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
ohmylanta1003 on 02 June 2016
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?

No. What I'm saying is that most people don't want or need a singleplayer campaign and would much rather invest money into a well built multiplayer game. Thinking that a game can only be full price if it has singleplayer is a little naive, childish, and narrow minded, don't you think?



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 on 02 June 2016

It's just funny, because I thought people hated a lot of these multiplayer games because of the price plus the stupid number of microtransactions (DLC, season passes, skins only unlockable with real money, etc.). As it turns out, even when a game comes out for $40 that promises all future content to be free, even though Blizzard knows they could make a fortune off of it and the only microtransactions are unlocking cosmetics a little sooner (all can be obtained in game), people still get really upset. I don't get it. People get upset over everything. What do you people want?



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

midrange on 02 June 2016
ohmylanta1003 said:
It's just funny, because I thought people hated a lot of these multiplayer games because of the price plus the stupid number of microtransactions (DLC, season passes, skins only unlockable with real money, etc.). As it turns out, even when a game comes out for $40 that promises all future content to be free, even though Blizzard knows they could make a fortune off of it and the only microtransactions are unlocking cosmetics a little sooner (all can be obtained in game), people still get really upset. I don't get it. People get upset over everything. What do you people want?

I got black ops 3 for $120 (season pass) and it still has guns locked behind loot crates (micro transactions).

But it's totally ok because the game has a campaign that I never touched /s

Guess how much early adopters of destiny paid?

It's totally ok though because they had a finished and awe inspiring story mode /s

Everyone on this site is over valuing campaigns whereas other people are valuing free dlc and no non cosmetic microtransactions on a balanced and fun multiplayer (don't even try to talk about balance in black ops or destiny)



Pemalite on 03 June 2016
ohmylanta1003 said:
It's just funny, because I thought people hated a lot of these multiplayer games because of the price plus the stupid number of microtransactions (DLC, season passes, skins only unlockable with real money, etc.). As it turns out, even when a game comes out for $40 that promises all future content to be free, even though Blizzard knows they could make a fortune off of it and the only microtransactions are unlocking cosmetics a little sooner (all can be obtained in game), people still get really upset. I don't get it. People get upset over everything. What do you people want?

I don't mind if a game is Multiplayer only.

But I want more content than a couple of game modes and a dozen maps on release. It's that simple. - It will always be something I will criticise games for doing.

There are games out there that not only has a fantastic singleplayer campaign but also features a multiplayer component which not only has more game modes, but also has more maps... And is even open to allowing user-created content and gets free updates. (Can you guess which game I am talking about?)



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Puppyroach on 03 June 2016
Chazore 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?

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.

You seriously call that having a good amount of content? I love Titanfall for example but know that me bying that game (just as when I bought DLC for Mass Effect and Alan Wake) is helping the industry move towards reducing content and putting more expenses on the gamers. So I have decided to not buy DLC for games anymore (well, it was a decision I made in 2010 or something) and will hesitate to buy games like Overwatch even though I think I would like the game very much. Star Wars is a great example since we can compare it to it´s predecessors, all which had massively more content for 60$. Lowering standard is not pushing the industry forward.



Around the Network
DannyDesario on 03 June 2016

it's 40 bucks for PC and 50 for PS4 (W/ Best Buy Gamer's Club) Seems fine to me



Currently Playing: N/A

Anime and Studying is life RN

Puppyroach on 03 June 2016
ohmylanta1003 said:
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?

No. What I'm saying is that most people don't want or need a singleplayer campaign and would much rather invest money into a well built multiplayer game. Thinking that a game can only be full price if it has singleplayer is a little naive, childish, and narrow minded, don't you think?

First of all, the game is 60$ on X1 so it´s priced the same amount as every other AAA game. And if you look at a game that has MP+SP for 60$ where the MP has as much content as Overwatch (and it doesn´t seem to have much MP content either) why is it motivated to charge 60$ for the MP only game? I am not saying it has to have a SP campaign in order to be full-priced, what I am saying is that we need to stop paying these sums of money for games with low content because it further pushes the industry towards a pay-to-play model in the future.



midrange on 03 June 2016
Puppyroach said:
ohmylanta1003 said:

No. What I'm saying is that most people don't want or need a singleplayer campaign and would much rather invest money into a well built multiplayer game. Thinking that a game can only be full price if it has singleplayer is a little naive, childish, and narrow minded, don't you think?

First of all, the game is 60$ on X1 so it´s priced the same amount as every other AAA game. And if you look at a game that has MP+SP for 60$ where the MP has as much content as Overwatch (and it doesn´t seem to have much MP content either) why is it motivated to charge 60$ for the MP only game? I am not saying it has to have a SP campaign in order to be full-priced, what I am saying is that we need to stop paying these sums of money for games with low content because it further pushes the industry towards a pay-to-play model in the future.

How about you realize that not every game needs to have a single player campaign. Just because you like it doesn't mean that every game NEEDS it in order to be good.

also, pay to play?! Last I checked, people didn't need cosmetic skins to play. Clearly you don't have the game but are keen to judge it and it's "future message"



betacon on 03 June 2016
Puppyroach said:
ohmylanta1003 said:

No. What I'm saying is that most people don't want or need a singleplayer campaign and would much rather invest money into a well built multiplayer game. Thinking that a game can only be full price if it has singleplayer is a little naive, childish, and narrow minded, don't you think?

First of all, the game is 60$ on X1 so it´s priced the same amount as every other AAA game. And if you look at a game that has MP+SP for 60$ where the MP has as much content as Overwatch (and it doesn´t seem to have much MP content either) why is it motivated to charge 60$ for the MP only game? I am not saying it has to have a SP campaign in order to be full-priced, what I am saying is that we need to stop paying these sums of money for games with low content because it further pushes the industry towards a pay-to-play model in the future.

What about all future dlc is free don't you understand, the game will continue to build it's content.



Puppyroach on 03 June 2016
midrange said:
Puppyroach said:

First of all, the game is 60$ on X1 so it´s priced the same amount as every other AAA game. And if you look at a game that has MP+SP for 60$ where the MP has as much content as Overwatch (and it doesn´t seem to have much MP content either) why is it motivated to charge 60$ for the MP only game? I am not saying it has to have a SP campaign in order to be full-priced, what I am saying is that we need to stop paying these sums of money for games with low content because it further pushes the industry towards a pay-to-play model in the future.

How about you realize that not every game needs to have a single player campaign. Just because you like it doesn't mean that every game NEEDS it in order to be good.

also, pay to play?! Last I checked, people didn't need cosmetic skins to play. Clearly you don't have the game but are keen to judge it and it's "future message"

First of all, you should read my entire post, where I say the game doesn´t necessarily have to have SP, but rather have a lot of content.

If I ask you this instead: why do you think the game is priced at 60$ on console and 40$ on PC? I am well aware that the loot crates are mainly cosmetic skins, but why do you think they have them and charge money for them? Why do you think it´s fairly easy to gain levels in the beginning and harder further on, making it harder to get the loot crates? And do you think Blizzard would have even considered this ten years ago, considering how the industry looked then? They obviously see the market for it, since people buy into it and they will continue to push this as long as people buy it.