Overwatch 2 Reveal Event and Junker Queen Origin Story

Originally Posted by chiddie

Well, tbh “pre-worrying” is not so “unjustified” per se, especially if you base your pre-worries on things the same company already did in the past.

Using that logic we should complain about WoW having loot boxes in Dragonflight because Blizzard first introduced them in 2014 with Hearthstone. Right? Or that Blizzard is going to "over monetize" WoW because the sold the first pets and mounts way back in 2009. This is why fear mongering about potential futures is silly. It either happens or it doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Darththeo

Telling people "Hey, this system can be abused and the same company making the game is attached to a game with an abusive version of this system" is a completely justified stance. Expecting a snake oil salesman to be selling snake oil isn't fear mongering.

None of their PC/Console games have an abusive system. The battle pass in DI is not abusive. Blizzard has sold cosmetics in all of their recent games for each IP with out over monetizing or being abusive. Again you are justifying your stance based on the fear of something happening which again leads back to fear mongering. Lmao.

Originally Posted by cface

Who can trust this dogshit company with any new release? Only fags and female might wanna work for them, any kind of talent will simply steer away from this company, or use it for a short while before abandoning.
Also, what kind of players puts their effort into this companies game. Why even play HotS if you can play a stable game like Dota? They don't have any credibility left

this is the problem now. they care more about how many multi colored hair lesbians and trans employees they have than making a good game. all the old pussy chasing devs that made great games were driven out or quit. this new failing business model is what happens when you focus on under qualified diversity hires.

Originally Posted by rhorle

None of their PC/Console games have an abusive system. The battle pass in DI is not abusive. Blizzard has sold cosmetics in all of their recent games for each IP with out over monetizing or being abusive. Again you are justifying your stance based on the fear of something happening which again leads back to fear mongering. Lmao.

Irrelevant point. Because, they have made games with passes and those systems have been called out for overpricing services by people.

Your opinion. One many do not share. Diablo Immortal battle pass system implementation has been called out for being predatory. That's an abusive system. There is encouragement to buy the free ten ranks because it gets you a legendary item on the free tract and a legendary crest on the paid track. It is purposefully designed to encourage people to pay for the premium track and get rewarded if they boost the free 10 places.

Irrelevant point. Because they have been called out for overpricing mounts in WoW.

Your opinion.

There is no argument here. Just garbage.

I wish you wouldn't post this on the WoW page. Overwatch is a shit game, and Overwatch 2 is going to be equally as shit. If I wanted to see this I would go over to the Overwatch page.

Originally Posted by rhorle

Using that logic we should complain about WoW having loot boxes in Dragonflight because Blizzard first introduced them in 2014 with Hearthstone. Right? Or that Blizzard is going to "over monetize" WoW because the sold the first pets and mounts way back in 2009. This is why fear mongering about potential futures is silly. It either happens or it doesn't.

That's quite disingenuous, for several reasons. The generalization is that Blizz will try to monetize their games way more, not necessarily that it'll implement a specific tactic in every case.

For example, WoW has been way more monetized than it was almost a decade ago... but it wasn't loot boxes, it's been the WoW token and cash shop to a lesser extent. If you want to dig a little deeper, the player services aspect probably rakes in a decent chunk of money, as well, especially in light of the server/faction issue (I know I spent quite a lot in my hardcore raiding days). Now, should we expect Dragonflight to have more monetization? Possibly, and if we see it, it'll be the cosmetics. The inherent problem is that WoW is an older game with a dwindling player base, and if you try to squeeze them for more money in a very aggressive fashion... well, that's how Blizz could kill the game if they wanted to. Despite some of Blizz's questionable decisions over the years, I don't think they're THAT obtuse to milk a struggling game.

Another aspect is that Blizz has openly admitted and shown their different game teams will bounce ideas off of each other, whether it's for problem-solving or inspiration. When it comes to WoW, it shouldn't be surprising that a LOT of D3 bled over into the game. Whether it's GRs, literal spells, design goals/philosophies, itemization/gear considerations, etc., there is a marked influence D3 had on WoW for a long time. With this in mind, why is it so unreasonable to thinking that monetization aspects can't necessarily bleed over from one game to another? It's all the same company, and beyond Blizz it's not uncommon to see games from other development companies have a lot of similarities due to similar overlap or interactions between dev teams.

