Blizzard's Overwatch Reportedly Coming To Consoles...And Will Carry A Full $60 Price Tag.

[RJ 17]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/11/05/overwatch-ps4-xbox-one-pre-orders-available-at-gamestop?utm_source=IGN%20hub%20page&utm_medium=IGN%20%28front%20page%29&utm_content=3&utm_campaign=Blogroll&abthid=563b8c6a81d13e2b2900000b

The other day people snooping through the code of Overwatch's beta found evidence suggesting that there would be console releases (i.e. the PSN and XBL being mentioned during the authentication process), and now it would seem as though it has been confirmed as GameStop is apparently already taking pre-orders for PC, PS4, and XBox One.

While a number of people thought/were hoping that Overwatch would go with a Free-To-Play model - similar to LoL and DotA 2's model with cosmetic skins being sold as a means for the game to generate revenue - according to these GameStop pre-orders, however, it's going to come with a full $60 price tag like most other AAA games.

While this hasn't been officially confirmed by Blizzard (though they will be discussing Overwatch at BlizzCon), it would certainly seem as though we're going to be getting yet another multiplayer-only arena shooter with the price tag of a full game.

So what do you think? Would you be willing to shell out full game price for another multiplayer-only arena shooter? From what I've seen/heard, Overwatch does look very fun...but I personally wouldn't pay $60 for it.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

This is a horrible, horrible mistake.

Give how successful Hearthstone has been for Blizzard, I find it really hard to believe that they couldn't figure out a F2P model for Overwatch. As excited as I am for this game, I'm not shelling out $60 for half a game with no campaign.

I'd buy it if it cost less and had cosmetic microtransactions, but this could single-handedly kill much of the excitement for this game.

 

[TheSapphireKnight]

I don't have a problem with full priced multiplayer only games, provided they have enough content to go with them. If a game is only propped up by leveling systems or some skin hunting then I will probably pass on it.

A full priced multiplayer game needs to have a large variety of maps and modes and a robust options for private matchs/custom games. Features like spectator, theater, map making tools(preferably mod tools), ranking systems to keep general gameplay fair and fun for everyone. I want to play a game because I enjoy it and always have new things to discover, I don't want to be coming back for leveling or some skin. At that point it doesn't feel like a game, it feels like work.

As for Overwatch itself, I haven't really seen or heard anything about it that seems like it would justify being full price at this point. That being said I think its too early to get bent out of shape about it

 

[LetalisK]

I'll wait for Blizzard to confirm this. Seems like a stupid move.

That said, I'm in the Overwatch beta, but I'm not really playing it right now. It's basically TF2 with more classes. Though I do like how friendly some of the classes are to those that aren't shooter nerds.

 

[RJ 17]

That said, I'm in the Overwatch beta, but I'm not really playing it right now. It's basically TF2 with more classes. Though I do like how friendly some of the classes are to those that aren't shooter nerds.

That's what I had heard by listening to TotalBiscuit's podcast: that it plays a lot like TF2. On that note, TB also stated his opinion - which I agree with - that having a model that isn't Free-2-Play would be a terrible idea because why buy that game when you can just go play TF2 for free?

 

[Erttheking]

Hopefully this will be for the consoles only because this'll be a bit of a deal breaker if it isn't.

 

[Gengisgame]

Better if it costs money

With free 2 play you will either end up spending a lot more money to access all characters to make up the costs of those that don't spend money or spend money to keep up with the competition if spending gives access to something.

If you aren't going to spend money then your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Gengisgame]

That said, I'm in the Overwatch beta, but I'm not really playing it right now. It's basically TF2 with more classes. Though I do like how friendly some of the classes are to those that aren't shooter nerds.

That's what I had heard by listening to TotalBiscuit's podcast: that it plays a lot like TF2. On that note, TB also stated his opinion - which I agree with - that having a model that isn't Free-2-Play would be a terrible idea because why buy that game when you can just go play TF2 for free?

That's a really bad example, TF2 is old as dirt and was not originally free, that's like saying why play this new game when you can replay an old one.

 

[RJ 17]

Better if it costs money

With free 2 play you will either end up spending a lot more money to access all characters to make up the costs of those that don't spend money or spend money to keep up with the competition if spending gives access to something.

If you aren't going to spend money then your opinion doesn't matter.

As mentioned in the OP: there's other ways to make money with F2P titles...namely skins and other cosmetics. Gamers have proven time and time again that they're more than happy to shell out the cash just so their characters can wear shiny new hats. Selling cosmetics has worked fine for other games, so there's no need for a pay-to-win model to be implemented.

Also: Blizzard has already confirmed that all characters will be available from the start, as one of the key mechanics of the game is being able to switch your character in the middle of a match, so they've already ruled out the possibility of having to buy characters.

