Overwatch Will Cost $40 on PC, $60 on PS4, Xbox One

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Overwatch Will Cost $40 on PC, $60 on PS4, Xbox One

image

Off the back of yesterday's leak, we now know what the pricing options for Overwatch will be.

Yesterday, a battle.net banner leak revealed that Overwatch would be coming to PC, PS4 and Xbox One in Spring, 2016. Now, following Blizzard's official BlizzCon Overwatch panel, we have a bit more info on the game, including how much it will cost. Overwatch will come in three flavors: a PC-exclusive digital download edition for $40, an "Origins Edition" for $60, which contains a suite of goodies similar to Blizzard's other Digital Deluxe editions, and a physical collector's edition for $130, which includes a bunch of in-game goodies.

All three editions will contain all of the game's 21 heroes. For those hoping for free-to-play, or worried about additional heroes being microtransactions, the wording of the press release ("along with the final three heroes in Overwatch's 21-character roster") suggested that Overwatch will only have 21 heroes.

The Origins Edition comes with 5 in-game skins and cross-game digital goodies for other Blizzard franchises. The collector's edition comes with everything in the Origin Edition, plus a "Visual Sourcebook," a soundtrack and a statue of Overwatch's former Strike-Commander.

Pre-purchasing either of the three editions also gives you the Noire Widowmaker skin. You can pre-purchase the game here.

What do you guys think about this? Full-price for a multiplayer only title hasn't worked out too well in the past, but there are cases when it is done well. Furthermore, it looks like it's main competitor will be Team Fortress 2, which is currently free-to-play with quite a substantial player base.

Permalink

All the top shooters work or worked well as payed shooters.
The biggest Shooter on steam is CSGO which costs money.
The game that used to be top place is Team Fortress 2, at the time it was at the top it was buy to play.
On console The top shooters are COD Halo and Gears of War.

Im hardpressed to find any shooter that started as free to play and is anywhere near CSGOS or CODs popularity.

Well i'm not buying this game on launch. Maybe if people are still dedicated to playing it a few months after release and it's not another Titanfall (remember that game?) I might buy it. The open beta has to be fuckin' spectacular though.

I don't really get why they went full price, their main competition is free to play (TF2) and something cheap that goes on a huge sale regularly (CS:GO) I mean you're trying to get people to come over from those games but are faced with a substantial paywall. So they go back to other shooters. Really, i'm just passing whisky in Fistful of Frags or spamming high fives in TF2, why switch over when i'm having fun with those games.

I thought it was supposed to be F2P, did I miss something?

I don't understand why people are treating Full priced multiplayer games as a 'new' thing. I don't have a problem with multiplayer only games coming in at full price as a general rule, but I do have a problem with how recent games have been launching with in terms of content.

Games like Titanfall lacked important community features that were only propped up by a paper thin progression systems. Evolve had similar problems with the added bonus of having been cut to pieces by shitty pre-order practices. As successful as it has been for games like TF2 and CSGO, I don't really care for the skin hunt as a way to maintain longevity either.

As for Overwatch, I have not seen anything that can really justify its full price yet. All of 2 announced modes and no info on the types of things that keep multiplayer communities alive such as private matches, custom options, saved games/theater, map making/mod tools,etc.

It sounds nice to have lots of characters, but its unlikely that most players are going to enjoy playing all of them and playing on a handful of maps and modes can get old fast regardless of the quality of the gameplay itself. So perhaps more will be announced by the time the game releases, but as it is now it doesn't really seem to be worth it.

GiantRedButton:
All the top shooters work or worked well as payed shooters.
The biggest Shooter on steam is CSGO which costs money.
The game that used to be top place is Team Fortress 2, at the time it was at the top it was buy to play.
On console The top shooters are COD Halo and Gears of War.

Im hardpressed to find any shooter that started as free to play and is anywhere near CSGOS or CODs popularity.

CS:GO is $15.
Team Fortress 2 cost about the same as CS:GO before it went F2P.
CoD, Halo, and Gears of War all had campaigns.

In comparision, Overwatch costs $40 for PC, $60 for consoles, and all of this for a multiplayer-only game with microtransactions.

Long and short, it seems to me like Blizzard is trying to have their cake and eat it too. This is not going to go over well, and will kill much of the hype they had built up.

A shame. I was planning on picking it up. Certainly won't at that price.

