Buy to play seems to be the preferred buying method

[Gsara]

Anyone that thinks Overwatch will be anything other than a ftp model with cash shop is delusional. Its a direct competitor to TF2(ftp) and will have a pay model like a moba(HotS/LoL).

[Bigbazz]

Betting it will be F2P, hoping it isnt though.

[Mormolyce]

Did SC2 or D3 have day one DLC? They didn't even have DLC, they went straight to expansions. Which is alot better.

Well, I don't like the idea of day 1 DLC unless it's purely cosmetic (I actually think preorder bonuses are worse though) but I think the DLC vs. expansion model is debateable. DLC can be smaller, more numerous, and out faster. Expansions are big slow lumbering things. Which is better depends on the type of game and the type of DLC.

But I doubt OW would be either.

[Lostprophet]

I'd like something that smite has. Pay 30€ and get all current and future released Heroes.
They can go to B2P and include that and put a cosmetic shop in or F2P with such a package. Microtransaction will be in regardless of buying method (imo).

Cheater can be hardware banned, so a new account wouldn't help. At least this is what Dirtybomb (according to their devs) is doin.

I also think that the model wont be that important how successful it will be. CS:GO (B2P) is prolly the most played FPS on pc, it has about 9times the player TF2 has. They game has to be good and it will be successful :P

But I personally think they will go F2P. They had too much success with that model lastly

[IIamaKing]

Im betting it will be ftp.

1/2 my guild will play for free and spend if we enjoy, none of us will btp. Not when there are other options.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I'd prefer to buy the whole game as Team Fortress did for $30/$40 rather than it be F2P and pay & grind for each character.

[BatteredRose]

I wouldn't be opposed to the b2p model as long as it's not overpriced. I'd prefer f2p with micro-transactions at least somewhat similar to how TF2 does. But let's face it, they're going to do micro-transactions whether or not the game is f2p or not, can't fuckin' deny that. Hell, they'd even have them if the game was subscription based. They do it now, and they'll do it some more because fuck you and your wallet.

Before I get accused of being a TF2 f2p baby, I got TF2 when it was part of Orange Box. I just like having the option of unlocking, crafting, and buying extra stuff.

[Mormolyce]

Sub based model for a team shooter would be just weird, also I think sub models are at death's door even for MMOs.

B2P isn't a very good model for a game that is intended to have lots added to it. You can make a game FTP and keep developing for it and adding new things like in MOBAs (I suspect OW will continually add new heroes similar to how MOBAs work), whereas in a BTP game development stops when it ships, outside of patches and maybe a few expansions. The B2P + expansions model is pretty outdated now really.

[Mister K]

Dota 2 model is most ideal. Hopefully they do that.

- - - Updated - - -

Betting it will be F2P, hoping it isnt though.

Why? Elaborate. Dota 2 is doing more than fine and it's F2P. I think everyone is overthinking this.

OW will most likely be a F2P with Cosmetic Changes there for you to purchase, I mean logically anyway from what we have seen so far.

[Anium]

Just base it off LoL. F2P, with transactions that don't give you advantage, apart from IP boosts but that's really nothing.
Despite being an F2P what did they rake in last year, a one billion profit, yeah... That's a pretty big win.

[ManiaCCC]

Overwatch wont work as B2P .. it's perfect example of F2P game and it will be F2P..anyone thinking otherwise will be disappointed..

[Mormolyce]

Just base it off LoL. F2P, with transactions that don't give you advantage, apart from IP boosts but that's really nothing.
Despite being an F2P what did they rake in last year, a one billion profit, yeah... That's a pretty big win.

They could probably use an almost identical model to HoTS, if they plan to regularly add new heroes.

Or if the hero pool will be fairly limited, restrict it to buying cosmetics.

[Mister K]

Just base it off LoL. F2P, with transactions that don't give you advantage, apart from IP boosts but that's really nothing.
Despite being an F2P what did they rake in last year, a one billion profit, yeah... That's a pretty big win.

LoL model is awful. I want Dota 2 model considering it's the best one out there when it comes to F2P.

Dota 2 or CS:GO Models give you no advantage or require you to grind fest your hours away to get the hero list you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Overwatch wont work as B2P .. it's perfect example of F2P game and it will be F2P..anyone thinking otherwise will be disappointed..

This.

I don't mind B2P but F2P for a game like this is more ideal. Skins are going to be super important. Give players the aesthetic additions that they can unlock by playing or purchasing with IRL money and you onto a winner. Maybe some DLC packs in future and what not.

[Deleted]

Whatever the business model OW will end up with, I just hope there'll be more to buy than just pure character skins. I would love to have ability to buy:
- general skin of a character
- optional head accessory
- separate skin for weapon
- colour schemes of graphical effects
That.. would be awesome.

