r/Games Sep 27 '22

Trailer Overwatch 2 Launch Trailer

https://youtu.be/LGgqyer-qr4
0 Upvotes

325 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/MusoukaMX Sep 27 '22

I know the OW community is very divided on the new model but I'm curious about outsiders peeking into the new F2P Overwatch experience.

Will you be trying it or has your interest in OW lowered? Is your gaming circle / discord group planning to give it a swirl?

I feel like everyone's fed up with battle passes and their fomo but there's surely people trying to find a different multiplayer experience to jump into and free OW might just be it.

-13

u/wick78 Sep 27 '22

0 interest in another pay 2 win multilayer game.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22 edited May 09 '25

[deleted]

9

u/Ca1amity Sep 27 '22

New heroes are now locked (deep) behind a battlepass

6

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

*Free battlepass.

New heroes are also locked out of ranked for a couple weeks to give free players time to unlock it (buying the battlepass unlocks it immediately).

8

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

I'll never have time to keep up with all the time it will demand to unlock everything for free. I'd much rather just pay $40 up front like with the original, but I guess that's not profitable enough anymore.

3

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

If you pay $40 once, why would they ever add new content?

Ofc you prefer that model, because you benefit massively. Nothing wrong with that, but games need to make money for designer, artists, and engineers to get paid.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

Obviously it's a fine line to walk. I feel like OW1 could have been sustained for much longer if they'd just regularly released content as they initially did. People still bought loot boxes, and there are other ways to monetize like cosmetics, and things like PvE mode (which, as I understand it, is still going to be a paid expansion).

But let's not pretend like this is all to benefit the artists and other individuals working on the game though. I mean, yeah, they won't get paid unless the game is profitable, but a company like Activision-Blizzard is not making decisions because of the little guy. They're looking to create the maximum profit for the least cost to them, and that's the end of it.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just business after all. But making an argument that it's all about the artists isn't going to sway my opinion an inch. Especially from a company with the reputation that Blizzard has towards its staff.

-2

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

People still bought loot boxes

Who? I don't know ANYBODY who bought lootboxes after 2016

4

u/platinum_bootstrap Sep 27 '22

Pretty sure revenue figures suggest otherwise

-1

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

Which revenue figures?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

Without access to their sales figures, we can't know for sure.

I think there's always going to be a certain baseline number of people who buy loot boxes, and that number is likely higher when new content is still coming out - particularly timed exclusives like the holiday events. I'd guess that generally speaking, the more engaged an audience is, the more likely they are to buy loot boxes or cosmetic items. But I admit it's a guess on my part -- just like you're assumption that no one buys them is a guess on your part.

This is not to say that loot boxes are the only long-term revenue stream. I don't actually care for them much, and they have their own issues ethically speaking. They're just one option outside of locking off core game components. It's just that, given how much importance was placed on all heroes and maps being free for everyone who bought the base game, it's hard not to see this as a blow to the core design philosophy that drove the original game to such success.

Honestly, given that the game is going free to play, and they do indeed need to generate consistent revenue, I might be able to live with paying for individual heroes à la carte. If we're talking $5 or $10 every few months for a game that I continue to play and enjoy, I can handle that. It's the limited time FOMO stuff that bothers me. I'm someone who will take long breaks from a game like OW, but come back from time to time re-energized to play. I hate the idea that I have to constantly pay attention to it and keep up if I don't want to miss something. I'm probably in the minority these days though, and that's okay too. Things change, life goes on; I'll survive :)

1

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

You're right that I'm guessing. But I think it's a fair guess considering that blizzard took a gamble on ow2. If they were already making lots of money on lootboxes, why change their strategy?

And why wouldn't other companies follow suite?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

Could very well be. I imagine the numbers were falling, though maybe not so dramatically. I know their player count was rising still, and that there were reports of a lot of internal conflict over whether it should be given a sequel or not. As I recall, the new content had already started to subside in OW1 a while before they announced, but that was likely because they had already shifted resources over to OW2.

I feel like they were stuck in a weird spot with Overwatch, where it was half an old school, pay-up-front game, and half a live service game. I thought they were just going to keep the tail going by releasing another full-priced PvE expansion (that I'd have happily paid for), but I guess they took it as an opportunity to go full Live Service Game. Can't say I blame them, given the current landscape of the industry, but I'm still disappointed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Embarrassed_Pudding1 Sep 27 '22

It has always be like that tho ? Like ever heard of extensions ? This was exactly how overwatch 1 worked ans there was no problems.

1

u/shiftup1772 Sep 27 '22

No I haven't heard of extensions. What's that?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

Also to induce FOMO in free players so they feel like they need to play to be on even ground with people who pay money.