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

LuccaCardoso1 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
It wasn't the first hugely successful game with microtransactions.

I didn't say it was the first hugely successful game with microtransactions. I said it was the first hugely successful game with paid loot boxes. Microtransactions are terrible, but loot boxes are even worse for taking advantage of people's natural tendencies to get addicted to gambling.

Ka-pi96 said:
It also wasn't the first multiplayer only game to be very successful.

Please name another multiplayer-only $60 game to be hugely successful before Overwatch.

1st part, it still isn't. FIFA was a hugely successful game with paid loot boxes long before Overwatch had even started development.

2nd part, a bunch of MMOs for starters.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 19 May 2018

Around the Network
areason said:
First of all the PC version is for 40 dollars, not 60.

Overwatch still sold 6.36 million on retail for consoles. You can switch "Overwatch" on the title for "Overwatch on consoles" or "Overwatch Game of the Year edition" if you want. My point still stands.

areason said:
2nd of all you forget to mention that overwatch has had constantly updated modes, events, maps, characters for free. That is something that traditional multiplayer shooters do not do.

That's a great aspect about Overwatch. Doesn't make it ok to have paid loot boxes and no campaign though.

areason said: 
Also not having a campaign isn't "anti consumer", it's a multiplayer game, that is what it wants to be. Deviating resources to making a campaign will hurt the quality of the core game. 

It's not anti-consumer to not have a campaign. It's anti-consumer to sell a multiplayer-only game for 60 dollars. By the way, do you really think Activision Blizzard, one the largest (if not the largest) publishers in the world doesn't have enough resources to make a campaign without worsening the multiplayer modes?

areason said: 
And when it comes to the loot boxes they aren't tied to any game system, it's just cosmetics.

Still exploiting people's tendencies to get addicted to gambling.



G O O D B O I

Zkuq said:
Burning Typhoon said:
Except none of those are the selling points or reasons why people play overwatch. "OMG, guys! No campaign mode, and lootboxes! I can't wait!" You also don't have to buy any new characters as DLC, nor the stages, and can earn loot boxes for free, but let's just forget about that to keep your argument from falling apart.

Have you considered that if something something sounds too stupid to be true, you might have misunderstood it? In this case, the person here seems to wish Overwatch failed so it couldn't popularize lootboxes and the lack of campaign. It's not the consumers but the publishers that started liking lootboxes and thinking not having a campaign is viable (at least particially) because of Overwatch. That, I think, is the argument here. In other words, the argument seems to be that without Overwatch, we wouldn't have those two things or at least they'd be smaller.

Again, those aren't selling points.  No, I didn't misunderstand anything, because it blatantly ignores that overwatch has selling points, and things that make it a fun game that people want to play, just to push his agenda.  Even if overwatch wasn't the first.  How long did it take you to finish H1Z1's campaign?  How about Jetpack Joyride?  There's lots of games that don't have an offline campaign,  but I'm not going to search through google to tell you about the ones that came before overwatch.  We all know they exist.

It also ignores that overwatch, like I said, give away stages and characters away as free DLC and is updated and patched regularly.  So if a company looks at one part of overwatches strategy, and only sees the "how can we charge consumers," without the other aspect of why should consumers see value in the practices, then maybe I did consider that it was a silly comment.  And my verdict is that I completely understood it, and it was a silly comment.  People say silly things.  That was one of them.



Ka-pi96 said:

1st part, it still isn't. FIFA was a hugely successful game with paid loot boxes long before Overwatch had even started development.

FIFA is a weird case, though. People always seem to look at it as if it was not a game, but something else. It seems to be on its own ecosystem if that makes sense. I mean, people freaked out about Battlefront 2 doing the exact same thing as FIFA has been doing for years. I guess the FIFA demographic is too different from any other game. Overwatch bring paid loot boxes for the "hardcore gamers" in a way. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but that's how I feel at least.

Ka-pi96 said:

2nd part, a bunch of MMOs for starters.

MMOs are fundamentally multiplayer-only experiences. "Massively Multiplayer Online", you know? That's because they offer a massive online connected world. Overwatch doesn't offer that. It's a regular FPS on its mechanics and world, just without any campaign.



G O O D B O I

For Lootboxes...you just don't buy them simple as that, I've put maybe around 60 hours into Overwatch and I haven't bought a single lootbox. The other part is that lootboxes are purely cosmetic stuff, so while I don't like them, they aren't doing any harm to the actual game or gameplay for the rest of the players.

For the campaign aspect...meh, the point of Overwatch is not really the story, is kind of like asking for a story in a non-RPG Mario game, or heck even something similar like Team Fortress 2. And the story is told via character introductions and short animations on youtube, which is honestly kind of cool I most say.



Nintendo and PC gamer

Around the Network
LuccaCardoso1 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

1st part, it still isn't. FIFA was a hugely successful game with paid loot boxes long before Overwatch had even started development.

