Overwatch 2 Reveal Event and Junker Queen Origin Story

[Vexenar]

Still as disinterested as I was a couple of months ago but I'm not surprised they are going this route, moving more away from lootboxes and adding a virtual currency (ala Valorant) makes it easier for them to monetize the game

Same can be said for the battlepass they are adding, it incentivizes people to keep playing to fill out their battle pass which ups the monthly active users (MAUs), it's also fantastic for a seasonal revenue stream compared to OW1

Tells me that most interesting cosmetics will either be at the end of the battlepass or in a new in-game store they will be adding
Not necessarily a bad thing, but I hope it means that Overwatch will have more love (and priority) going forward

Considering Blizzard's track record lately... not pre-ordering anything

[Baleful]

The thing is that before, you bought a game, and that was the complete experience.
Now, in the AAA market (indies don't usually do it), you buy the game, and they keep adding things fo at least 3 years, and you end paying a LOT more of the equivalent (even taking inflation cost).

And most of the time, it's done in a dishonest way: "GotY", "Complete", "Super", "Ultra", "Collector's", "Gold", "Platimun". How many times are they gonna re-release the game with some minor tweaks/adds and charge like a complete new game?

I got so tired of that trend that now I only buy 1 or 2 games at release, and I wait at least 3 or 4 year until they stop re-re-releasing the game, so I can pay for a complete game and have the full experience, but I think I'm the minority.
The problem is that they already catch on that and now they took 2 approaches to that problem:
- Give the base game for free to hook the players and try to make them buy their thousand DLCs.
- Make "games as a service": always-on, full on microtransactions, full of psychological traps to make people spend money.
The way I see it, they treat their consumers more like potential junkies than gamers, to the point that even liberal countries are thinking about regulating that shit.

- - - Updated - - -


The thing is: do we need/want that ALL games are never-ending, as-a-service?
that's the problem there. That the industry want to push for it even when there's no need, only get even more revenue.

Hell, look at that FIFA thing (I don't recall the exact name) where every year it resets, and you need to spend crazy amounts of real money to re-buy charactes.
It's the same game all the time. They only change some stats on an excel, clear progress, et voila, new season.
It uses FOMO and sunken cost to trap players into waste money.

And I fear that this trend would make the market crash:
- They'll skim the people to the point that they'll become suspicious.
- Then they'll call it a day, and would cut out all fundings "because the market is not so green as it was"
- Without funding the market would crash.

And hear, I'm not doom saying, this same shit already happened 40 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

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.

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?

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.

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.

[rhorle]

Except I have proof Blizzard has done it in another game. What you are doing is akin to saying "I know they dishonestly sold a game before, but surely they aren't going to do it again." Excepting a snake oil salesman to be dishonest for money isn't fearmongering.

You keep saying that this means it will happen to the entire industry though. That is fear mongering. It is funny how you keep ignoring the actual parts where you fear monger while claiming you don't. Strange, right? Blizzard hasn't dishonestly sold any game so your comparison is silly. There is nothing dishonest about the monetization of OW2 so it even fails there as well. Lmao.

[Darththeo]

You keep saying that this means it will happen to the entire industry though. That is fear mongering. It is funny how you keep ignoring the actual parts where you fear monger while claiming you don't. Strange, right? Blizzard hasn't dishonestly sold any game so your comparison is silly. There is nothing dishonest about the monetization of OW2 so it even fails there as well. Lmao.

I am not ignoring it. You have been misrepresenting my argument. I am not saying "ALL GAMES WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE THIS." I am saying the predatory over monetization in the mobile market is coming more common place in PC and console gaming. I am not saying it will happen over the entire industry, I am saying people are trying to do it.

I am saying that the fact Blizzard is putting this into the game is a reason to be cautious because these systems are abused by companies. If you think telling people to be careful is fearmongering, you don't know what fearmongering is.

And you claim I am ignoring something but apparently you don't know Diablo Immortal exists. Blizzard allowed that game to use their IP with little care. They have other issues with things they have monetized in games they have had.

[rhorle]

I am not ignoring it. You have been misrepresenting my argument. I am not saying "ALL GAMES WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE THIS." I am saying the predatory over monetization in the mobile market is coming more common place in PC and console gaming. I am not saying it will happen over the entire industry, I am saying people are trying to do it.

Again, the problem is not monetization, it is over monetization. Where they monetize everything they can in a game...

...I am not saying it will happen, but just Diablo Immortal has left a bad taste in my mouth that I can't trust Blizzard not to do it.

Also, it isn't "fear mongering" about the over monetization from mobile gaming going to other parts of the market. It is happening...

