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

I assume OP doesn't want to blame mobile for all the influence it has given AAA publishers, seeing as how they saw the money they weren't making just lying there on the table.

Also, what is with this weird line of logic, where every MP based game has to have a campaign, has to adhere to the SP crowd. I cannot for the life of me find an instance where a SP only player once thought "you know this would go great if it had MP", but instead we get the "it has to adhere to my desires or it should flop.

 

I will be very blunt for any responses toward that last part; I honestly give not a single damn about whatever excuse that is to be laid before me, that an MP game *has* to have an SP campaign. There is no grounded logic that SP has to dominate and control how the MP side of the industry functions, let alone how it thrives. I like both SP and MP, but in the case of Overwatch not having an SP mode, I couldn't care less, because it's world is brought to life via trailers, bio's, mini movies and official comics. TF2 had this same setup, and Blizzard seems to have taken that page from Valve on how to present it's characters and how to explain them to the user. 



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
LuccaCardoso1 said:

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.

It does excuse it.  If these other companies are looking solely at the lootboxes, they're missing the point.  Those same companies are not giving away free content, and regular updates with their game.  If it weren't for those optional paid lootboxes, that gives no competitive advantage in the game, there would be less content for the game overall, fewer updates.  Do you remember a time when every MMO required a paid subscription, which overwatch also doesn't do?  That's half the reason my consoles don't get touched anymore.

As for the games I mentioned. Overwatch was not 60 dollars.  I've never paid 60 bucks for the game, and I pre-ordered on blizzard's official site.



Burning Typhoon said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

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.

It does excuse it.  If these other companies are looking solely at the lootboxes, they're missing the point.  Those same companies are not giving away free content, and regular updates with their game.  If it weren't for those optional paid lootboxes, that gives no competitive advantage in the game, there would be less content for the game overall, fewer updates.  Do you remember a time when every MMO required a paid subscription, which overwatch also doesn't do?  That's half the reason my consoles don't get touched anymore.

As for the games I mentioned. Overwatch was not 60 dollars.  I've never paid 60 bucks for the game, and I pre-ordered on blizzard's official site.

You mean the time when MMOs were actually good? I miss those days



LuccaCardoso1 said:
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.

Why do multiplayer games have to cost less then 60 dollars? Is their some unwritten rule? If you think the game doesn't have enough content fair enough, but the mere fact that it is multiplayer only doesn't mean that it can't cost 60 dollars, 100 dollars or even thousand dollars. It's all about what is the value of the content. 

Regarding loot boxes, again their is nothing wrong with having microtranascations, it doesn't exploit anything just like alcohol and tobacco stores do not exploit the tendencies of people. Human beings are responsible for their own actions. Also how do you expect the game to still get support today, instead of creating post launch DLC and splitting the player base, the game has microtranscations which do not effect the game at all. This is how the PC market operates, and it is great at doing so. Games get support for years even up to decades, and that is supported by optional microtransactions. 

If Blizzard made a campaign for overwatch it would have had to to radically change the development cycle of the game, the amount of content at release, and so much more.

Again their is nothing wrong with a lack of a campaign or with loot boxes if the core game is of value and is good. 



areason said:

Why do multiplayer games have to cost less then 60 dollars? Is their some unwritten rule? If you think the game doesn't have enough content fair enough, but the mere fact that it is multiplayer only doesn't mean that it can't cost 60 dollars, 100 dollars or even thousand dollars. It's all about what is the value of the content. 

Regarding loot boxes, again their is nothing wrong with having microtranascations, it doesn't exploit anything just like alcohol and tobacco stores do not exploit the tendencies of people. Human beings are responsible for their own actions. Also how do you expect the game to still get support today, instead of creating post launch DLC and splitting the player base, the game has microtranscations which do not effect the game at all. This is how the PC market operates, and it is great at doing so. Games get support for years even up to decades, and that is supported by optional microtransactions. 

If Blizzard made a campaign for overwatch it would have had to to radically change the development cycle of the game, the amount of content at release, and so much more.

Again their is nothing wrong with a lack of a campaign or with loot boxes if the core game is of value and is good. 

That's a flawed example since alcohol and tobacco stores aren't marketed towards children and require proof of age in order to buy stuff. Unless you think selling tobacco and alcohol to kids should be totally legal too because they should be "responsible for their own actions"?