FIFA is a weird case, though. People always seem to look at it as if it was not a game, but something else. It seems to be on its own ecosystem if that makes sense. I mean, people freaked out about Battlefront 2 doing the exact same thing as FIFA has been doing for years. I guess the FIFA demographic is too different from any other game. Overwatch bring paid loot boxes for the "hardcore gamers" in a way. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but that's how I feel at least.

Ka-pi96 said:

2nd part, a bunch of MMOs for starters.

MMOs are fundamentally multiplayer-only experiences. "Massively Multiplayer Online", you know? That's because they offer a massive online connected world. Overwatch doesn't offer that. It's a regular FPS on its mechanics and world, just without any campaign.

You need to expand your definition of a "massively multiplayer online" game, then.  Overwatch has no reloading, and no weapon pick-ups, meanwhile having healers, and resurrects, and a the characters themselves are just outright better than others, depending on situation.  You can't just always pick torb, sym, or any character, for that matter, and expect them to work well with the team 100% of the time.  It is not a regular basic game, or else it wouldn't have had the footing to be popular in the first place.

 But, all the areas in overwatch are closed off from the rest of the game, which would directly impact the gameplay, but let's just call it a regular FPS on that merit alone. 



LuccaCardoso1 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

1st part, it still isn't. FIFA was a hugely successful game with paid loot boxes long before Overwatch had even started development.

FIFA is a weird case, though. People always seem to look at it as if it was not a game, but something else. It seems to be on its own ecosystem if that makes sense. I mean, people freaked out about Battlefront 2 doing the exact same thing as FIFA has been doing for years. I guess the FIFA demographic is too different from any other game. Overwatch bring paid loot boxes for the "hardcore gamers" in a way. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but that's how I feel at least.

Ka-pi96 said:

2nd part, a bunch of MMOs for starters.

MMOs are fundamentally multiplayer-only experiences. "Massively Multiplayer Online", you know? That's because they offer a massive online connected world. Overwatch doesn't offer that. It's a regular FPS on its mechanics and world, just without any campaign.

Yet it was EA, the same company that publish FIFA, which added lootboxes to Battlefront 2. I think their own success with them would have had more impact in that decision than Overwatch, so yeah it's not fair to just blame that.

Also, the FIFA demographic has a pretty big overlap with the COD demographic (outside the US at least, but I assume their Madden game is packed with loot boxes due to EA as well so they're no different) and considering this thread is probably in response to the latest COD game, saying FIFA doesn't count due to different demographics isn't really fair.

Why can't shooters be multiplayer only experiences too though? Why can't there be a market for shooters focused solely on the multiplayer aspect. There's singleplayer only shooters such as Bioshock which sell for $60 so why not multiplayer ones too. As for others that have done the same, isn't Counter Strike a hugely successful mp only shooter? I've no idea if that was $60 at release since that was a LONG time ago now, but it's not F2P either.



Burning Typhoon said:
Zkuq said:

Have you considered that if something something sounds too stupid to be true, you might have misunderstood it? In this case, the person here seems to wish Overwatch failed so it couldn't popularize lootboxes and the lack of campaign. It's not the consumers but the publishers that started liking lootboxes and thinking not having a campaign is viable (at least particially) because of Overwatch. That, I think, is the argument here. In other words, the argument seems to be that without Overwatch, we wouldn't have those two things or at least they'd be smaller.

Again, those aren't selling points.  No, I didn't misunderstand anything, because it blatantly ignores that overwatch has selling points, and things that make it a fun game that people want to play, just to push his agenda.  Even if overwatch wasn't the first.  How long did it take you to finish H1Z1's campaign?  How about Jetpack Joyride?  There's lots of games that don't have an offline campaign,  but I'm not going to search through google to tell you about the ones that came before overwatch.  We all know they exist.

It also ignores that overwatch, like I said, give away stages and characters away as free DLC and is updated and patched regularly.  So if a company looks at one part of overwatches strategy, and only sees the "how can we charge consumers," without the other aspect of why should consumers see value in the practices, then maybe I did consider that it was a silly comment.  And my verdict is that I completely understood it, and it was a silly comment.  People say silly things.  That was one of them.

People bought Overwatch because it's a great game, no doubt. But publishers looked at its success and thought "Hey, I guess consumers don't care if we do these anti-consumer things then!". Do you understand what I'm saying now or do I have to spell it out for you?

H1Z1 and Jetpack Joyride (are you really mentioning a mobile game?) are not $60.

As I mentioned, Overwatch has many great things about it. They don't excuse it having loot boxes and no campaign though.



G O O D B O I

I gotta ask... how is having no singleplayer campaign "anti-consumer"? It's not...

Not everyone cares about singleplayer. I'm sure they'd much rather the time and money that would go into singleplayer content gets invested in more mp stuff instead, doing exactly what your consumers want you to do is in no way "anti-consumer". Unless you also think not having multiplayer is anti-consumer since all games have to be for every type of player or something like that?



LuccaCardoso1 said:

. 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.

I don't agree with this sentiment.