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

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...

Yeah but guess whos most  lazy one with producing new games? From 2004 they only released 7 games okay. I am pretty sure the game list is massive for Nintendo, Sony, WB or EA during the same timeframe. Its quite redicolous how Blizzard has 10 times more revenue than Capcom, while Capcom has brought 50 times more released games than blizzard on the table, and most of them are good if not even better than Blizzards 7 games.

So in the end it all boils down to "boohoo Blizzard has a better business model than Nintendo or Sony and I really don't like that at all". Suffice to say I do feel very sorry for your loss.