One thing to keep in mind is that each game has its own circumstance, and certain monetization schemes will work differently depending upon the game. As I mentioned before, trying to squeeze more money out of WoW players is mostly a fool's errand considering the current state of the game and the cost/benefit aspect of such schemes in light of the remaining player base. If WoW had record player numbers and was in the best state ever, there's a much higher likelihood you'd see more monetization being done. For a game like D:Immortal, it's way easier to implement monetization schemes to milk players because the basic game is solid enough (runs into the same endgame issues as D3 right now, but that may change) as well as being new and fresh. The concern is that games like D4 and OW2 will be new and fresh, so they'll likely get a huge influx of people that can be milked if desired.

Now, I don't think anyone realistically thinks D4 will be as heavily monetized as D:Immortal, but there are aspects of how monetization is implemented in D:Immortal that are valid concerns when it comes to potentially being in D4. To make a specific example, D:Immortal's design intentionally hamstrings and worsens the game experience in order to make its monetization system more enticing. Such a design philosophy could easily transfer over to D4 (or any new game/IP at Blizz). The first comeback is likely "Well Blizz said they wouldn't"... and my response, as it has been for years at this point, is that Blizz really likes to use specific and/or evasive language to hide their actual plans, or just straight-up gaslight in some cases. Even with D:Immortal, their dev responses are clearly disingenuous when responding to people's complaints about buy power, making apples to oranges comparisons on purpose when they know that's not what anyone is talking about. I suppose the only other option is that the devs making these responses are stupid, but I give them a bit more credit than that.

Anyways, I've said it several times, I'll say it again: nothing has really changed at Blizz since last year in terms of what really matters when it comes to game design and philosophy. They just traded one bad regime for another bad regime, and based upon their official responses from the company itself to their individual game pressers there's not going to be any fundamental changes to said design/philosophy at this point that will lead to change for the better.

Ultimately, it's fair enough to say things will happen or they won't, but it's also fair to be concerned when a company is trending in a certain direction and assume that trajectory isn't going to change without some intervention. I will say that with all the problems at Blizz, you can tell on some levels that they do pay attention to the feedback sometimes... so voicing concerns ahead of time has the potential to influence change.

Originally Posted by Darththeo

Irrelevant point.

You don't find it strange how evidence that what you think could happen hasn't happened in other games is irrelelvant? Another indication that you are fear mongering because only the things that support your fear are accepted. The battle pass of DI isn't what is being called predatory. The free ten ranks only comes when you buy the CE of the battle pass. Legendary items are relatively common so no one is buying the battle pass just for a legendary item. There is a reason why you can essence transfer because as you ascend the paragon ranks you'll get drops for that paragon level. It is amazing how much you complain about DI without actual knowledge of its systems.

Of course the DI systems are designed to encourage people to buy. That is the entire point of their existence. To make Blizzard and Netease money. Over pricing isn't over monetization. You are moving the goal posts in order to prop up your fear mongering of what potentially could come with Overwatch 2. Of course there is only garbage here because that is what your, and others, complaints about OW2 amount to. Garbage fears of a potential system.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by exochaft

That's quite disingenuous, for several reasons. The generalization is that Blizz will try to monetize their games way more, not necessarily that it'll implement a specific tactic in every case

Hence why it is fear mongering. Because Blizzard hasn't implemented mobile monetization in their games despite having a mobile game since 2014 (Hearthstone). All you and others are doing is complaining about something that could happen that hasn't yet. It is no different then the people that have always cried WoW is dying. It hasn't happened yet and it won't happen any time soon.

There is no evidence that Blizzard overly monetizes their games based on past games. DI having a standard mobile game monetization scheme doesn't mean that Overwatch 2 will have it as well. Past development of games indicates that Blizzard doesn't diffuse such things into other games. They create the monetization model that works for each specific game.

