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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I wish Overwatch had flopped sales-wise

CuCabeludo said:

The only thing that makes me stop playing an online game I enjoy is pushing P2W stuff that gives real advantages to the whales making them gods among men who don't buy the p2w stuff. It happened to several MMOs i played in the past, they started ok but introduced so many P2W items that you need to spend a lot to become competitive, when they evolve to this point I just leave.

OW has 0 P2W on their lootboxes, I have been playing  it since launch and never bought a single lootbox up until now and never will. I'm ok with the lootboxes I can earn by playing. 

It woulldn't be there if ppl didn't buy them, and some ppl are just genitically inclined to be addicted to stuff (ye that is a thing), once that dude buys 1 of those lootboxes he is hooked. The companies know that very well and they are counting on it to penny and dime their players, it doesn't matter if its cosmetic or not. These games also have a way to rub the damm lootboxes on your face almost constantly to try to get you to buy it. Its a scummy pratice and should be purged, but sadly some games have such a loyall following ppl defend them no matter what. We are headed into a future where everygame will be a super simple multiplayer (wich someone will defend saying "they want it to be an e-sport" crap we hear so often) with lootboxes.  

Last edited by DakonBlackblade - on 21 May 2018

Around the Network

Overwatch was never meant to be single player. It was meant to be an FPS MOBA. I agree with OP. Others may have done it before, but Overwatch was the first game to be successful with a combination of lootboxes, and online only. Now all the awful copycats are coming out of the woodwork. Same thing happened when League proved that free to play was viable. Like League, none of the competitors will emulate their success. 

Ka-pi96 said:

False, again. Mass Effect 3 was neither a sports nor mobile game, it released 4 years before Overwatch, and it had loot boxes.

Doesn't mean you can just ignore the fact that lootboxes long predate Overwatch by claiming certain games "don't count".

You're entitled to your opinion on the price of mp only games. But by ignoring all the people who think they are worth $60 and claiming it's "anti-consumer" you're effectively taking a "I don't like it so nobody is allowed to like it" stance. You're just not part of their target consumer group.

ME3 was single player. Not sure why anybody would have bothered with its multiplayer mode. Hiding lootboxes in a dark and hidden corner of the game (ME3's Multiplayer), is not the same thing as making them front and center in your game for everybody to see. 



DakonBlackblade said:
CuCabeludo said:

The only thing that makes me stop playing an online game I enjoy is pushing P2W stuff that gives real advantages to the whales making them gods among men who don't buy the p2w stuff. It happened to several MMOs i played in the past, they started ok but introduced so many P2W items that you need to spend a lot to become competitive, when they evolve to this point I just leave.

OW has 0 P2W on their lootboxes, I have been playing  it since launch and never bought a single lootbox up until now and never will. I'm ok with the lootboxes I can earn by playing. 

It woulldn't be there if ppl didn't buy them, and some ppl are just genitically inclined to be addicted to stuff (ye that is a thing), once that dude buys 1 of those lootboxes he is hooked. The companies know that very well and they are counting on it to penny and dime their players, it doesn't matter if its cosmetic or not. These games also have a way to rub the damm lootboxes on your face almost constantly to try to get you to buy it. Its a summy pratice and should be purged, but sadly some game shave such a loyall following ppl defend them no matter waht. We are headed into a future where everygame will be a super simple multiplayer (wich someone will defending saying "they want it to be an e-sport" crap we hear so often) with lootboxes.  

I don't care what other people do with their money. There is no difference between me who don't buy lootboxes and a whale who buy thousands of them  in terms of gameplay  since only your skill matter.



Not having a shitty, tacked on campaign isn't anti consumer - it's pro consumer. I say bring on more. Keep single player single player and multiplayer multiplayer.

And loot boxes predate overwatch, so overall the op is WRONG. And screw it - bring on the loot boxes too. I have lots of money, and no time. I don't care if it's anti consumer. It's pro ME, and inventory upgrade systems were always garbage anyway.