No thank you, 40$ is far too much, not even speaking to console gamers who have to fork over 60$ for the inferior version, yeah I was already iffy because of the talk about Blizzard servers, but now? No thank you, make it a F2P game with reasonable cosmetic or time-saving micro-transactions OR a 15$ game with a good progression system and no microtransactions and I'll give it another look once I get a better PC, until then, I'll wait

Eh, I can't say I'm all that interested. If it intends to compete with TF2, then it needs to be similarly priced - $15 like it was when it wasn't F2P, or make it F2P but have a steady flow of cosmetics being churned out (either by the dev team or by the community. A price point that high PLUS the microtransactions seems a bit too much (though the mannconomy update did come before the F2P update in TF2, the game was quite reasonably priced at $15, not counting frequent sales).

Though I wasn't too excited by the gameplay trailers, news of lacking feature, and beta streams, I was still hoping to try this out if it was cheap or free. Now I think I'll just have to pass on it.

I had mild interest in this game. Now I don't.

They fucked up biiiig with this one. Microtransactions in a B2P multiplayer game is absolutely OK to me as long as they keep away from pay2win, but recent history has shown the market is not kind to full priced MP only games, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is now hesitant to buy just out of fear that the playerbase will evaporate overnight like it did with Titanfall to my eternal sadness.

20 dollars is about my limit for a purely multiplayer experience. I'll have to wait for this to be on sale before I can pick it up in good conscience.

$40 for a multiplayer-only shooter lacking features is a bit much, $60 even moreso. I might pick it up on a sale for as much as $30, hell I might buy on PC for $40 at launch if I had friends who also wanted to play it and the ability to play on private servers, but you can't sell a multiplayer-only shooter without private servers for the price of a multiplayer shooter game that includes a campaign with co-op, a horde mode, local multiplayer, a wide variety of game modes and custom game modes and maps. I'm not opposed to paying 40-60 dollars for a multiplayer-only game but it can't be as bare as Overwatch is.

Sarge034:
I thought it was supposed to be F2P, did I miss something?

No, that was just an assumption, and not an unreasonable one given people saw it as a direct competitor to TF2 as well as the fact that Blizzard has already done F2P.

This is gonna bomb like Evolve did, I have a feeling it will.

Yeah no, fuck off Blizzard, I ain't paying that much for a multiplayer only game, not after Titanfall and most certainly NOT after Evolve. $20 or maybe $30 I'm okay with, but nothing more. Fuck off.

Any chance of me playing this just dropped like a Skrillex beat crashing horrifically though the floor.

I just checked the Blizzard store......$89.99AUD, Jesus guys I love you but not that fucking much.

EDIT: Okay, turns out that's for the Origins Edition, the regular is $69.95. I still don't love you that much, Blizzard.

For me, this entirely depends on whether or not people I know will get it. I'm not going to pay $40 to go in alone and play with randoms.
It's probably going to be littered with micro transactions as well... ugh, no thanks.

I don't think it'll tank though, there are plenty of younger players who have no issue spending their allowances on MT's, even in purchased games. Peer pressure will do the rest for that generation.

Not to be nit-picky, but...Soldier 76? Really? That's who you pick to make a statue of? He's literally the least interesting, least creative character of the bunch >_>

Come on Blizzard; you could have made the statue be Tracer, the face of the game.

I wonder if any of the people complaining about Overwatch costing MONEY actually bought Titanfall.

Well that explains why they were always so squirrelly whenever anyone asked about the pricing structure. I'll give them credit though, they were savvy enough to realize how well this announcement would go over and made sure to get the hype-train rolling before slamming the breaks.

That said they can also afford to simply throw money at this until it works or they get bored, so it's not going anywhere, and their core audience will still pick it up. We'll see where it goes, but I don't see this working out well in the short-term.

Hnnng, provided this meant no microtransactions at all I couldn't have been a happier camper. The veritable torrent of cosmetics and the arcane market it spawned is in large part what drove me away from team fortress 2 after all. But... there's no way they're going to stop at a single skin for six out of the 21 characters, is there? It is worth noting however that, barring some exceptions in world of warcraft, blizzard has yet to employ the full on buy-in + microtransactions double dip. (As far as I know anyway, do correct me if I'm wrong.) Instead they seem to be looking for alternatives, like diablo's real money auction house or WoW's game time tokens. So I do have some hope they'll make a point of everything past the initial purchase being in-game unlocks. No doubt some of which through their other games, which is an alternative to microtransactions in and of itself. Hmmmm, we'll see. As someone who was hoping for it to simply be a one-time purchase instead of another microtransation platform, this is heading in the right direction. But we're not past the off-ramp into microtransachistan yet...