Originally Posted by rhorle

You don't find it strange how evidence that what you think could happen hasn't happened in other games is irrelelvant? Another indication that you are fear mongering because only the things that support your fear are accepted. The battle pass of DI isn't what is being called predatory. The free ten ranks only comes when you buy the CE of the battle pass. Legendary items are relatively common so no one is buying the battle pass just for a legendary item. There is a reason why you can essence transfer because as you ascend the paragon ranks you'll get drops for that paragon level. It is amazing how much you complain about DI without actual knowledge of its systems.

Of course the DI systems are designed to encourage people to buy. That is the entire point of their existence. To make Blizzard and Netease money. Over pricing isn't over monetization. You are moving the goal posts in order to prop up your fear mongering of what potentially could come with Overwatch 2. Of course there is only garbage here because that is what your, and others, complaints about OW2 amount to. Garbage fears of a potential system.

I literally addressed already why the point is irrelevant. Blizzard has been called out in Hearthstone and WoW behavior, it hasn't been to the same level, but there is no way you haven't heard people complain about a $25 store mount that is just a reskin mount. It is impossible unless you are actively ignoring it. Ignoring the anger that people had for the real money auction house in Diablo 3 or the Blizzard Token. You are ignoring a lot to claim "Blizzard hasn't done it!"

And the DI battle pass literally is being called predatory by people because of the paid pass and the CE paid pass version and the fact you can purchase the entire pass.

Your entire argument is "I don't care, therefore it isn't." You ignore the predatory aspects of the pass going "Well, no one is actually doing that" ... except if no one was doing it, they wouldn't have made it. Businesses don't do something unless they know people will do it.

And you constantly keep misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say people are buying "just for a legendary weapon." I used this little word call "and" People are buying for a legendary weapon AND a legendary crest. If you think they are not, you are fooling yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by rhorle

There is no evidence that Blizzard overly monetizes their games based on past games. DI having a standard mobile game monetization scheme doesn't mean that Overwatch 2 will have it as well. Past development of games indicates that Blizzard doesn't diffuse such things into other games. They create the monetization model that works for each specific game.

The standard for mobile games is over monetization.

You are literally arguing "Blizzard won't over monetize Overwatch because they only have done so in one mobile game."

battlepass = wouldnt play this game if it was free.

blizzard you sad shell of a game developer. most of us will remember when you werent a pathetic joke of a company.

this will have a month or two of decent sales, then fall back to the same boring model that caused overwatch to fade away.

I’m not really against the idea of a battle pass, especially with the game turning F2P (even if I bought OW). But the first season only lasting 2 months ? Do we have to expect a battle pass every 2 months then ? 6 passes a year ? That would be crazy expensive (assuming a price of 10-20$ per pass)

Hope we gonna have more details about the monetization soon. And I wouldn’t be against some kind of big reward for the people who bought OW before the F2P

Originally Posted by Darththeo

You are literally arguing "Blizzard won't over monetize Overwatch because they only have done so in one mobile game."

Right. You are trying to use DI as a precedent for future development. I'm saying it isn't a precedent and future development won't follow its model. I'm glad you actually understand what I've been saying and now maybe you can see why fear mongering based on DI is silly.

There is nothing predatory about a battle pass in Diablo Immortal. Most battle passes allow you to purchase the entire thing out right. That isn't predatory if you are given an option to skip the grind, right? It means there is no fear of missing out if you can actually skip what you might miss out if you don't constantly play, right?

The problem is you are taking any criticism for WoW, Hearthstone, or any other monetization to equal it being about "over monetization" similar to Diablo Immortal and what you fear will happen with Overwatch. That is silly. The price of mounts might be higher then some like in WoW but that isn't proof the game is over monetized. It just means it has high priced cosmetics. My argument isn't I don't care therefore it isn't but simply that it isn't. It is funny how you have to keep vilifying my arguments when you have never been fear mongering. Again, strange right? You have to exaggerate and create interpretations of my stance that I never stated just to make yourself position seem better.