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You keep trying to use the fear of over monetization as a reason to hate on OW2. You don't know if it will be over monetized. Just like you keep bringing up Diablo Immortal to stoke the fear you keep trying to push. It happened so it will happen again!!! (that is fear mongering) Strange, right? You keep trying to use that it has happened before so it will happen again. That is a strange stance given you've also said it is a minority in the industry. So which is it so common place that it will definitely happen or a minority that it has a lower chance of happening?

[Darththeo]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You keep trying to use the fear of over monetization as a reason to hate on OW2. You don't know if it will be over monetized. Just like you keep bringing up Diablo Immortal to stoke the fear you keep trying to push. Strange, right? You keep trying to use that it has happened before so it will happen again. That is a strange stance given you've also said it is a minority in the industry. So which is it so common place that it will definitely happen or a minority that it has a lower chance of happening?

Yes you have.

You keep saying that this means it will happen to the entire industry though. That is fear mongering. It is funny how you keep ignoring the actual parts where you fear monger while claiming you don't. Strange, right? Blizzard hasn't dishonestly sold any game so your comparison is silly. There is nothing dishonest about the monetization of OW2 so it even fails there as well. Lmao.

You have only misrepresented because you cannot deny that the over monetization of mobile is expanding into PC and console gaming so you have to pretend I am arguing for it to be over the entire industry and that every company will do it.

Secondly, you definitely have because I have other comments here that prove I am not saying "hate overwatch 2 for this reason." I am preaching caution, not hate. And you literally quote me proving you are and have misrepresented what I said. I mean that takes balls to attempt to gaslight me that boldly.

I am saying "This could be bad, and given the history we cannot be sure they won't do this."

And somehow you took that as "This is a reason to hate Overwatch 2" THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT.

[rhorle]

You have only misrepresented because you cannot deny that the over monetization of mobile is expanding into PC and console gaming so you have to pretend I am arguing for it to be over the entire industry and that every company will do it.

How is it a misrepresentation if you literally just it has spread to the PC and Console gaming? That is you implying it is going to happen to the entire industry unless good gamers like you hate on it to stop it. Your argument has always been that as more do it so will everyone else. Because what Blizzard is doing with OW2 is nothing new for the industry. Plenty of PC and Console games have done it in the past including ones more popular then Overwatch.

You also haven't demonstrated that the over monetization is happening to Overwatch 2. Just that it could happen and you fear it will happen because of Diablo Immortal. Fear mongering.

[Darththeo]

How is it a misrepresentation if you literally just it has spread to the PC and Console gaming? That is you implying it is going to happen to the entire industry unless good gamers like you hate on it to stop it. Your argument has always been that as more do it so will everyone else. Because what Blizzard is doing with OW2 is nothing new for the industry. Plenty of PC and Console games have done it in the past including ones more popular then Overwatch.

You also haven't demonstrated that the over monetization is happening to Overwatch 2. Just that it could happen and you fear it will happen because of Diablo Immortal. Fear mongering.

Because my argument isn't that it is happening, my argument is that this is a sign it COULD BE happening. I am not trying to prove it is going to happen, I am saying because of their history there is a reason to have concern it could.

So again, stop misrepresenting my argument.

[rhorle]

Because my argument isn't that it is happening, my argument is that this is a sign it COULD BE happening.So again, stop misrepresenting my argument.

So fear mongering. Lmao. You just indicated I'm not misrepresenting your argument.

[Darththeo]

So fear mongering. Lmao. You just indicated I'm not misrepresenting your argument.

Dude, you can't accept reality.

How is it a misrepresentation if you literally just it has spread to the PC and Console gaming? That is you implying it is going to happen to the entire industry unless good gamers like you hate on it to stop it. Your argument has always been that as more do it so will everyone else. Because what Blizzard is doing with OW2 is nothing new for the industry. Plenty of PC and Console games have done it in the past including ones more popular then Overwatch.

You also haven't demonstrated that the over monetization is happening to Overwatch 2. Just that it could happen and you fear it will happen because of Diablo Immortal. Fear mongering.

I don't need to demonstrate that. By claiming I need to or should do or that it is needed to "not be fearmongering" so is misrepresentation. And being on console and pc gaming as well as mobile isn't the "entire industry" it is just in all aspects of the industry. There are games that don't do it and companies that currently don't have games that do it.

I am not fearmongering because you have no clue what that actually means in this context.

Telling people to be cautious because this system can be abused is not fearmongering ... I am sorry, if that you're level of "fearmongering" you have such a low level that any warning is "fearmongering."