[Neri25]

Considering TF2 was BTP for years and it was intensely popular even then

At the time the Orange Box was one of the best deals in all of gaming. This was before STEAM SALES and humble bundles and what have you. It retailed for what, $30? And for that you got HL2/EP1/EP2, Portal and TF2.

TF2 was to an extent carried by Valve's brand initially and gained legs as people played it.

[Mormolyce]

Considering TF2 was BTP for years and it was intensely popular even then, I see no reason BTP isn't the best idea to start off. They didn't switch to FTP till there was a fairly large microtransaction market in place.

Back then everything was BTP, FTP wasn't a proven concept yet.

At the time the Orange Box was one of the best deals in all of gaming. This was before STEAM SALES and humble bundles and what have you. It retailed for what, $30? And for that you got HL2/EP1/EP2, Portal and TF2.

TF2 was to an extent carried by Valve's brand initially and gained legs as people played it.

Still the best value box of all time for my money.

[Tziva]

For me, it should either be B2P or the F2P microtransactions would have to be 100% cosmetic.

My concern with making this free to play is that they could potentially opt to sell the characters in addition to just vanity stuff. In a game where you can swap characters through the map, it is highly advantageous to have all the characters available to you, so it would be really really bad if that happened. If they end up designing the shop similar to heroes, that puts people who don't spend real money (and their teammates) at a serious disadvantage. I'd hope Blizzard would understand that and not go that route but you never know.

Obviously free is awesome, but I'd rather just buy the box outright if that's going to be a risk.

[Deleted]

For me, it should either be B2P or the F2P microtransactions would have to be 100% cosmetic.

My concern with making this free to play is that they could potentially opt to sell the characters in addition to just vanity stuff. In a game where you can swap characters through the map, it is highly advantageous to have all the characters available to you, so it would be really really bad if that happened. If they end up designing the shop similar to heroes, that puts people who don't spend real money (and their teammates) at a serious disadvantage. I'd hope Blizzard would understand that and not go that route but you never know.

Obviously free is awesome, but I'd rather just buy the box outright if that's going to be a risk.

Honest question, what will stop them from doing so? I mean choosing the business model borderline with P2W? They have enough capital to totally bury any game they want. So if Overwatch won't be a hit they'll just shrug it off, maybe one of the project managers will get fired and that's it.

They are in position of Apple. They can create a product which is way behind the competition and attempt to shove it down people's throats, they'll buy it anyway, cause it's Apple/Blizz. And in worst case scenario, they'll just throw around something like "people were not ready for our vision yet" and start to work on another sup-bar product.

[Tziva]

Honest question, what will stop them from doing so? I mean choosing the business model borderline with P2W? They have enough capital to totally bury any game they want. So if Overwatch won't be a hit they'll just shrug it off, maybe one of the project managers will get fired and that's it.

Because it could hurt them financially if people feel like there's no point in playing unless they're willing to be a whale. You want people to play and you want them to be willing to pay here and there, but as soon as you put people in a position where they feel like the game isn't fun unless they shell out cash, you will find yourself in a position where you will be losing money, not gaining more.

At least in the US/EU market.

Blizzard certainly has the money to eat a failed project but they're also smart enough to know that it's better if they don't.

[Mormolyce]

Let's be honest, no matter what payment model they come up with people will label it P2W.

For me, it should either be B2P or the F2P microtransactions would have to be 100% cosmetic.

My concern with making this free to play is that they could potentially opt to sell the characters in addition to just vanity stuff. In a game where you can swap characters through the map, it is highly advantageous to have all the characters available to you, so it would be really really bad if that happened. If they end up designing the shop similar to heroes, that puts people who don't spend real money (and their teammates) at a serious disadvantage. I'd hope Blizzard would understand that and not go that route but you never know.

Obviously free is awesome, but I'd rather just buy the box outright if that's going to be a risk.

I would be fine with it having a HoTS-style system of unlocking characters. Yeah you can swap mid-game which could be useful, but you could also just be a really amazing Tracer the whole time and have just as much impact.

I think one of its biggest problems is going to be finding a way to give a sense of progression, unlocking characters is one powerful way to provide that. Limited though, since the roster is a lot smaller than a MOBA's.

Honest question, what will stop them from doing so? I mean choosing the business model borderline with P2W? They have enough capital to totally bury any game they want. So if Overwatch won't be a hit they'll just shrug it off, maybe one of the project managers will get fired and that's it.

They are in position of Apple. They can create a product which is way behind the competition and attempt to shove it down people's throats, they'll buy it anyway, cause it's Apple/Blizz. And in worst case scenario, they'll just throw around something like "people were not ready for our vision yet" and start to work on another sup-bar product.

Well if you hate Apple buy a Samsung or something. Sure Apple have a big fanboy base but they aren't exactly the only game in town anymore. And their PC market penetration is as paltry as ever.

Similarly, it's not like this will make Blizzard the only FPS studio in the world... there's PLENTY of competition...