I've said it many times that I'd love for games to have no crazy monetization. No pay to win. I've stated that I believe DI could and should have less however it isn't a problem because you can do 99% of the game for free. There is no indication that Overwatch 2 is going to be a crazy level of monetization and that it will have fairly tame and standard implementations that other games in the same genre have had for years. I'm not giving into the fear of something. I'm being reasonable and calm about what the future holds until it is clear it will be bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Ealyssa

Hope we gonna have more details about the monetization soon. And I wouldn’t be against some kind of big reward for the people who bought OW before the F2P

Everyone who buys OW1 prior to June 23rd 2022 (and logs in prior to December 5th 2022) will get the founders pack. You get two epic skins (Jester Sombra and General Doomfist), an exclusive icon, and a "surprise" gift to be announced prior to the games release. It might not be "big" however. The tweet, https://twitter.com/PlayOverwatch/st...45176862527489, has current picture of the skins.

Originally Posted by rhorle

Right. You are trying to use DI as a precedent for future development. I'm saying it isn't a precedent and future development won't follow its model. I'm glad you actually understand what I've been saying and now maybe you can see why fear mongering based on DI is silly.

There is nothing predatory about a battle pass in Diablo Immortal. The fact you can't explain what parts are predatory and instead simply rant about how it is predatory indicates how little you know and how you lean heavily on fear mongering to get try and get your point across. Most battle passes allow you to purchase the entire thing out right. That isn't predatory if you are given an option to skip the grind, right? It means there is no fear of missing out if you can actually skip what you might miss out if you don't constantly play, right?

The problem is you are taking any criticism for WoW, Hearthstone, or any other monetization to equal it being about "over monetization" similar to Diablo Immortal and what you fear will happen with Overwatch. That is silly. The price of mounts might be higher then some like in WoW but that isn't proof the game is over monetized. It just means it has high priced cosmetics. My argument isn't I don't care therefore it isn't but simply that it isn't. It is funny how you have to keep vilifying my, and my arguments, when you have never been fear mongering. Again, strange right? You have to exaggerate and create interpretations of my stance that I never stated just to make yourself position seem better.

I've said it many times that I'd love for games to have no crazy monetization. No pay to win. I've stated that I believe DI could and should have less however it isn't a problem because you can do 99% of the game for free. There is no indication that Overwatch 2 is going to be a crazy level of monetization and that it will have fairly tame and standard implementations that other games in the same genre have had for years. I'm not giving into the fear of something. I'm being reasonable and calm about what the future holds until it is clear it will be bad.

And you don't know that. I am not making the statement this will happen, but this may happen. You haven't disproved or showed I was wrong in my stance, just made a statement going "it won't happen." You are making a declaration, I am arguing that it is possible.

And you are wrong. I have explained how it is and your only response is boils down to "That's not predatory." Which is showing you do not know what predatory behavior is in these pricing games. Your only counter is your opinion it isn't despite the generally accepted view that behavior is predatory. It is whale baiting, they want people to dump tons of money and finish the pass. The Legendary Crest you get from the pass isn't the same pass as you can directly purchase, but the icon is designed to look the same. So, if someone goes "I'll spend money and get this legendary crest" they are being deceived by the game. It is objectively predatory monetarization on the pass.

I am not saying WoW or any other game is over monetizes, but rather other games have come under fired for their choices in monetization. You claimed they haven't, despite the fact they have. You aren't is you don't care because that is the only way you can make it and be honest about it.

And no one is arguing that it will definitely be, but rather that there is reason to worry it could be. You haven't actually countered that besides saying bs that is irrelevant garbage.

Originally Posted by Darththeo

And you don't know that. I am not making the statement this will happen, but this may happen. You haven't disproved or showed I was wrong in my stance, just made a statement going "it won't happen." You are making a declaration, I am arguing that it is possible.

We have examples of monitezation from one game not showing up in others. Hence why I've been saying you are fear mongering by playing up the fear that DI is the standard for all future games from Blizzard. Including OW2 and its annouced systems that are not any where close to being predatory or similar to DI.

A battle pass is not predatory. It simply isn't. Hence why that is all I need to say. Buying skips isn't predatory. It is an optional thing for those that don't think they will be able to earn it in-game. Having a paid version, while offering a free version, is not predatory. It allows both paying and non-paying customers to earn things they otherwise would not have. Being encouraged to purchase something is not predatory. That is simply the revenue model.

If other games have not been over monetized then they are proof that OW2 is unlikely to be simply because DI exists. Blizzard comes under fire for a lot of things they do. That isn't an indication of anything other then people love to complain about Blizzard (even when they don't even play the games themselves). There is no reason to worry that it could be. Anything can happen. Stop giving into the fear of what could be when there is no indication that it is a likely future.

