Overwatch Will Cost $40 on PC, $60 on PS4, Xbox One

[bliebblob]

Hnnng, provided this meant no microtransactions at all I couldn't have been a happier camper. The veritable torrent of cosmetics and the arcane market it spawned is in large part what drove me away from team fortress 2 after all. But... there's no way they're going to stop at a single skin for six out of the 21 characters, is there? It is worth noting however that, barring some exceptions in world of warcraft, blizzard has yet to employ the full on buy-in + microtransactions double dip. (As far as I know anyway, do correct me if I'm wrong.) Instead they seem to be looking for alternatives, like diablo's real money auction house or WoW's game time tokens. So I do have some hope they'll make a point of everything past the initial purchase being in-game unlocks. No doubt some of which through their other games, which is an alternative to microtransactions in and of itself. Hmmmm, we'll see. As someone who was hoping for it to simply be a one-time purchase instead of another microtransation platform, this is heading in the right direction. But we're not past the off-ramp into microtransachistan yet...

As for asking full price for a multiplayer-only title, I do not mind at all. Products are worth what the customer is willing to pay for them. What I saw from the beta is worth 40$ to me. (Provided it turns out that's the only money they'll ever ask for.) Simple as that. Team fortress 2, guns of icarus, left 4 dead 2,... All of these were multiplayer only too, at least when and how I played them. As long as they're honest about what you're paying for and don't pull some shenanigans like promising a single player mode "soon" but never delivering, it's the consumer's own call.

 

[cikame]

Blizzard don't exist in the same market as other developers/publishers, this game will succeed regardless of how it's sold, Blizzard fans interested in fps + some TF2 fans is already a large audience, they don't have to compete with anyone else. They have enough funds and resources to support this game as much as they want, or drop it if they feel like it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That's a steep price for that kind of game. Not as much from a personal standpoint, but considering the market that's quite the risk. When it comes to multiplayer-only games there's simply so many free alternatives. All the Wargaming games, TF2, most MOBA's, and next to that there's a ton of alternatives that cost way below $40.

It doesn't help either that with the lack of dedicated servers a game like this will have a hard time creating a solid community. I'm not sure Blizzard's name is going to be enough to carry this. It'd be a shame if they'd ruin the business side of Overwatch, because the gameplay really does like a shitton of fun.

 

[RJ 17]

Thanks but no thanks, Blizzard. I'll spare you all a rant about my distaste for post-WoW Blizzard, suffice to say that considering their place in the industry I kinda saw this coming. Regardless, I'm certain this game is going to do just fine considering the fact that it is Blizzard we're talking about here. The only way this could turn out to be a critical mistake on their part is if the game itself turns out to be an absolute flop...dead on arrival. However considering everything that I've heard from people playing in the beta, that won't be the case.

 

[The White Hunter]

They fucked up biiiig with this one. Microtransactions in a B2P multiplayer game is absolutely OK to me as long as they keep away from pay2win, but recent history has shown the market is not kind to full priced MP only games, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is now hesitant to buy just out of fear that the playerbase will evaporate overnight like it did with Titanfall to my eternal sadness.

Titanfall ;-;

Such a good game. So much fun had. For all of 3 weeks then there was nobody to play with but russian hackers and aimbots. I really hope it gets the sequel it deserves and they flesh out the package better, very few shooters have left me so satisfied with completely eviscerating entire teams with a shotgun and a GIANT ROBOT.

 

[AstaresPanda]

All the top shooters work or worked well as payed shooters.
The biggest Shooter on steam is CSGO which costs money.
The game that used to be top place is Team Fortress 2, at the time it was at the top it was buy to play.
On console The top shooters are COD Halo and Gears of War.

Im hardpressed to find any shooter that started as free to play and is anywhere near CSGOS or CODs popularity.

CS was a free mod bro, was pretty much free up untill cs:s.

But TROLOL not even interested in overwatch really but that price difference thou

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Blizz, Blizz, Blizz. Did you not learn your lesson after Heroes of the Storm failed to set the world on fire? You can't just wade into a market that already has established "kings" and take over just because you're Blizzard. You're going up against three flavors of Counter-Strike- CS:GO (twenty bucks, opposed to your forty), Source (still popular) and the original (version 1.6 is still considered the "pure" experience by a good number of players)- not to mention the hat-simulator juggernaut that is Team Fortress 2. And don't forget there's plenty of other smaller but not insignificant fish in that sea as well.

Try not to trip over the gravestones of other games that thought they had the "magic touch"- Brink, Titanfall, Evolve, Battlefield: Hardline.

 

[XenoScifi]

I've been watching A LOT of live streams of this and this game (IMO) is not worth $40-$60...

...however I would probably put at least 200+ hours into it, even being online multiplayer only. So if you do the math (which I will not, do it yourself, teehee) I would get my money's worth out of it. I've payed $60 for new single player games and have only got a couple dozen hours. Tough call if you just put it in perspective.