Edit: Also, to add to that tobacco and alcohol clearly say what they have in them. Gambling always shows you the odds of winning and what the possible prizes are. Lootboxes don't, and is another reason they are exploiting people. Much easier for people to decide whether they want to spend money on something if they have an idea what that thing actually is.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 19 May 2018

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

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.

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.

They kept paid loot boxes only for their sports games (and mobile games) before Overwatch. It was last year that they started putting loot boxes on everything they saw.

Disclaimer: That doesn't make EA any less shitty and I still hate them.

Ka-pi96 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

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.

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.

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.

Madden + FIFA still don't sell nearly as much as CoD in the US. And even then, paid loot boxes aren't exclusive to CoD.

Ka-pi96 said: 
LuccaCardoso1 said: 

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.

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.

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.

We CAN have multiplayer-only FPS games, we just can't have them at full price! In my opinion, a single-player only FPS can be $60, but a multiplayer-only FPS can't (I guess we'll have to agree on disagree on that point).

CS:GO was always 15 dollars. I don't expect AAA multiplayer-only games to be that cheap, but I think $40 max should be a reasonable price.



G O O D B O I

Ka-pi96 said:
areason said:

Why do multiplayer games have to cost less then 60 dollars? Is their some unwritten rule? If you think the game doesn't have enough content fair enough, but the mere fact that it is multiplayer only doesn't mean that it can't cost 60 dollars, 100 dollars or even thousand dollars. It's all about what is the value of the content. 

Regarding loot boxes, again their is nothing wrong with having microtranascations, it doesn't exploit anything just like alcohol and tobacco stores do not exploit the tendencies of people. Human beings are responsible for their own actions. Also how do you expect the game to still get support today, instead of creating post launch DLC and splitting the player base, the game has microtranscations which do not effect the game at all. This is how the PC market operates, and it is great at doing so. Games get support for years even up to decades, and that is supported by optional microtransactions. 

If Blizzard made a campaign for overwatch it would have had to to radically change the development cycle of the game, the amount of content at release, and so much more.

Again their is nothing wrong with a lack of a campaign or with loot boxes if the core game is of value and is good. 

That's a flawed example since alcohol and tobacco stores aren't marketed towards children and require proof of age in order to buy stuff. Unless you think selling tobacco and alcohol to kids should be totally legal too because they should be "responsible for their own actions"?

Edit: Also, to add to that tobacco and alcohol clearly say what they have in them. Gambling always shows you the odds of winning and what the possible prizes are. Lootboxes don't, and is another reason they are exploiting people. Much easier for people to decide whether they want to spend money on something if they have an idea what that thing actually is.

And kids do not have credit cards or debit cards which would allow them to buy loot boxes without the consent of their parents, so you can shift the blame to the people who raised them. 

Just because betting has odds doesn't mean that it's different then lootboxes, the odds are regarding the payout and are not representative of the possibility of that happening. Just like you don't get a chart on a slot machine in a casino, you're not going to have a chart in overwatch that tells u the chance of getting a particular skin. 



Call of duty had loot boxes since 2015 in form of supply drops.
And Rainbow Six Siege and Titanfall were one of the first and most prominent big shooter without campaign and both released before Overwatch.



LuccaCardoso1 said: 

CS:GO was always 15 dollars. I don't expect AAA multiplayer-only games to be that cheap, but I think $40 max should be a reasonable price.

... And knife skins are HOW much? They go for hundreds of £$£$ at a time, it's ridiculous, lol. 



LuccaCardoso1 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

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.

They kept paid loot boxes only for their sports games (and mobile games) before Overwatch. It was last year that they started putting loot boxes on everything they saw.

Disclaimer: That doesn't make EA any less shitty and I still hate them.

Ka-pi96 said:

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.

Madden + FIFA still don't sell nearly as much as CoD in the US. And even then, paid loot boxes aren't exclusive to CoD.

Ka-pi96 said: 

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.

We CAN have multiplayer-only FPS games, we just can't have them at full price! In my opinion, a single-player only FPS can be $60, but a multiplayer-only FPS can't (I guess we'll have to agree on disagree on that point).

CS:GO was always 15 dollars. I don't expect AAA multiplayer-only games to be that cheap, but I think $40 max should be a reasonable price.

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.