Originally Posted by Baleful

This is nothing new, Street Fighter 2 (1991) had 5 different versions, all released for the SNES, i remember selling and buying that game at least 2 times.

Except that was the exception at that time and they only managed to sell them because how much successfully was on arcades.

Originally Posted by Baleful

As for "complete experiences", snes games had an average duration of 5-10 hours. Nowadays any decent AAA game has twice that duration, if not more. That adds to the cost. AND they still release DLC content on top of it (for, obviously, a price). I get you don't like this type of marketing, but, what can they do? Release a full game for $140? People won't buy it. On the other hand, they'll buy a $60 game and 3 $25 DLCs, or wait 1-2 years for the "GOTY" version and pay ~$70-80 for the full game (if not less).
As costs raise and people don't want to "pay more", the game industry need to get creative so they can keep up with the costs. That means DLCs, microtransactions, lootboxes, battlepases, season passes and all kind of things they can squeeze money off. Is this scummy? Maybe it is. For me, as long as they don't sell player power, i'm perfectly fine with people buying skins. If people feel "forced" to buy skins, that's on their own. Would you ban people from painting their cars if they want to?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not completely against selling DLCs. I understand the original concept behind it: have a sustainable income to keep developing content for the game. The problem is that along the way, someone though "why release a full game & then develope extra content with the DLC funds when we can chop a full game and sell each chunk as a DLC and get even more money?"
The equivalent would be like if car dealers started to sell you cars without doors & seats and then sell them to you as extras.

Originally Posted by Baleful

As for Diablo inmortal; we have to take in consideration this is not a Blizzard game but a Netease game; a company known for beign cashgrabbers. They have heavy monetization in every game; and anyone thinking D:I would be different just because Blizzard let them use their IP is dellusional. Still, you don't have to pay for the story and it's about ~20 hours worth of gameplay for free if you like this type of content.

Yeah, I was not surprised even a bit when the shit hit the fan, because exactly what you say.

Originally Posted by Baleful

Lastly, the 1983 videogame crash happened not because of heavy monetization (even if videogames were expensive), but because games were SO bad that most of them were borderline unplayable or unfunny. The Atari ET example, where even the company considered the game was so bad they decided to bury all copies, is a good example of how bad this games were. Compare the Atari ET gameplay with any f2p cashgrab game nowadays with 200 "buy the battle pass and lootboxes" adds, and it's like comparing oranges to spaceships. Sure, monetization is annoying, but games are still playable and entertaining. A heavy criticized game for its monetization (Genshin Impact) gave me more than 200 hours of gameplay for free the month it released and, as far as i know, they kept releasing content that you could complete for free.

It's the same trend: everyone jumping into the train of doing shitty, money-grabing games to cash out fast, saturating the market and creating mistrust, so people stop buying games. And I think that it probably didn't crash already because nowadays with Internet it's easier to know if a game is shit before buying.

Originally Posted by rhorle

We have examples of monitezation from one game not showing up in others. Hence why I've been saying you are fear mongering by playing up the fear that DI is the standard for all future games from Blizzard. Including OW2 and its annouced systems that are not any where close to being predatory or similar to DI.

A battle pass is not predatory. It simply isn't. Hence why that is all I need to say. Buying skips isn't predatory. It is an optional thing for those that don't think they will be able to earn it in-game. Having a paid version, while offering a free version, is not predatory. It allows both paying and non-paying customers to earn things they otherwise would not have. Being encouraged to purchase something is not predatory. That is simply the revenue model.

If other games have not been over monetized then they are proof that OW2 is unlikely to be simply because DI exists. Blizzard comes under fire for a lot of things they do. That isn't an indication of anything other then people love to complain about Blizzard (even when they don't even play the games themselves). There is no reason to worry that it could be. Anything can happen. Stop giving into the fear of what could be when there is no indication that it is a likely future.

Yes, we have older games they haven't over monetized. So what? The most recent game they are a part of is objectively so. They have barely said anything about the system they are putting into place. Saying they won't because older games don't have it is a worse argument than the one you are whining that I am making.