As bad as Titanfall and Evolve fell off the map, I am sure most that paid for the ride got their money's worth out of it.

 

[SciMal]

That's a steep price for that kind of game. Not as much from a personal standpoint, but considering the market that's quite the risk. When it comes to multiplayer-only games there's simply so many free alternatives. All the Wargaming games, TF2, most MOBA's, and next to that there's a ton of alternatives that cost way below $40.

Haven't tried the Wargaming games.

TF2 is dying. Granted, it's had a great run, but the servers I frequented have been mostly shut down, the ones that are up aren't full until the weekends, and Valve really doesn't have a solid direction for the game.

MOBAs fill a different niche. TF2 and DotA2 don't really compete, even if there are people who play both.

Yeah, there are alternatives. There have always been alternatives for Blizzard games. When Warcraft came out there was C&C. When WoW came out there was Asheron's Call and Everquest and a half-dozen others. Probably their biggest "innovation" was Hearthstone, which really did a computer card game well.

Blizzard's money has *always* been in taking a known, working formula and applying a higher level of shine and production values to it. Overwatch is TF2+, and I'm not interested in it because it's so close to TF2... but it could overtake TF2's place in the market within 2 years as long as they keep the level of polish high.

To that end, it's not a steep price at all. There's 0 reason it should be F2P to compete. Everybody here has named it's largest competitors -- CS:GO and TF2 -- both games which delivered the full experience for a single price that later included purely cosmetic purchases; a WILDLY successful business model. Blizzard's other models rely on excluding content until some arbitrary bar is reached that takes F2P players months to achieve. Neither CS:GO or TF2 would be as successful as they are/have been with that model.

Blizzard is using the model that works, because that's what they do. Take the known, do it better, rake in profits. Repeat.

It doesn't help either that with the lack of dedicated servers a game like this will have a hard time creating a solid community.

Didn't hurt TF2 at all. Or the previous versions of Counter Strike or Day of Defeat... Or a dozen other Team-FPS games.

I'm not sure Blizzard's name is going to be enough to carry this. It'd be a shame if they'd ruin the business side of Overwatch, because the gameplay really does like a shitton of fun.

Blizzard's name has been enough to carry Hearthstone and Diablo III, despite the MASSIVE issues with those games.

As you may have guessed, I don't have a problem with the $40 price tag. I think it's a good move as long as the game comes complete.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

Sure, most of the games I listed are in different niches, though you could argue that Overwatch is at least taking a few MOBA characteristics to appeal to that market but probably not enough for that to be relevant. But the thing is; they all offer various multiplayer-only experiences for a fraction of the price of Overwatch. It's all competition in that regard.

And regardless of whether $40 on PC and $60 on console by itself is steep, which I don't think so because I can easily see myself sink a lot of hours in that kind of game, the game is a new IP in a very busy market. Diablo 3 was already part of an existing IP, and a very popular one at that, as was Hearthstone and that's also F2P. It's quite a different situation with Overwatch. It has to compete for a player's time amidst a ton of high quality multiplayer-only experiences with comparable gameplay elements.

Didn't hurt TF2 at all. Or the previous versions of Counter Strike or Day of Defeat... Or a dozen other Team-FPS games.

Um, yes, of course not; those games have dedicated servers. Especially in FPS it's something that people more and more expect.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Well, there went any reason to be remotely interested in this game.
Battleborn atleast offers a PvE portion to justify the price.

 

[Nurb]

Blizzard has always been like this, they charge more because they know people will pay them. They did it all the way back to Warcraft 3 when they charged $10 more than other full priced games.

They know people won't like paying this much for multiplayer only, and throwing in some microtransactions, but they'll still pay. The youtubers they gave beta access to showing off gameplay helped get everyone wanting it.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Oops.

I think Overwatch will still do fine, but it's chances of overtaking TF2 or Counter Strike has just evaporated.

Whether or not it does better than 'fine' now hangs entirely on post release content and skins. If it comes out and the extras are all micro transaction it will get marked as an Evolve-like 'pay for the opportunity to buy DLC' and only the Blizzard faithful will buy. If we get a year or eighteen months of 'you paid $40 so everything is a free unlockable' it'll go great guns.

I'm certainly not ordering until we know the answer to that question though.

 

[Pinky's Brain]

If not for Blizzard's silly stance on 21:9 monitors I'd buy it.

 

[Valkrex]

Still don't get the hate paid multiplayer only games get... seriously in games like CoD and Battlefield I only ever hear complaints about the singleplayer, which I too despise. I'm totally okay with all the effort that would go into the singleplayer (which is almost always lackluster in these kind of games) go into the multiplayer. The singleplayer might as well not even be there for a lot of FPS games these days since its generally not worth playing, so I would be paying $60 for a game where I don't even access that chunk of content. I'd rather pay $60 for a game where the effort was put into the parts that are actually fun instead of half of it going into something I'd never play anyway only to the detriment of the good content.

