game, it’s no wonder that people feel entitled. Because they are entitled to better practices and treatment.
I mean, that’s the standard price for AAA titles.
Its absurd to complain about it if you have no interest in PVE as the OP did.
1 Like
40 yes. And 5-10 discount for owners of the first one. Then id have no complaints at all.
Aren’t people jumping the gun a little?
I mean, no one knows what it will cost…
So getting enraged about cost of a game before you know anything is just silly.
3 Likes