Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Really weird this isn't F2P

2»

Comments

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,465
    edited May 2016
    Don't fucking buy it then, who gives a fuck that some broke ass wants every game for free while claiming he/she is to casual to pay.

    Bye.




  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    I hate F2P in general - and what it does for games.

    Give me the full game for a fair price - and I don't have to "guess" what a new character or a new skin is really worth to me.
  • RictisRictis Member UncommonPosts: 1,300
    Tiller said:
    Question is do you guys see yourselves still playing this game by this time next year? that would kind of answer the question if it's worth paying for it.
    I think it really depends on what you use to game with mainly. What I mean is that I generally have 1 MMO i play and I have something else like a shooter on the side to kind of keep me sane. So yes I think a year down the road I could very well still be playing Overwatch, it really depends on what Blizzard is planning to do. They need to add more Heroes and also maybe add a couple of new maps etc. 
  • OmaliOmali MMO Business CorrespondentMember UncommonPosts: 1,175
    It's sad people can't understand what F2P for such a game would mean...
    They would give you like 4 heroes to start with (one dps, one support, one tank, one healer). Most likely the least appealing of each role, of course. Then it would be $10 per additional hero in the cash shop. At the end of the day, you'd have paid $10 * 17 = $170 to get all the heroes. Is that really what you want? I rather take the fixed $40 (or $60) price, thank you very much.
    Of course he doesn't. Given the OP's multiple mentions of only being slightly interested, I'm guessing he wants the game free so he can pop in for a couple of times then move on to the next new free thing. It's f2p tourism.

    image

  • IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,751
    I don't play these kinds of games, and bought (and am having a blast) with this game.  I think it's fantastic and if they'd have made it F2P, I'd never have even downloaded it.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Aori said:
    Tiller said:
    Question is do you guys see yourselves still playing this game by this time next year? that would kind of answer the question if it's worth paying for it.
    Knowing Blizzard probably.  I see Overwatch getting a lot of free DLC updates over the course of the next year. Pretty sure we'll have some new game modes, more maps, more heros this time next year.
    Then you better hope the guys planning that content aren't some of the same folks planning WoW's content, or you'll be sorely disapoointed. ;) 

    In all seriousness though, this game is probably much easier to develop DLC for, so I imagine it will be much more regularly updated than WoW.

    image
  • joeslowmoejoeslowmoe Member UncommonPosts: 127
    No, it's not weird at all.  Overwatch is in a different league than the F2P titles of the genre in regards to polish and fun.  I'm not a huge fan of the game, but even from the few hours of it I have played I can tell that.
  • ceratop001ceratop001 Member RarePosts: 1,594
    F2P games are reserved for the most part to games that have deficiencies. Some of these problems might not be glaring and sometimes it's based on location of release. When I see a game go from Sub or B2P and then eventually go F2P; I say to myself this game has some issues. Granted it's a recoverable process if you go F2P and not become overly greedy and still provide good game support. Coming out F2P right out of the gate would demonstrate a fear and an awareness that this game might not be 'all that'. So for Blizzard to come out B2P and portray an air of confidence shows the consumer; 'hey this game looks really great let me buy that'. Couple that with heavy advertising and celebrity endorsement.

    This is basic marketing 101 in my humble opinion...
     
  • RictisRictis Member UncommonPosts: 1,300
    F2P games are reserved for the most part to games that have deficiencies. Some of these problems might not be glaring and sometimes it's based on location of release. When I see a game go from Sub or B2P and then eventually go F2P; I say to myself this game has some issues. Granted it's a recoverable process if you go F2P and not become overly greedy and still provide good game support. Coming out F2P right out of the gate would demonstrate a fear and an awareness that this game might not be 'all that'. So for Blizzard to come out B2P and portray an air of confidence shows the consumer; 'hey this game looks really great let me buy that'. Couple that with heavy advertising and celebrity endorsement.

    This is basic marketing 101 in my humble opinion...
    I don't think if a game goes F2P that it has deficiencies. However I think Overwatch going B2P is a better choice then paying to unlock heroes through a long grind or through steep shop prices. It is fair to say though that going F2P after you were originally P2P does show a decline in interest. This doesn't mean its because the game itself is unstable in certain areas, it could just be overall game design and longevity. 
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Tiller said:
    Question is do you guys see yourselves still playing this game by this time next year? that would kind of answer the question if it's worth paying for it.
    I dunno that, 6 weeks fun is worth $40 and even $60 in my world. There are few games I played longer then a year besides MMOs.
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,610
    edited May 2016
    People are less likely to cheat if they have to pay money to start over.  They'd make more money with it being F2P, as their B2P model won't charge for new heroes/skins, so it is surprising.  I'm sure they'll have some sort of expansion at some point though.
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,610
    No, it's not weird at all.  Overwatch is in a different league than the F2P titles of the genre in regards to polish and fun.  I'm not a huge fan of the game, but even from the few hours of it I have played I can tell that.
    Is TF2 that bad?  I mean it certainly isn't as polished but people still seem to have a lot of fun with it.
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,610
    edited May 2016
    F2P games are reserved for the most part to games that have deficiencies. Some of these problems might not be glaring and sometimes it's based on location of release. When I see a game go from Sub or B2P and then eventually go F2P; I say to myself this game has some issues. Granted it's a recoverable process if you go F2P and not become overly greedy and still provide good game support. Coming out F2P right out of the gate would demonstrate a fear and an awareness that this game might not be 'all that'. So for Blizzard to come out B2P and portray an air of confidence shows the consumer; 'hey this game looks really great let me buy that'. Couple that with heavy advertising and celebrity endorsement.