[rhorle]

I don't need to demonstrate that. By claiming I need to or should do or that it is needed to "not be fearmongering" so is misrepresentation. I am not fearmongering because you have no clue what that actually means in this context.

You are trying to raise the alarm about something that could happen. Something that you have no proof that it will happen. That is fear mongering. You are afraid something will happen so you complaining about how bad it will be if it does happen.

[Darththeo]

You are trying to raise the alarm about something that could happen. Something that you have no proof that it will happen. That is fear mongering. You are afraid something will happen so you complaining about how bad it will be if it does happen.

No, I am not "trying to raise the alarm." I am saying "Be cautious" because these systems can be abused.

I am not saying the game will definitely be bad, but rather because of this possibility there is reason to be cautious about the quality we are going to get.

Again, you constantly prove you misrepresent my argument.

[rhorle]

No, I am not "trying to raise the alarm." I am saying "Be cautious" because these systems can be abused.

"Be cautious" is raising the alarm about something potentially happening. Lmao.

[chiddie]

The thing is that before, you bought a game, and that was the complete experience.
Now, in the AAA market (indies don't usually do it), you buy the game, and they keep adding things fo at least 3 years, and you end paying a LOT more of the equivalent (even taking inflation cost).

And most of the time, it's done in a dishonest way: "GotY", "Complete", "Super", "Ultra", "Collector's", "Gold", "Platimun". How many times are they gonna re-release the game with some minor tweaks/adds and charge like a complete new game?

I got so tired of that trend that now I only buy 1 or 2 games at release, and I wait at least 3 or 4 year until they stop re-re-releasing the game, so I can pay for a complete game and have the full experience, but I think I'm the minority.
The problem is that they already catch on that and now they took 2 approaches to that problem:
- Give the base game for free to hook the players and try to make them buy their thousand DLCs.
- Make "games as a service": always-on, full on microtransactions, full of psychological traps to make people spend money.
The way I see it, they treat their consumers more like potential junkies than gamers, to the point that even liberal countries are thinking about regulating that shit.

- - - Updated - - -



The thing is: do we need/want that ALL games are never-ending, as-a-service?
that's the problem there. That the industry want to push for it even when there's no need, only get even more revenue.

Hell, look at that FIFA thing (I don't recall the exact name) where every year it resets, and you need to spend crazy amounts of real money to re-buy charactes.
It's the same game all the time. They only change some stats on an excel, clear progress, et voila, new season.
It uses FOMO and sunken cost to trap players into waste money.

And I fear that this trend would make the market crash:
- They'll skim the people to the point that they'll become suspicious.
- Then they'll call it a day, and would cut out all fundings "because the market is not so green as it was"
- Without funding the market would crash.
.

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.

[Darththeo]

"Be cautious" is raising the alarm about something potentially happening. Lmao.

By this logic, "wear a seatbelt" is fearmongering.

Or a parent telling their kid "to watch their drinks" when going to a party is fearmongering.

[rhorle]

By this logic, "wear a seatbelt" is fearmongering.

To a small degree. The difference is Injury or Death from not wearing a seat belt is something that will happen in accidents. Over monetization is something that can happen but there is no evidence that it is going to happen.

[Darththeo]

To a small degree. The difference is Injury or Death from not wearing a seat belt is something that will happen in accidents. Over monetization is something that can happen but there is no evidence that it is going to happen.

But there is no evidence that an accident is going to "happen." You can't even be logically consistent.

Seriously, your view of fearmongering is useless.

[rhorle]

But there is no evidence that an accident is going to "happen." You can't even be logically consistent.

There is evidence of what will happen if an accident does happen. It is strange how I agree with you that it is fear mongering yet you still argue. There is no evidence of what over monetization will be in OW2 if it does happen. We can create all sorts of hypothetical about how it could look but there is no way to know what will happen. Instead you, and others, complain on the principle of it potentially existing. You raise the fear of it happening as a reason to complain.

[chiddie]

There is evidence of what will happen if an accident does happen. It is strange how I agree with you that it is fear mongering yet you still argue. There is no evidence of what over monetization will be in OW2 if it does happen. We can create all sorts of hypothetical about how it could look but there is no way to know what will happen. Instead you, and others, complain on the principle of it potentially existing. You raise the fear of it happening as a reason to complain.

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.

For example we all perfectly know that usually when a WoW “thing” enters beta, it’s probably already set in stone and unlikely to change much, despite people still saying “wait it’s only beta” since 20 years.

[Martymark]

Based on Diablo Immoral, this "free" game is going to cost $9999 to play at even a basic level.