How Blizzard ruined gaming, now every game has lootboxes

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Ruler said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Sounds like someone is moving goal posts... Also if the implementation of EA/WB is the same as overwatch, then I have no issues. Keyword is "same."

Gold does give you much less for duplicate but I fail to see how that is relevant. I never said traditional Micro-transactions can't give you free dlc but from my experience, traditional micro-transactions lock items and etc behind a paywall with no way to unlock them via in-game currency or the ability to unlock them requires an unreasonable amount of time.

It would be easier but less profitable for blizzard most likely since people would just buy the skins they want and then not spend a cent more. Plus the "whales" won't spend as much as they potentially could. I never said there isn't greed involved with microtransactions and the way it is implemented in overwatch but what I am saying is between the way overwatch has implemented it's micro-transactions vs the general pay for dlc method, I'd rather have overwatch's implementation.

There are obviously better "for the gamers" way to do post game content. I think splatoon's way is the most consumer friendly method where you get a single player campaign and free dlc for a year with tons of updates and zero microtransactions and many more things but it's clear the companies don't want to adopt that method since it doesn't make enough money for them. So if the future has to be between paid dlc, traditional micro-transactions with locked content behind them without any way to unlock them with in-game currency/unlocking them with an unreasonable amount of time or overwatch's lootbox implementation with free dlc that affects the gameplay and cosmetics that can be unlocked within a reasonable time. I'd rather choose overwatch's implementation than the other two.

-Blizzcon is locking DLC behind a paywall.

-Blizzard has made enough money from charging for online in world warcraft, hearthstone or the 60$ price tag of overwatch. Poor poor blizzard, its not as profitable for them.

-There are tons of games having microtransactions where everything is for free without lootboxes.

-How about this? Instead wastiung recources for new updates and DLC and ccharging for microtransactions, how about making a brand new game which you can sell for 60$ again? Certainly it doesnt work with this company, they need 10 years to release a beta for a game, if they havent canceled it allready.

Actually, it's just cosmetics that don't affect gameplay in anyway as far as Overwatch is concerned. Not dlc that directly affects gameplay. If you really want to be nit picky then sure, one skin per year gets locked behind a paywall but apart from that... I still prefer overwatch's method.

"-Blizzard has made enough money from charging for online in world warcraft, hearthstone or the 60$ price tag of overwatch. Poor poor blizzard, its not as profitable for them."

Ok? What does that have to do with anything? You do realize every company does dlc or micro-transactions or lootboxes right regardless of how well some of their games have done before right? I mean heck, uncharted 4 has both micro-transactions and lootboxes even though the franchise has been widely successful lul.

"-There are tons of games having microtransactions where everything is for free without lootboxes."

Huh? That doesn't make any sense... If a game has micro-transactions... Clearly not everything is free...

You seem very tilted lmao. Did Blizzard kill your dog or something? Companies making dlc/micro-transactions/updates instead of using those resources towards a new game isn't a Blizzard issue, it's an industry issue since we see many companies do it including Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft/EA/WB/etc...