By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Overwatch is much, much too expensive.

 

Overwatch...

Too expensive. 287 51.25%
 
Too cheap. 20 3.57%
 
The price is right. 127 22.68%
 
^If it had a campaign. 82 14.64%
 
Indifference. I just don... 44 7.86%
 
Total:560
Puppyroach said:
I like what I've seen of the game but without more content, it's closer to a 30$ game than 60$, much like Star Wars Battlefront or Titanfall. Hopefully it won't sell to well.

Which is why it only costs 40 bucks.



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.

Around the Network
Chazore said:
Puppyroach said:
I like what I've seen of the game but without more content, it's closer to a 30$ game than 60$, much like Star Wars Battlefront or Titanfall. Hopefully it won't sell to well.

Hoping it won't sell to teach them a lesson is somewhat immature, especially consdierng how all those other games were loaded with £45 extra season passes that were designed to soak up more money and split the playerbase while dripping those maps over the period of a year or two. Overwatch isn't doing that though, you pay for the game and you get all future characters and maps for free, that is something all the other MP shooters out there refuse to do so until the game's lifespan is near it's end (like the very slow dripping of free BF4 and Hardline maps).

Also the game is selling well so far and has managed to garner the hype it was going for.

In what way is that immature, to hope that the market (meaning ut consumers) sends a signal that overpricing games is not ok?



Puppyroach said:

In what way is that immature, to hope that the market (meaning ut consumers) sends a signal that overpricing games is not ok?

Because as far as things go with the way the game is currently selling, that it's a price the people are fine with. If you think your standard should be the average standard then what of mine?. You are hoping a game fails because you don't agree with the PP, that is the part I'm on about.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:
Puppyroach said:

In what way is that immature, to hope that the market (meaning ut consumers) sends a signal that overpricing games is not ok?

Because as far as things go with the way the game is currently selling, that it's a price the people are fine with. If you think your standard should be the average standard then what of mine?. You are hoping a game fails because you don't agree with the PP, that is the part I'm on about.

Which is what the market is about. If people feel that it is ok to pay 60$ för the game (which is the price on X1 atleast) then that is the standard that you are for. If the game would sell badly, people would most likely feel that it should have been priced lower, which is the standard I am for. Me hoping it will sell badly does not mean that your opinion is worse or better, just different, and the market decides what the result will be for the game.

What we can be sure of, is that if these games with lesser content than other 60$ games sell very well, developers will continue to reduced content for full-priced games, so your willingness to fund this practice contribute to the rest of us consumers getting less value for more cash in the future.

What other way do you think there is to affect these developers to change their practices, other than through our wallets?



Puppyroach said:
Chazore said:

Because as far as things go with the way the game is currently selling, that it's a price the people are fine with. If you think your standard should be the average standard then what of mine?. You are hoping a game fails because you don't agree with the PP, that is the part I'm on about.

Which is what the market is about. If people feel that it is ok to pay 60$ för the game (which is the price on X1 atleast) then that is the standard that you are for. If the game would sell badly, people would most likely feel that it should have been priced lower, which is the standard I am for. Me hoping it will sell badly does not mean that your opinion is worse or better, just different, and the market decides what the result will be for the game.

What we can be sure of, is that if these games with lesser content than other 60$ games sell very well, developers will continue to reduced content for full-priced games, so your willingness to fund this practice contribute to the rest of us consumers getting less value for more cash in the future.

What other way do you think there is to affect these developers to change their practices, other than through our wallets?

This has sufficient content for the people looking to play it as a multiplayer only game. Most people don't care about a campaign. It only costs $40 if you have a computer better than a potato.



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.

Around the Network
ohmylanta1003 said:
Puppyroach said:

Which is what the market is about. If people feel that it is ok to pay 60$ för the game (which is the price on X1 atleast) then that is the standard that you are for. If the game would sell badly, people would most likely feel that it should have been priced lower, which is the standard I am for. Me hoping it will sell badly does not mean that your opinion is worse or better, just different, and the market decides what the result will be for the game.

What we can be sure of, is that if these games with lesser content than other 60$ games sell very well, developers will continue to reduced content for full-priced games, so your willingness to fund this practice contribute to the rest of us consumers getting less value for more cash in the future.