Dude, you are just proving you don't know what predatory means in this case. Because actively incentivizing someone to purchase something is predatory by definition. They dangle the stuff out there to bait whales, that's it purpose. Predatory systems do not need to be "non optional." So, the fact it is optional does not exclude it from being predatory. In fact, many predatory systems are entirely optional because those system make the player feel it was their choice to spend rather than it being forced. The Battle pass in DI is objectively built to bait whales to spend money.

Older games are not as strong proof as you think it is. It is incredibly weak evidence. This is more valid if say OW2 launches with a fair battle pass system without whale baiting for Diablo 4 as the more recent game lacks it. What you are arguing for here is we have eaten at this restaurant a while and only got food poisoning the most recent time we went, so therefore there is no reason to worry about food poisoning now.

Can't help but think they're just marketting her as a mature Jinx.

Originally Posted by chiddie

I won’t state if gaas is a good thing or not.

I was only pointing out that if you want your game to be gaas, the “classic” business model is not enough. You simply can’t keep the game fresh forever basing only on the “pay once and gg” model.

D2 probably took twice the people of D1 to be made. D3, x2 again. D4 if not D3 x2 at least x1.5. AND development takes longer every time because games become more and more complex the more time passes by. That’s why WoW is a subscription game for example.

This is not making the “aggressive” DI monetization fully justified for example but companies are there to make money and continue to work on the same game for years is not free.

That, I agree with. Although I'd point that I'm not sure that development costs did really increase that much, as opposed to marketing (that it's usually now about 50% of the total expense) and the neat income for the investors (they were usually people related to the industry, while they're now people completely unrealted, just shareholders that they would invest in potatos the same as in space rockets as long as they get great revenue).

Originally Posted by Darththeo

Yes, we have older games they haven't over monetized. So what? The most recent game they are a part of is objectively so. They have barely said anything about the system they are putting into place. Saying they won't because older games don't have it is a worse argument than the one you are whining that I am making.

So there is no precedent. Which means fear mongering over what could be is silly. It is amazing how we keep circling back to what has been already. You, and others, doom and glooming about what could be is silly. There is no indication that it will be as monetized as the DI model. You keep trying to equate a simple BP to being as bad as DI which is again fear mongering.

Every game is predatory under your definition. Because they are all developed to encourage people to buy the game, and other things, that make the developer money. So congrats on complaining that OW2 will be exactly like it is now. Exactly like all the other games produced. OW2 has no indication of being pay to win which means there isn't much to dangle for whales specifically. It also ignores how OW1 functions just like that now which means it can't become that, right? So you are complaining that the game is exactly as predatory as it is now.

The DI battlepass is not built to bait whales into spending money. A whale gets nothing out of it that a non-whale can't get. Anyone can purchase ranks. The CE comes with 10 ranks included as well as exclusive cosmetics. That is no different then any other CE and battle passes in other games allow you to buy ranks/tiers if you don't want to earn it over the course of the season. So you are calling all battle passes as predatory while later in your post saying that OW2 can launched with a "fair" battle pass. Strange right? You are fear mongering about the battle pass being predatory because of how DI functions. While also saying you have no indication that OW2 won't be fair.

Originally Posted by rhorle

So there is no precedent. Which means fear mongering over what could be is silly. It is amazing how we keep circling back to what has been already. You, and others, doom and glooming about what could be is silly. There is no indication that it will be as monetized as the DI model. You keep trying to equate a simple BP to being as bad as DI which is again fear mongering.

Every game is predatory under your definition. Because they are all developed to encourage people to buy the game, and other things, that make the developer money. So congrats on complaining that OW2 will be exactly like it is now. Exactly like all the other games produced. OW2 has no indication of being pay to win which means there isn't much to dangle for whales specifically. It also ignores how OW1 functions just like that now which means it can't become that, right? So you are complaining that the game is exactly as predatory as it is now.

The DI battlepass is not built to bait whales into spending money. A whale gets nothing out of it that a non-whale can't get. Anyone can purchase ranks. The CE comes with 10 ranks included as well as exclusive cosmetics. That is no different then any other CE and battle passes in other games allow you to buy ranks/tiers if you don't want to earn it over the course of the season. So you are calling all battle passes as predatory while later in your post saying that OW2 can launched with a "fair" battle pass. Strange right? You are fear mongering about the battle pass being predatory because of how DI functions. While also saying you have no indication that OW2 won't be fair.