As for TF2: It doesn't matter if it wasn't free originally...it's free now. The comparison is between what Overwatch will be at it's launch and TF2 as it is today. And indeed TF2 is older than the crust on my underwear...and yet it still has a substantial player base.

http://steamcharts.com/app/440

Now Overwatch will, of course, do well regardless of if it's F2P or comes with a $60 price tag...but will it be able to last or will it go the way of Titanfall and Evolve and fade into obscurity? All I'm saying is that considering recent trends I can only imagine that it would do better if it was F2P, or at the very least at a cheaper price.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Honestly I think this is a terrible move if this is true. Holy shit, your direct competition is a free to play game (is CS:GO free also? It's not a full £50 price I know that) and you're suicidal to not just give Overwatch microtransation cosmetics that are proven to make money regardless of the actual game being free? I mean they were savvy enough to make Heroes of the Storm free because they knew that game would be dead on arrival with a fully priced release since they had to take on League and DOTA 2. Same deal with Overwatch I assumed.

My intention to just play Overwatch for a bit to see if it's decent when it releases then play it a lot if it's good, just turned into i'm W+M1'ing back to Gorge and Upward and not looking back. Backburner Pyro main boys, get good! Get LMAOBox!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Overwatch is made from Titan assets, so I'd hate to think of the amount of capital that went into this game. Not surprised they'd be hoping to recoup some of that with box sales.

Ideally some kind of hybrid model would be best, but they'll likely have robust sales either way.

 

[mxfox408]

Im fine with a full price tag of $59.99, if they give full access but if they do what they did in Warlords of Dreanor then fuck blizzard going forward.

 

[CritialGaming]

Something to know about Gamestop. They are typically full of shit, especially when it comes to games without a release date or announcement. Gamestop usually just makes up shit so that they can start pre-orders which basically makes them the Devil. Blizzard has no announcement any price-tag or even console releases. So until you hear the official word from them, don't assume anything.

Overwatch might come to the consoles, hell it probably will. But I would bet they pull a Diablo 3 and release it on PC first, before bringing it to consoles later. IF they follow the same pattern as Diablo, the console version will have different tweaks to the game in order to make a working business model. Meaning it could be free-2-play on PC with microtransactions and shit, while on the console they will package everything into a 60 buck price tag and sell DLC costumes or maps at a later date like fighting games or Call of Duty.

Basically I'm trying to say that it is way to early to start freaking out, because we don't really know shit.

 

[rcs619]

This is a horrible, horrible mistake.

Give how successful Hearthstone has been for Blizzard, I find it really hard to believe that they couldn't figure out a F2P model for Overwatch. As excited as I am for this game, I'm not shelling out $60 for half a game with no campaign.

I'd buy it if it cost less and had cosmetic microtransactions, but this could single-handedly kill much of the excitement for this game.

Pretty much. Arena-based multiplayer-only games are intended to be quick-fix sorts of games. You log in, you play a few matches, you take a break. They aren't the sort of games you marathon 6 hours a day for months straight, there just isn't enough content for that, and that's why they just don't work well as full-priced titles.

Hearthstone literally makes Blizzard a million dollars a day. I imagine WoW still rakes in ridiculous amounts of cash even with its falling userbase. It isn't like Blizzard is some tiny upstart company that just *has* to charge full price for their new game to break even. The traditional $60 price tag is designed to maximize profits at the point of release. It's meant for games that people buy, play, then drop and move on. It just doesn't suit (what appears to be) a game they'd like to keep running indefinitely like Hearthstone. With that kind of game, the real money is in long-term trickle, not people shilling out full-price at launch.

There's a lot of potential for cross-marketing as well. You want this special skin or trinket? Well, maybe you have to play WoW, or Heroes of the Storm, or Hearthstone. Maybe you complete a challenge or a quest in other blizzard games to unlock cool little things for Overwatch. That way, you take people who *just* came for Overwatch, and expose them to your other products (which are all already right there on the Blizzard launcher), and inevitably *some* of them will keep playing those other games too.

 

[major_chaos]

Yea, forgive me if I wait till Blizzcon to believe this. With Hearthstone making all the money in the world as a F2P game, and Titanfall's empty servers standing as a stark example of what happens when a new IP tries to charge $60 for a MP only experience I really can't Imagine Blizz would be this stupid, and I say that as someone super excited for Overwatch. Possible explanations include: Gamestop being wrong on accident, Gamestop being full of shit, A collectors/early adopters edition, or a (admittedly overpriced) "starter edition" that includes some exclusive skins and in game currency or something.

 

[CritialGaming]

http://www.overpwn.com/news/93-overwatch-origins-edition-launching-spring-2016-40

It has been officially confirmed. With a 40 dollar starting pack.

 

[LetalisK]

http://www.overpwn.com/news/93-overwatch-origins-edition-launching-spring-2016-40

It has been officially confirmed. With a 40 dollar starting pack.

How come that doesn't include a link to the battle.net post?