Its very popular in Asia. And they dont really care about the 2 things you said. Especially when mobile games dominate there. And we know how much microtransactions there are in them.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Around the Network
LuccaCardoso1 said:

Yes, Overwatch is a great game, but imo it made the FPS genre (not just the FPS genre, but it especially) much worse. Let me explain:

Overwatch has loot boxes that can be bought with real money. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it has a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the loot boxes a problem, publishers now think loot boxes are a-ok with consumers.

Overwatch has no campaign. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it had a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the lack of campaign a problem, publishers now think it's a-ok to don't include a campaign in a $60 game if it has a multiplayer mode. That's a more recent one, but with CoD BO4 not having a campaign, we can expect the number of FPSs with single-player content shrinking more and more from now on.

Overwatch also won tons of awards, including Game of the Year (!) on TGA 2016.

Overwatch basically made anti-consumer practices acceptable in the eyes of publishers.

it's like you never heard of Team Fortress 2 lol



Barozi said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

Yes, Overwatch is a great game, but imo it made the FPS genre (not just the FPS genre, but it especially) much worse. Let me explain:

Overwatch has loot boxes that can be bought with real money. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it has a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the loot boxes a problem, publishers now think loot boxes are a-ok with consumers.

Overwatch has no campaign. Overwatch sold a lot, and because it had a lot of fans that think it's a sacred game and refuse to consider the lack of campaign a problem, publishers now think it's a-ok to don't include a campaign in a $60 game if it has a multiplayer mode. That's a more recent one, but with CoD BO4 not having a campaign, we can expect the number of FPSs with single-player content shrinking more and more from now on.

Overwatch also won tons of awards, including Game of the Year (!) on TGA 2016.

Overwatch basically made anti-consumer practices acceptable in the eyes of publishers.

it's like you never heard of Team Fortress 2 lol

TF2 is free lol



B O I

John2290 said:
spemanig said:
Not having a shitty, tacked on campaign isn't anti consumer - it's pro consumer. I say bring on more. Keep single player single player and multiplayer multiplayer.

And loot boxes predate overwatch, so overall the op is WRONG. And screw it - bring on the loot boxes too. I have lots of money, and no time. I don't care if it's anti consumer. It's pro ME, and inventory upgrade systems were always garbage anyway.

That's short sighted and I hope reactionary because it's certainly not based in clear thinking. What if your brother or mother got depressed and spent thousands on loot boxes or your kid/future kids maxed out a credit card on you in the middle of a recession. If your mind set truly is that I hope ot does happen so you gain some perspective. 

It's not short sighted at all. If you're an adult, it isn't up to the world to prevent you from being irresponsible. If you spend thousands on loot boxes, and you're unhappy with that decision, that's your fault. That's like blaming the alcohol or the bar for some depressed guy getting wasted every night. If your kids have any control over your funds, especially during a recession, you're being a shitty parent and you deserve it. There are password-protected fail safes that prevent that sort of thing from happening. Again, that's like blaming the internet because your child has a porn addiction.



??? The loot boxes are completely free and only cosmetics. There's no issue with them at all. And why does it need to have a campaign? This post makes no sense at all.



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

Ka-pi96 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

ME3 was single player. Not sure why anybody would have bothered with its multiplayer mode. Hiding lootboxes in a dark and hidden corner of the game (ME3's Multiplayer), is not the same thing as making them front and center in your game for everybody to see. 

Stop trying to make exceptions or claim things don't count. The OP's claim that Overwatch was the first successful game with loot boxes was categorically false, as was his claim that EA never put loot boxes into any non-sports or mobile games until after Overwatch.

People making false claims without doing any research is a bad thing, don't defend it.

Yeah OP had his facts wrong, but he still has a point. Overwatch wasn't the first game to have lootboxes, or the fist successful online-only game. But it still had a huge impact on the industry, due to a combination of timing, quality, and marketing.