What other way do you think there is to affect these developers to change their practices, other than through our wallets?

This has sufficient content for the people looking to play it as a multiplayer only game. Most people don't care about a campaign. It only costs $40 if you have a computer better than a potato.

So what you are saying is that we have really lowered our standards for games to such a degree that we even excuse them for being lazy enough to not even make a single player campaign?



Puppyroach said:
Chazore said:

Because as far as things go with the way the game is currently selling, that it's a price the people are fine with. If you think your standard should be the average standard then what of mine?. You are hoping a game fails because you don't agree with the PP, that is the part I'm on about.

Which is what the market is about. If people feel that it is ok to pay 60$ för the game (which is the price on X1 atleast) then that is the standard that you are for. If the game would sell badly, people would most likely feel that it should have been priced lower, which is the standard I am for. Me hoping it will sell badly does not mean that your opinion is worse or better, just different, and the market decides what the result will be for the game.

What we can be sure of, is that if these games with lesser content than other 60$ games sell very well, developers will continue to reduced content for full-priced games, so your willingness to fund this practice contribute to the rest of us consumers getting less value for more cash in the future.

What other way do you think there is to affect these developers to change their practices, other than through our wallets?

You are insinuating that by selling well, overwatch encourages low content. But this only holds if overwatch has low content. In your OPINION it does have low content. In the opinions of others, there is significant content available.

therefore, the only message that overwatch sends by selling a lot is that people like overwatch



Puppyroach said:
ohmylanta1003 said:

This has sufficient content for the people looking to play it as a multiplayer only game. Most people don't care about a campaign. It only costs $40 if you have a computer better than a potato.

So what you are saying is that we have really lowered our standards for games to such a degree that we even excuse them for being lazy enough to not even make a single player campaign?

I would rather they focus on a balanced and diverse roster of characters in multiplayer than a half assed single player campaign.

where were you when this happened with smash bro's wii u?

it's not called being lazy, it's being smart with your resources



Puppyroach said:
Chazore said:

Because as far as things go with the way the game is currently selling, that it's a price the people are fine with. If you think your standard should be the average standard then what of mine?. You are hoping a game fails because you don't agree with the PP, that is the part I'm on about.

Which is what the market is about. If people feel that it is ok to pay 60$ för the game (which is the price on X1 atleast) then that is the standard that you are for. If the game would sell badly, people would most likely feel that it should have been priced lower, which is the standard I am for. Me hoping it will sell badly does not mean that your opinion is worse or better, just different, and the market decides what the result will be for the game.

What we can be sure of, is that if these games with lesser content than other 60$ games sell very well, developers will continue to reduced content for full-priced games, so your willingness to fund this practice contribute to the rest of us consumers getting less value for more cash in the future.

What other way do you think there is to affect these developers to change their practices, other than through our wallets?

You would have a point if the game had less content but having 12 maps, 21 characters, 3 modes and a hybrid mode isn't what I call very low content, especially with future content coming in free at no extra price, all other shooters however tend to sport low content and gouge with season passes, OW does not have a season pass.

Your best bet would be just sitting and waiting till the price goes down rather than hoping it bombs and Blizz somehow learn a lesson from one guy who thought his wallet would be broken, at a time where most games are sold at much higher prices loaded with ways to gouge more money from you. I paid £45 for the Origins edition on PC, without a discount on GMG, GoG or clients like Steam, some AAA games can go for that price just for their standard editions and go even higher for special ones, Battlefront's Deluxe going for a way higher price comes to mind, and yet people still bought into the super expensive game because it was Star Wars and they thought £80+ was well worth the asking price.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Puppyroach said:

So what you are saying is that we have really lowered our standards for games to such a degree that we even excuse them for being lazy enough to not even make a single player campaign?

Every single game does not even need to have an SP campaign, the same way a game doesn't need to always have MP jammed into them, it literally works both ways. Also standards are subjective and different in the games industry, something you think is fine could easily be a low bar for me and you'd argue differently and that just proves my point (because you cannot agreee to me saying you;ve set the bar low for everything in your life, you'd naturally argue and the point would stick).



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"