i think Blizz knows this and they'll introduce some PvE single player content for Overwatch in the coming years as part of their "Game As A Service" philosophy.
Beta Just Ended -- Discuss your impressions here! - Page 5
Forum Index > General Games |
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15576 Posts
i think Blizz knows this and they'll introduce some PvE single player content for Overwatch in the coming years as part of their "Game As A Service" philosophy. | ||
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
Evolve and Titanfall were just terrible. Battleborn did not get the biggest reception either. I think overwatch has a lot going for it even at 40 dollars. I have faith on Blizzard's approach and the lore they can throw in. Also the game is just flatout fun. Now Rainbow 6 siege is good, but its also not super accessible. Its a high price point, requires quite a bit of computing power to really run, and its slower pace and fairly tactical. I think blizz has its polish, the lore and a solid accessible pure fun game. Who knows maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't agree with Force on this one - not for Overwatch. It won't beat CS:GO in general I agree. But it is a great and new experience thats all its own different from all the other big shooters out there. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 17 2016 02:14 JimmyJRaynor wrote: An interesting look at Multiplayer only games by Force. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl6d1BW8_RI i think Blizz knows this and they'll introduce some PvE single player content for Overwatch in the coming years as part of their "Game As A Service" philosophy. Eh, I think that he's making a mountain out of a mole hill, and, if anything, the tagline of "are Multiplayer only games doomed?" is highly misleading. The real point is that the space is highly competitive, so only truly superior products are going to survive long term. And this is how it should be, frankly. | ||
Andre
Slovenia3515 Posts
But overwatch has a lot going in its favor. First of all it's a blizzard game which means lots of people are automatically going to check it out/buy it, because blizzard fanboys are numerous. Second thing is that blizzard is known for supporting their games long after launch. I don't even need to cite older game because D3 is a really good example, even though I dislike the game even in its current state it was much much worse at release..and ever since then+expansion it has gotten much better(still dont like it personally, but can respect the blizzard for their commitment and improvements). And then he says how very important it is that MP games that come out don't compete against the established market(dota/lol, csgo, etc). Overwatch isn't really competiting against any of these imo, it's a special niche. It plays more like arena shooters than cs/cod, but with the element of it being more team centric as well as the whole 'heroes' thing. That said it really doesn't matter if the game isn't super big. Games don't need to be lol/dota/csgo level big to be considered successes, people are overconcerned with twitch viewership numbers, sales, etc. Small communities are fine as well, as long as matchmaking finds games at a reasonable speed it's all good. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 17 2016 06:35 Andre wrote: He does make great points. But overwatch has a lot going in its favor. First of all it's a blizzard game which means lots of people are automatically going to check it out/buy it, because blizzard fanboys are numerous. Second thing is that blizzard is known for supporting their games long after launch. I don't even need to cite older game because D3 is a really good example, even though I dislike the game even in its current state it was much much worse at release..and ever since then+expansion it has gotten much better(still dont like it personally, but can respect the blizzard for their commitment and improvements). A good chunk of Overwatch's impending success is a function of the strength of Blizzard's brand. Blizzard has a large, loyal following (and with good reason). As such, Blizzard has lower entry barriers to the MP market. And then he says how very important it is that MP games that come out don't compete against the established market(dota/lol, csgo, etc). Overwatch isn't really competiting against any of these imo, it's a special niche. It plays more like arena shooters than cs/cod, but with the element of it being more team centric as well as the whole 'heroes' thing. Overwatch is competing in the FPS space. Its hook is a new/fresh take on the old team/class-based FPS genre. It's going to do well because 1) it is a very solid game in its own right, and 2) it has a legion of Blizzard fanboys to kick it off right. That said it really doesn't matter if the game isn't super big. Games don't need to be lol/dota/csgo level big to be considered successes, people are overconcerned with twitch viewership numbers, sales, etc. Small communities are fine as well, as long as matchmaking finds games at a reasonable speed it's all good. It depends upon how you want to define "success." Financial success certainly doesn't require LOL/DOTA numbers. However, low playerbase figures effectively mark the eventual demise of the game. The biggest problem is matchmaking, because it is harder to match up players of relatively equal skill. This, in turn, results in unfun games, which further depresses the playerbase. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On May 17 2016 06:50 xDaunt wrote: A good chunk of Overwatch's impending success is a function of the strength of Blizzard's brand. Blizzard has a large, loyal following (and with good reason). As such, Blizzard has lower entry barriers to the MP market. Overwatch is competing in the FPS space. Its hook is a new/fresh take on the old team/class-based FPS genre. It's going to do well because 1) it is a very solid game in its own right, and 2) it has a legion of Blizzard fanboys to kick it off right. It depends upon how you want to define "success." Financial success certainly doesn't require LOL/DOTA numbers. However, low playerbase figures effectively mark the eventual demise of the game. The biggest problem is matchmaking, because it is harder to match up players of relatively equal skill. This, in turn, results in unfun games, which further depresses the playerbase. I really think the numbers will be healthy for quite some time. The fact it literally requires a one time purchase but promises somewhat regular additions in terms of new characters/maps/cosmetics is a big boon to its eventual success. Whether people buy into that now or realise its actual strength a few months from now is going to be the big differentiator. I think what this game has going for it what games like Hearthstone for example don't is the fact that you dont have this constant XX$ every so often to maintain it. It will cost more than CS:GO but its also easier to get into and feel like you are doing well in and wont cost a single penny to open boxes or get that skin you really like. So thats also a plus. Lets see where it is 6 months from now but I have high hopes. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 17 2016 07:00 ZeromuS wrote: I really think the numbers will be healthy for quite some time. The fact it literally requires a one time purchase but promises somewhat regular additions in terms of new characters/maps/cosmetics is a big boon to its eventual success. Whether people buy into that now or realise its actual strength a few months from now is going to be the big differentiator. I think what this game has going for it what games like Hearthstone for example don't is the fact that you dont have this constant XX$ every so often to maintain it. It will cost more than CS:GO but its also easier to get into and feel like you are doing well in and wont cost a single penny to open boxes or get that skin you really like. So thats also a plus. Lets see where it is 6 months from now but I have high hopes. I think Overwatch is going to be a big success, both short and long term. It has solid core gameplay and sports the kind of polish that we expect from Blizzard. Its aesthetic is ridiculously cool. Most importantly, it is an FPS that pretty much everyone can enjoy. It simultaneously caters to hardcore and casual players alike through the wide variety of available heroes. I think Overwatch is to FPS games as Hearthstone is to card games and WoW was to MMO's. It takes a popular genre and distills the core fun parts of that genre into a better product that has mass appeal. | ||
sushiko
197 Posts
Loot boxes are still rng, and you'll essentially have to rely on currency drops to insure having skins you absolutely must have. Someone ran the numbers and it's quite believable that it will require ~5000 games average to unlock everything (with duplicates giving currenxy, etc). Fortunately, I don't want everything, and skins are bonuses and an addition to the game, not the driving factor to grind games so I'm okay with that. If you only want a few skins, that should be obtainable pretty quickly through currency drops (hopefully). | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On May 17 2016 07:07 sushiko wrote: Getting the skins you really like might actually take awhile Loot boxes are still rng, and you'll essentially have to rely on currency drops to insure having skins you absolutely must have. Someone ran the numbers and it's quite believable that it will require ~5000 games average to unlock everything (with duplicates giving currenxy, etc). Fortunately, I don't want everything, and skins are bonuses and an addition to the game, not the driving factor to grind games so I'm okay with that. If you only want a few skins, that should be obtainable pretty quickly through currency drops (hopefully). I had everythig i wanted in closed beta at level 220 something. Ittakes time but its far from the worst grind ive ever experienced in gaming. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15576 Posts
On May 17 2016 05:00 ZeromuS wrote: Evolve and Titanfall were just terrible. Battleborn did not get the biggest reception either. these games were never going to get Blizzard level support post launch. Gearbox offers decent support , but still not as good as Blizzard. imo, Overwatch is a better game than Evolve and Titanfall and will receive 25X better post launch support. It will be interesting to see if Battleborn "succeeds". It will get some solid post sales support from Gearbox as Borderlands did. Battleborn is the most difficult to predict out of the 4 games discussed. as Force aludes later on in his video, probably Overwatch will succeed. i'm predicting 5 million units sold in week one of Overwatch. | ||
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On May 17 2016 07:00 ZeromuS wrote: I really think the numbers will be healthy for quite some time. The fact it literally requires a one time purchase but promises somewhat regular additions in terms of new characters/maps/cosmetics is a big boon to its eventual success. Whether people buy into that now or realise its actual strength a few months from now is going to be the big differentiator. I think what this game has going for it what games like Hearthstone for example don't is the fact that you dont have this constant XX$ every so often to maintain it. It will cost more than CS:GO but its also easier to get into and feel like you are doing well in and wont cost a single penny to open boxes or get that skin you really like. So thats also a plus. Lets see where it is 6 months from now but I have high hopes. While I agree, personally I'm expecting them to release special edition loot crates every so often similar to how Dota 2 does cosmetics. Don't you think so? It seems so easy to have a "Halloween 2016" Loot Crate, with a legendary skin for each (or most) heroes with some sort of Halloween costume, along with a bunch of epics/rares/commons to fill things out. Alternatively, they could just occasionally add new costumes to the existing loot crates, so there's always something else to lust after. They can then sell loot crates for money as a microtransaction, and due to the fresh content, there's actually incentive for people to buy them. They'll sell some number of crates for $3, another option for $10, and a third option for $20 or $25, obviously with increasing crate per dollar value as you go up. Why wouldn't Blizzard do this? Obviously they make a ton of money from microtransactions, while simultaneously ensuring future content work for their art teams. Second, people who spend extra money on cosmetics feel increasingly loyal to their game. This also has a positive aspect for people who aren't interested in purchasing cosmetics. Namely, that Blizzard will be further incentivized to provide free and regular updates to game content, such as maps, heroes, balance, etc. Keeping the game popular and fresh will keep people interested in cosmetics. So, personally I'm expecting this to happen, and not too far down the road. It doesn't contradict what you said about the game being 100% playable for a one-time purchase though. Just my 2 cents. | ||
