Blizzard's CEO has stated that "Overwatch's loot boxes are not part of the controversy." But is that statement entirely true?
Since Overwatch is a FreetoPlay game, loot-boxes are OK. in a full price $60 game loot-boxes are unacceptable ."Games are expensive to make"... loot-boxes are unacceptable. Publishers/Developers are making hand over fist from this practice. Without them publishers/devs would still be able to make a profit if they simply made GOOD games.
Overwatch is not F2P
Overwatch isn't free to play, genius.
Five seconds of research could have avoided looking like a bad CNN Breaking News report.
The POINT is Loot boxes sould not be tolerated in $60 games.
They are implemented well in Overwatch though, the unlocks are all purely cosmetic and they help fund new maps, characters and game modes which are completely free. I don't feel that I'm having to tolerate them, in fact I quite enjoy them, if it wasn't for the goal of leveling up to unlock loot boxes, I would have probably stopped playing this game months ago.
I wish I knew it was FreetoPlay would have saved me $48 when it released...
I have some bad news for you regarding Overwatch: https://www.amazon.com/Over...
This is CNN...
Overwatch is overpriced.
I don't find any fault with Overwatch's loot box system, it's the poor implementation in other games that I find to be the problem. Overwatch's system works for three key reasons, at least in my opinion. - The loot box rewards are in no way tied to player progression or any pay to win scenario, everything obtained within them is purely cosmetic - They are easily obtainable in game. In fact, they actually added ways to get them with weekly arcade loot boxes - Most importantly, they ensure the fan base has a steady flow of content including maps, heroes, game modes, and events for FREE If any of these things are missing or altered, I feel like the consumer can feel like they are being swindled by a company. Destiny 2, for instance, uses loot boxes that offer cosmetic items that are one time use (or so I've read). This seems incredibly frustrating considering you would have to get lucky again to obtain the same item you previously had in case you decided to go with another look for a short while. On top of that, Bungie's charges for all of their expansions. Shelling out money on top of money is a nuisance and can be quite frustrating. If minimal, I don't see the problem with loot boxes. Developers have to continually work on the game to keep it entertaining, fresh, and running smoothly. A one time flat fee of $60 (and $0 if bought used) may not cover payroll and overhead over a long period of time. Granted, Overwatch should be fine on that front, but other games may not be if they try the same model of giving free stuff out as Overwatch does. Now, if you make the argument that everything that launched with overwatch (skins, voice lines, sprays) should be obtainable with in game progression, I couldn't fault that logic. They could simply charge for any later DLC. That being said, it alienates the community if they were to do that with the maps and heroes as well. Also, I would rather have access to everything as it comes out via the loot boxes that I get for free. These people aren't going to and shouldn't work for free to add stuff on to the game. This is a good way to channel money while making the game accessible for all users.
The only things in Destiny 2's MT's that are one time use are shaders. And after a couple weeks of playing you should have tons of shaders to not even matter. Also, shaders and everything else are sold with very easily obtainable in-game currency. The shop swaps these items out every week. No one should feel any pressure whatsoever to buy any currency in D2.
Counterpoints though. The fact that people defend and support these even in cosmetic only games only shows publishers that we are stupid enough to pony up more money on top of the $60 purchase, even if you don't buy any you are still supporting it because publishers don't give a shit about what we say about them they are looking at the numbers. Overwatch is the only game with very easily obtainable through normal gameplay, other games will give them to you but it's not as easy and it's still locking content behind a paywall and gambling mechanic, NOT OKAY. Very few games have used the MTs for free maps and content while other games still have the $60 price tag, a $30-50 season pass, AND microtransaction. They are not benefiting us. They are hurting games. If MTs are better for giving free content then WHY is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME like Shadow of War needlessly have them when there is a season pass? Publishers are getting out of control and we need to stop buying any game with MTs or we are arguing about this for no reason. Publishers will stop real quick if their games don't sell because there are MTs in the game.
They'll understand the nuances when games like Overwatch make money and games like Shadow of war don't. They have researchers for that very thing. So yes, they may not get the distinction now, but they will learn soon enough. Unless games like Shadow of War actually do well, and then..... Just better pick and choose your gaming experiences.
The best thing about OW though is that there's no loadouts...meaning no gun unlocks...which means there's gun mods and so on. That's why they are better at balancing it overall then other games Couldn't of Battlefront done that, bunch of characters to choose from with their own different skills and weapons
If Battlefront did that then it would be a totally different game. OW is successful with it because the character you play as has their own unique weapons. There's nothing to upgrade. Having said that, Battlefront could have easily done what the Battlefield games were doing since day one. Earn experience for winning matches, earning medals, kills, etc, then use that experience to unlock new guns and gear for each class. I would never compare Battlefront to OW simply because they are two very different games. But there are definitely ways to make a good progression system without loot crates. And it isn't anything new. Online shooters were doing it 20 years ago, including DICE, ironically enough.
Socom still is my favorite shooter ever and there was never a progression system. Just different loadouts based on your character. No reason we can't have more games get rid of the progression system. Personally, I think those systems make it difficult for people that don't play (or pay) as often to compete simply because they're out geared.
Both true and false? What?
I like Overwatch bought the game for 30 dollars last Black Friday & their loot boxes doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the game what so ever knowing I acquire loot boxes for free when I level up & in game currency.I have never spent a dime of my cash on Overwatch loot boxes.
I haven't played Overwatch, but the idea of all loot boxes being cosmetics is fine by me. If that's the case, it doesn't give anyone an advantage over somebody else.
The last time I played overwatch they only had cosmetic items in the loot boxes as far as I know. But haven't played it for long so I might have missed something.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.