As for asking full price for a multiplayer-only title, I do not mind at all. Products are worth what the customer is willing to pay for them. What I saw from the beta is worth 40$ to me. (Provided it turns out that's the only money they'll ever ask for.) Simple as that. Team fortress 2, guns of icarus, left 4 dead 2,... All of these were multiplayer only too, at least when and how I played them. As long as they're honest about what you're paying for and don't pull some shenanigans like promising a single player mode "soon" but never delivering, it's the consumer's own call.

Blizzard don't exist in the same market as other developers/publishers, this game will succeed regardless of how it's sold, Blizzard fans interested in fps + some TF2 fans is already a large audience, they don't have to compete with anyone else. They have enough funds and resources to support this game as much as they want, or drop it if they feel like it.

That's a steep price for that kind of game. Not as much from a personal standpoint, but considering the market that's quite the risk. When it comes to multiplayer-only games there's simply so many free alternatives. All the Wargaming games, TF2, most MOBA's, and next to that there's a ton of alternatives that cost way below $40.

It doesn't help either that with the lack of dedicated servers a game like this will have a hard time creating a solid community. I'm not sure Blizzard's name is going to be enough to carry this. It'd be a shame if they'd ruin the business side of Overwatch, because the gameplay really does like a shitton of fun.

Thanks but no thanks, Blizzard. I'll spare you all a rant about my distaste for post-WoW Blizzard, suffice to say that considering their place in the industry I kinda saw this coming. Regardless, I'm certain this game is going to do just fine considering the fact that it is Blizzard we're talking about here. The only way this could turn out to be a critical mistake on their part is if the game itself turns out to be an absolute flop...dead on arrival. However considering everything that I've heard from people playing in the beta, that won't be the case.

major_chaos:
They fucked up biiiig with this one. Microtransactions in a B2P multiplayer game is absolutely OK to me as long as they keep away from pay2win, but recent history has shown the market is not kind to full priced MP only games, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is now hesitant to buy just out of fear that the playerbase will evaporate overnight like it did with Titanfall to my eternal sadness.

Titanfall ;-;

Such a good game. So much fun had. For all of 3 weeks then there was nobody to play with but russian hackers and aimbots. I really hope it gets the sequel it deserves and they flesh out the package better, very few shooters have left me so satisfied with completely eviscerating entire teams with a shotgun and a GIANT ROBOT.

GiantRedButton:
All the top shooters work or worked well as payed shooters.
The biggest Shooter on steam is CSGO which costs money.
The game that used to be top place is Team Fortress 2, at the time it was at the top it was buy to play.
On console The top shooters are COD Halo and Gears of War.

Im hardpressed to find any shooter that started as free to play and is anywhere near CSGOS or CODs popularity.

CS was a free mod bro, was pretty much free up untill cs:s.

But TROLOL not even interested in overwatch really but that price difference thou

Blizz, Blizz, Blizz. Did you not learn your lesson after Heroes of the Storm failed to set the world on fire? You can't just wade into a market that already has established "kings" and take over just because you're Blizzard. You're going up against three flavors of Counter-Strike- CS:GO (twenty bucks, opposed to your forty), Source (still popular) and the original (version 1.6 is still considered the "pure" experience by a good number of players)- not to mention the hat-simulator juggernaut that is Team Fortress 2. And don't forget there's plenty of other smaller but not insignificant fish in that sea as well.

Try not to trip over the gravestones of other games that thought they had the "magic touch"- Brink, Titanfall, Evolve, Battlefield: Hardline.

I've been watching A LOT of live streams of this and this game (IMO) is not worth $40-$60...

...however I would probably put at least 200+ hours into it, even being online multiplayer only. So if you do the math (which I will not, do it yourself, teehee) I would get my money's worth out of it. I've payed $60 for new single player games and have only got a couple dozen hours. Tough call if you just put it in perspective.

As bad as Titanfall and Evolve fell off the map, I am sure most that paid for the ride got their money's worth out of it.