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
All the games he lists are ghost towns because they were awful games. Developers managed to trick people into climbing onto the hype train and buying really awful games. But the devs already got their money, they don't give a single fuck about the game. All they want is you to buy the game then they laugh all the way to the bank. Once people realize they were duped and Evolve is actually a really terrible game, obviously no one is going to play it anymore and multiplayer is a ghost town. There is zero problems with multiplayer only games. There's zero problems with singleplayer only games. The problem lies with shit games and people rewarding god awful developers with money they don't deserve. Thankfully there seems to be a bit of a ground swell on this front after being burned but I'm sure it won't last. If I want singleplayer I'll play Witcher. If I want multiplayer I'll play DotA. I don't play one expecting the other and gaming as a whole is much better for having the two categories separated for the most part. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On May 17 2016 08:52 Dromar wrote: While I agree, personally I'm expecting them to release special edition loot crates every so often similar to how Dota 2 does cosmetics. Don't you think so? It seems so easy to have a "Halloween 2016" Loot Crate, with a legendary skin for each (or most) heroes with some sort of Halloween costume, along with a bunch of epics/rares/commons to fill things out. Alternatively, they could just occasionally add new costumes to the existing loot crates, so there's always something else to lust after. They can then sell loot crates for money as a microtransaction, and due to the fresh content, there's actually incentive for people to buy them. They'll sell some number of crates for $3, another option for $10, and a third option for $20 or $25, obviously with increasing crate per dollar value as you go up. Why wouldn't Blizzard do this? Obviously they make a ton of money from microtransactions, while simultaneously ensuring future content work for their art teams. Second, people who spend extra money on cosmetics feel increasingly loyal to their game. This also has a positive aspect for people who aren't interested in purchasing cosmetics. Namely, that Blizzard will be further incentivized to provide free and regular updates to game content, such as maps, heroes, balance, etc. Keeping the game popular and fresh will keep people interested in cosmetics. So, personally I'm expecting this to happen, and not too far down the road. It doesn't contradict what you said about the game being 100% playable for a one-time purchase though. Just my 2 cents. They've said all cosmetic content in the game post launch will be available for free, as will all maps and new heroes. Of course they'll sell boxes for real money. But its trivial to obtain them through playing and its always random chance what you get. I doubt they would have any cosmetics available only by purchasing special lootboxes as that kind of goes against the whole approach for this game. However, a few years from now maybe, but not early on imo. | ||
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On May 17 2016 09:40 ZeromuS wrote: They've said all cosmetic content in the game post launch will be available for free, as will all maps and new heroes. Of course they'll sell boxes for real money. But its trivial to obtain them through playing and its always random chance what you get. I doubt they would have any cosmetics available only by purchasing special lootboxes as that kind of goes against the whole approach for this game. However, a few years from now maybe, but not early on imo. Oh, I did not know that, thanks for the info. | ||
sushiko
197 Posts
| ||
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
| ||
BalanceEnforcer
37 Posts
This game is good if you like to spam shit and enjoy the sensation of feeling like a good player because it's way too easy for any seasoned fps player. The game for me is just flat out boring because it's to simple and one dimensional and offers nothing new gameplay experience wise for me. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15576 Posts
On May 17 2016 05:57 xDaunt wrote: Eh, I think that he's making a mountain out of a mole hill, and, if anything, the tagline of "are Multiplayer only games doomed?" is highly misleading. The real point is that the space is highly competitive, so only truly superior products are going to survive long term. And this is how it should be, frankly. i guess he needed a catchy title. creating a 5v5 balanced multiplayer experience with solid matchmaking is very difficult to pull off with a small player base. already, Battleborn with 5,000 concurrent users is having issues creating 5v5 balanced multiplayer with low latency between all 10 players. if "multiplayer" meant 1v1 games then 5,000 concurrent players makes it a lot easier to create a balanced experience. already in Battleborn you are either destroying your opponent or getting destroyed more than half the time. upon careful review: i think it might already be over for Battleborn's 5v5 multiplayer aspect. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On May 17 2016 18:23 BalanceEnforcer wrote: I think most heroes are too one dimensional and probably all heroes lack something, be it arsenal, utility or mobility, whatever. I feel like a prisoner in my own body playing these characters and it becomes repetitive bcuz the hereos arent really that deeply designed at all. Actually Overwatch brings almost NOTHING new to the table gameplay wise. Almost everything from movement, weapons and abilities and gameplay is known from before. This game is good if you like to spam shit and enjoy the sensation of feeling like a good player because it's way too easy for any seasoned fps player. The game for me is just flat out boring because it's to simple and one dimensional and offers nothing new gameplay experience wise for me. Well all heroes lack something by design. Thats the whole point of a team based class shooter. I really don't think its as simple as you seem to be downplaying it to be | ||
| ||