There is a precedent. You just go "Diablo doesn't set one" just because older games didn't do it. saying there is none is an outright lie. We keep circling back because you keep this lie.

No, it isn't. It is how the game is monetized that determines predatory or not. And no one is saying OW2 will be pay to win. Pay to win isn't the only way a system is predatory, otherwise we wouldn't have the two terms meaning the exact same thing. And yes, whales don't just care about winning. Your entire argument is built on your willful ignorance over what a predatory system is and what a whale is. A whale is someone who spends a lot of money on a game, that's it.

Some of the biggest whales in games do not care about "wins" as the game defines it, rather than want to be the most noticeable or have everything. And a lot of battle passes are predatory. Can a nonpaying player fill the battle pass as quickly as a paying player? In all cases that I am aware of, the answer is no. So it comes down to how much faster is paying vs playing normally, depending on how wide that gap is determines how predatory the pass is.

Saying this is reason to be cautious is not fear mongering to any reasonable person. You call it fear mongering out of your own ignorance.

Originally Posted by Darththeo

There is a precedent. You just go "Diablo doesn't set one" just because older games didn't do it. saying there is none is an outright lie. We keep circling back because you keep this lie.

Diablo Immortal isn't a precedent until another game follows in its foot steps. If your fears are realized and OW2 has mobile game level of monetization then DI will have been the precedent. Until then it is just an exception. There is no way to know if it is the norm yet. If how a game is monetized determines if it is predatory then the DI version of the Battle Pass is not predatory. It functions just like a normal battle pass which you've indicated can be "fair". The DI battle pass also isn't catering to whales because it doesn't encourage them to spend a lot of money on the game more then a normal battle pass. So if all battle passes are not predatory then the DI one can't be. This is why I've told you that you are moving the goal posts. Moving the goal posts to DI over all model being over the top instead of focusing just on the battle pass. You are trying to argue the over all model while talking only about the battle pass. It is why you are wrong.

It is fear mongering because there is no reason to be anymore cautious then normal. If DI didn't release yet I can bet you would still be arguing about how terrible the OW2 system could be, right? You just wouldn't have anything to use as a launching point for your fear mongering.

Originally Posted by rhorle

Diablo Immortal isn't a precedent until another game follows in its foot steps. If your fears are realized and OW2 has mobile game level of monetization then DI will have been the precedent. Until then it is just an exception. There is no way to know if it is the norm yet. If how a game is monetized determines if it is predatory then the DI version of the Battle Pass is not predatory. It functions just like a normal battle pass which you've indicated can be "fair". The DI battle pass also isn't catering to whales because it doesn't encourage them to spend a lot of money on the game more then a normal battle pass. So if all battle passes are not predatory then the DI one can't be. This is why I've told you that you are moving the goal posts. Moving the goal posts to DI over all model being over the top instead of focusing just on the battle pass. You are trying to argue the over all model while talking only about the battle pass. It is why you are wrong.

It is fear mongering because there is no reason to be anymore cautious then normal. If DI didn't release yet I can bet you would still be arguing about how terrible the OW2 system could be, right? You just wouldn't have anything to use as a launching point for your fear mongering.

Yes, it is. You don't need something to follow to treat something as a precedent that not what the word means. The fact they did it sets the precedent they could do it again, even if no following game does. All a precedent means is an event or action that happened is considered for a future or current action. Diablo Immortal is by definition a precedent.

Yeah, Diablo isn't a fair pass, it is clear you aren't even reading my arguments at this point. A normal battle pass isn't fair. I literally said battle passes tend to be predatory. If you don't have the decency to read my argument, why do you bother replying? Most battle passes have inherent predatory behavior in them. A fair pass is one where a free player is treated the same as a paying player (ie capping both or not capping either) AND either everyone grinds or difference between grinding and paying is not huge. Or, if they want to cap free players and not paying, that battle passes aren't removed and you just constantly move to the next pass whenever you finished the one you were on.