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

Ka-pi96 said:

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

I didn't actually start PC gaming until 2015.

TheGamer_1995 said:
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.

"Thank you, Mister Squidward."



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
I gotta ask... how is having no singleplayer campaign "anti-consumer"? It's not...

It's not fundamentally anti-consumer, I think the problem is charging full price for the game.

Ka-pi96 said:
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".

Well, according to Steam achievements:

71.6% of people started playing CoD WWII's campaign. 38.3% completed it.

66.1% of people killed 10 players in multiplayer modes. Only 15.4% reached a Prestige ranking.

So no, Activision is not ditching the campaign because "people don't play it". They're not focusing on multi-player because that's what the "consumers want". They're doing that because the multi-player can be monetized in much more ways than the campaign. If people didn't care, do you really think there would be this much community outrage?



G O O D B O I

areason said:
Ka-pi96 said:

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. 

Kids have cash don't they? They can walk into a store and buy a PSN wallet top up or something and spend that getting addicted to gambling by buying loot boxes without their parents consent.

Ever bought a scratch card or lottery ticket? The odds for those are available and they definitely are the possibility of that happening.

Edit: I've never been in a casino so I've no idea about slot machines, but looking around it seems odds for those aren't exactly hard to find either. I don't know whether they're available for all slot machines, but compared to loot boxes where there's no information at all about any loot boxes in any game... it's not even compareable.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 19 May 2018

LuccaCardoso1 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
I gotta ask... how is having no singleplayer campaign "anti-consumer"? It's not...

It's not fundamentally anti-consumer, I think the problem is charging full price for the game.

Ka-pi96 said:
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".

Well, according to Steam achievements:

71.6% of people started playing CoD WWII's campaign. 38.3% completed it.

66.1% of people killed 10 players in multiplayer modes. Only 15.4% reached a Prestige ranking.

So no, Activision is not ditching the campaign because "people don't play it". They're not focusing on multi-player because that's what the "consumers want". They're doing that because the multi-player can be monetized in much more ways than the campaign. If people didn't care, do you really think there would be this much community outrage?

Steam achievements are incredibly inaccurate due to the recent privacy changes that Valve made meaning the games of everybody that doesn't manually change to publicly displayed games aren't included. So nice stats for those that care about showing off their Steam games to the public... but I'm sure that's only a tiny minority of the COD playerbase. Why not use the trophy stats direct from PSN, they'll be much more accurate and I'd assume there's a lot more COD players on PS4 than Steam too.

Although the only stats that will actually matter are the sales figures. If the game still sells a butt load then clearly there's plenty of people that couldn't care less about the singleplayer and are still happy to pay $60 for an mp only game.



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.

I think it's very important to note what's in the lootboxes. The fact that Overwatch's lootboxes only contain cosmetic items, combined with the fact that you can use in game currency for them, is why people are not as much against it as for certain other games where the lootboxes contain pay to win content, or lock vital parts of the game behind that paywall, etc.

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.

I don't want to get into what's hardcore vs casual, but anecdotally, a ton of casuals and their girlfriend's grandmothers are playing Overwatch on Twitch.

Anyway, Battlefront 2's lootbox system wasn't exactly a carbon copy of what EA has done in FIFA. The main gripe people seemed to have with Battlefront, or at least the reddit post that blew up and prompted a response from EA's PR division, was that fan favorite characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader that you usually got for free in these games were now locked behind an insanely long grind, unless you bought lootboxes to speed it up.
On top of that, the pay to win mechanics tied to the loot boxes affected every aspect of online play.

From my understanding, when it comes to FIFA, you have the core game and the usual modes. Carreer, online vs, etc. And all the teams and current players are available to you in those modes. No one can pay to win to beat you in those modes, and you can always access your favorite teams or players for free without having to buy lootboxes.
Then there's a mode called Ultimate Team. It's separate from the other modes, but here characters (players) are locked behind the lootbox paywall.

Perhaps this being a separate mode that doesn't seep into the other modes is one of the reasons people are less up in arms about this. If you take out Lionel Messi and Christiano Ronaldo from the main Career mode and lock them behind a paywall, and add pay to win mechanics in every aspect of online play, I'm sure football fans would riot as well. Literally. They'd take to the streets, as football hooligans do.

 

On the subject of MMORPG, there's nothing inherent about first person shooters that makes having a campaign mandatory. That genre lends itself really well to multiplayer, so it can absolutely be a multi player only game. I can understand why Call of Duty fans are upset about the removal of the campaign, because it's something they're used to from the Call of Duty brand. Overwatch is a new IP with no precedence.

And Overwatch is also by far not even the first popular First Person Shooter to not have a campaign. Counterstrike for example was very popular back in the day, and it did not have a campaign either. Later on, one of the sequels called Counter Strike: Condition Zero had a campaign.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 May 2018

Around the Network

Overwatch was designed to be an e-sport game like League of Legends is. It doesn't need to have SP. They are concentrating their efforts to push the e-sport scene for OW.



Don't you dare speak an ill word about Mei.



IMO, Overwatch has the least content that I can think of for a recent $60 game. It seems like it should be FTP.



Loot boxes were around long before Overwatch, as were games that you didn’t think were worth $60.

Just because OW sold great doesn’t mean every publisher can just start pooping out $60 MP titles. It sold great because a lot of people enjoyed it. And as long as that many people enjoyed it, no offense but who cares if you don’t like it? You don’t think the game sets a good precedent for the industry, even if it isn’t the first of its kind, so fuck all the people enjoying it, who cares about the devs, it should have flopped. How silly.

Look at Paladins, about as carbon copy of a clone of OW as you can get and how is it doing?



LuccaCardoso1 said:
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_(series)