    This is basic marketing 101 in my humble opinion...
    You're ignoring two of blizzard's own F2P games.  Hearthstone is top of it's class and a goldmine for Blizzard.  Heroes of the Storm is super polished and could have been at the top of the class, but they chose to go for the casual market and went super simple, thus not directly challenging LOL and DOTA2.
  • ceratop001ceratop001 Member RarePosts: 1,594
    F2P games are reserved for the most part to games that have deficiencies. Some of these problems might not be glaring and sometimes it's based on location of release. When I see a game go from Sub or B2P and then eventually go F2P; I say to myself this game has some issues. Granted it's a recoverable process if you go F2P and not become overly greedy and still provide good game support. Coming out F2P right out of the gate would demonstrate a fear and an awareness that this game might not be 'all that'. So for Blizzard to come out B2P and portray an air of confidence shows the consumer; 'hey this game looks really great let me buy that'. Couple that with heavy advertising and celebrity endorsement.

    This is basic marketing 101 in my humble opinion...
    You're ignoring two of blizzard's own F2P games.  Hearthstone is top of it's class and a goldmine for Blizzard.  Heroes of the Storm is super polished and could have been at the top of the class, but they chose to go for the casual market and went super simple, thus not directly challenging LOL and DOTA2.
    Actually before I made my comment I considered both those games you mentioned but then I considered the genre that were in and felt in didn't apply to the popularity of FPS's have demonstrated over the years. You make a good point and I'm just reasoning based on my personal gut feeling.
     
  • ceratop001ceratop001 Member RarePosts: 1,594
    Rictis said:
    F2P games are reserved for the most part to games that have deficiencies. Some of these problems might not be glaring and sometimes it's based on location of release. When I see a game go from Sub or B2P and then eventually go F2P; I say to myself this game has some issues. Granted it's a recoverable process if you go F2P and not become overly greedy and still provide good game support. Coming out F2P right out of the gate would demonstrate a fear and an awareness that this game might not be 'all that'. So for Blizzard to come out B2P and portray an air of confidence shows the consumer; 'hey this game looks really great let me buy that'. Couple that with heavy advertising and celebrity endorsement.

    This is basic marketing 101 in my humble opinion...
    I don't think if a game goes F2P that it has deficiencies. However I think Overwatch going B2P is a better choice then paying to unlock heroes through a long grind or through steep shop prices. It is fair to say though that going F2P after you were originally P2P does show a decline in interest. This doesn't mean its because the game itself is unstable in certain areas, it could just be overall game design and longevity. 
    You make some good points and thank you =)
     
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    The future is clearly B2P+sub+dlc+ca$h$hop+P2W... It's coming. They'll find a way to make you take it all. AND you will like it! ::evil laugh::

    Welcome to 5 years ago. Most major MMOs have done b2p+sub+dlc+p2w/cash shop for years now.


  • josko9josko9 Member RarePosts: 577
    Overwatch will go F2P within a year, it's inevitable.

    The game will sell well, but nothing extraordinary.
    I'm thinking about 5mil total copies sold across all 3 platforms (just because it's Blizzard).

    After that I can see them going F2P with a huge emphasis on the Cash Shop (Blizzard style), and declining just like HotS did. Though HotS was actually a way better game, also made for a much bigger audience, sadly it totally failed.

  • DahkohtDahkoht Member UncommonPosts: 479
    josko9 said:
    Overwatch will go F2P within a year, it's inevitable.

    The game will sell well, but nothing extraordinary.
    I'm thinking about 5mil total copies sold across all 3 platforms (just because it's Blizzard).

    After that I can see them going F2P with a huge emphasis on the Cash Shop (Blizzard style), and declining just like HotS did. Though HotS was actually a way better game, also made for a much bigger audience, sadly it totally failed.


    Agreed , I mean Blizzard games never keep selling  for 10-20 years after even do they ?
  • XiaokiXiaoki Member EpicPosts: 3,566
    Overwatch is But to play because Blizzard was actually mindful of the gameplay expected of the players.

    This isn't a game where you pick a character and stay with it the entire match. This is a game where you will need to switch characters depending on the game type,  stage, Attack or Defence, team composition or any other number of situations.

    If it Free to play game where the characters are sold separately this would create a balance disparity between those that own many characters and those that do not.

    But to play with a limited cosmetic only cash shop was a wise decision by Blizzard.
  • GhavriggGhavrigg Member RarePosts: 1,308
    edited May 2016
    Nepheth said:
    sanshi44 said:
    Not paying $90 for it maybe $50Au max for it so till it his that price or lower i wont be paying for it.
    $90 for a FPS arena isnt worth it imo
    Wut? The price is $40 dude.
    Must be nice. In Canada it's $79.99 + tax. Where I am, tax is 15%, so for me, it'd be $92 to play this. Luckily I'm not a fan of FPS.
  • Leon1eLeon1e Member UncommonPosts: 791
    Xiaoki said:
    Overwatch is But to play because Blizzard was actually mindful of the gameplay expected of the players.

    This isn't a game where you pick a character and stay with it the entire match. This is a game where you will need to switch characters depending on the game type,  stage, Attack or Defence, team composition or any other number of situations.

    If it Free to play game where the characters are sold separately this would create a balance disparity between those that own many characters and those that do not.

    But to play with a limited cosmetic only cash shop was a wise decision by Blizzard.
    Nailed it. Nothing further to add to the discussion, except my personal opinion. 

    Which is basically I'm happy they went that route and I'll get to have access to every new character (as promised by blizzard) without paying a dime. 
Sign In or Register to comment.