 

[Erttheking]

I wonder if any of the people complaining about Overwatch costing MONEY actually bought Titanfall.

Wouldn't that make them hypocrites if they did?

And yeah...I don't like paying full price for games that may have dead servers in three months.

Sue me.

 

[ShakerSilver]

I was actually talking to a friend of mine, a very hardcore Blizzard fan, who is attending BlizzCon and he actually made me understand who exactly this game is for - not really arena shooter fans, not really team-based shooter fans, not even just for shooter fans in general, but for Blizzard fans.

See, I don't think Blizzard is ignorant towards the other overly-hyped multiplayer shooters that were sold either at or close to full price. The reason they are pricing things in such a way is because they know that their fanbase will play it - they've garnered a fandom that will buy things not because they're a fan of the genre, but because they're a fan of Blizzard. Games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm are relatively new avenues for Blizzard yet they're doing so fantastically well because of how they cross-pollinate with their fandoms. Things like Overwatch's Origins edition giving people bonuses for other games is a prime example of that.

They know they can price it at any point they want, they know they can shove as many microtransactions they care to get away with, they know they can lock off content however they please, because they know their fans will buy it. My friend described it as an addiction (even going as far as to describe HotS and Hearthstone as "gateway games"), which I find quite worrying. Even Valve has this fanboyism to some extent - not nearly as big as Blizzard though. It definitely isn't the healthiest way to build a fanbase, but it certainly is profitable.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

I was actually talking to a friend of mine, a very hardcore Blizzard fan, who is attending BlizzCon and he actually made me understand who exactly this game is for - not really arena shooter fans, not really team-based shooter fans, not even just for shooter fans in general, but for Blizzard fans.

See, I don't think Blizzard is ignorant towards the other overly-hyped multiplayer shooters that were sold either at or close to full price. The reason they are pricing things in such a way is because they know that their fanbase will play it - they've garnered a fandom that will buy things not because they're a fan of the genre, but because they're a fan of Blizzard. Games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm are relatively new avenues for Blizzard yet they're doing so fantastically well because of how they cross-pollinate with their fandoms. Things like Overwatch's Origins edition giving people bonuses for other games is a prime example of that.

They know they can price it at any point they want, they know they can shove as many microtransactions they care to get away with, they know they can lock off content however they please, because they know their fans will buy it. My friend described it as an addiction (even going as far as to describe HotS and Hearthstone as "gateway games"), which I find quite worrying. Even Valve has this fanboyism to some extent - not nearly as big as Blizzard though. It definitely isn't the healthiest way to build a fanbase, but it certainly is profitable.

The problem with that line of thinking is that they've been bleeding fans for a while now. I've lost count of the number of people I've met who have become disillusioned with how Blizzard have been running their games of late. WoW is slowly dying, Hearthstone is poorly balanced and lazily run, and I only know a handful of people who still play StarCraft and Diablo. Granted, the new SC expansion is dropping next week, but I have to question the timing: it has to compete with CoD and Fallout 4. I only want to find out how the campaign ends, so I won't be picking it up for some time after it launches, given how rarely Blizzard puts games on sale.

Another problem with that line of thinking is the existence of Hearthstone; Blizzard doesn't have the excuse of just not doing F2P games anymore. I know it's a terrible comparison, but even the hardest of hardcore Blizzard fanboys are going to question why the game isn't F2P when Hearthstone exists and is wildly successful. Comparisons to TF2 and CS:GO are going to lend credence to that argument, because Overwatch doesn't exist in a vacuum. Blizzard fanboys don't just play Blizzard's games, after all.

Also keep in mind that Blizzard has far fewer fans on consoles than they do on PC. I can see the Overwatch servers on consoles drying up after a few months when people lose interest in a multiplayer-only game, like Titanfall and Evolve. The barrier to entry doesn't help matters, either.

With the design decisions that Blizzard made with this game, a full-price game with microtransations doesn't make sense to me, even with all the cross-game goodies the game comes with. It makes Blizzard come across as greedy, and the more they make decisions like this, the more and more people are going to see it.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

This was that free to play title, i distinctly remember that being a huge point in its' favour. For a multiplayer only shooter with microtransactions that already has better competition out there, that was one whole point towards the chance of my interest. And considering how barebones TF2 is for consoles, it is not even close to that point being shiny. A dull point was what this game achieved, when no other more shiny points were in the same universe. Now from the lofty heights of a barely noticed penny, it has fallen away into nothingness. I can only laugh now, bitterly, or not. Probably never cared. But it looks like there are people who did, unfortunately for them, Blizzard can soak up the losses effortlessly along with the money from their cult following. I still don't see the pull of getting into these titles; repetiton is mind numbing and there'll always be players who have the free time and subdued imagination to be better than you. It's an existential crisis in condensed form for the consumption of the oblivious, was this supposed to be entertainment? I forget that sometimes.