Cowabungaa:
That's a steep price for that kind of game. Not as much from a personal standpoint, but considering the market that's quite the risk. When it comes to multiplayer-only games there's simply so many free alternatives. All the Wargaming games, TF2, most MOBA's, and next to that there's a ton of alternatives that cost way below $40.

Haven't tried the Wargaming games.

TF2 is dying. Granted, it's had a great run, but the servers I frequented have been mostly shut down, the ones that are up aren't full until the weekends, and Valve really doesn't have a solid direction for the game.

MOBAs fill a different niche. TF2 and DotA2 don't really compete, even if there are people who play both.

Yeah, there are alternatives. There have always been alternatives for Blizzard games. When Warcraft came out there was C&C. When WoW came out there was Asheron's Call and Everquest and a half-dozen others. Probably their biggest "innovation" was Hearthstone, which really did a computer card game well.

Blizzard's money has *always* been in taking a known, working formula and applying a higher level of shine and production values to it. Overwatch is TF2+, and I'm not interested in it because it's so close to TF2... but it could overtake TF2's place in the market within 2 years as long as they keep the level of polish high.

To that end, it's not a steep price at all. There's 0 reason it should be F2P to compete. Everybody here has named it's largest competitors -- CS:GO and TF2 -- both games which delivered the full experience for a single price that later included purely cosmetic purchases; a WILDLY successful business model. Blizzard's other models rely on excluding content until some arbitrary bar is reached that takes F2P players months to achieve. Neither CS:GO or TF2 would be as successful as they are/have been with that model.

Blizzard is using the model that works, because that's what they do. Take the known, do it better, rake in profits. Repeat.

It doesn't help either that with the lack of dedicated servers a game like this will have a hard time creating a solid community.

Didn't hurt TF2 at all. Or the previous versions of Counter Strike or Day of Defeat... Or a dozen other Team-FPS games.

I'm not sure Blizzard's name is going to be enough to carry this. It'd be a shame if they'd ruin the business side of Overwatch, because the gameplay really does like a shitton of fun.

Blizzard's name has been enough to carry Hearthstone and Diablo III, despite the MASSIVE issues with those games.

As you may have guessed, I don't have a problem with the $40 price tag. I think it's a good move as long as the game comes complete.

SciMal:
snip

Sure, most of the games I listed are in different niches, though you could argue that Overwatch is at least taking a few MOBA characteristics to appeal to that market but probably not enough for that to be relevant. But the thing is; they all offer various multiplayer-only experiences for a fraction of the price of Overwatch. It's all competition in that regard.

And regardless of whether $40 on PC and $60 on console by itself is steep, which I don't think so because I can easily see myself sink a lot of hours in that kind of game, the game is a new IP in a very busy market. Diablo 3 was already part of an existing IP, and a very popular one at that, as was Hearthstone and that's also F2P. It's quite a different situation with Overwatch. It has to compete for a player's time amidst a ton of high quality multiplayer-only experiences with comparable gameplay elements.

Didn't hurt TF2 at all. Or the previous versions of Counter Strike or Day of Defeat... Or a dozen other Team-FPS games.

Um, yes, of course not; those games have dedicated servers. Especially in FPS it's something that people more and more expect.

Well, there went any reason to be remotely interested in this game.
Battleborn atleast offers a PvE portion to justify the price.

Blizzard has always been like this, they charge more because they know people will pay them. They did it all the way back to Warcraft 3 when they charged $10 more than other full priced games.

They know people won't like paying this much for multiplayer only, and throwing in some microtransactions, but they'll still pay. The youtubers they gave beta access to showing off gameplay helped get everyone wanting it.

Oops.

I think Overwatch will still do fine, but it's chances of overtaking TF2 or Counter Strike has just evaporated.

Whether or not it does better than 'fine' now hangs entirely on post release content and skins. If it comes out and the extras are all micro transaction it will get marked as an Evolve-like 'pay for the opportunity to buy DLC' and only the Blizzard faithful will buy. If we get a year or eighteen months of 'you paid $40 so everything is a free unlockable' it'll go great guns.

I'm certainly not ordering until we know the answer to that question though.

If not for Blizzard's silly stance on 21:9 monitors I'd buy it.

Still don't get the hate paid multiplayer only games get... seriously in games like CoD and Battlefield I only ever hear complaints about the singleplayer, which I too despise. I'm totally okay with all the effort that would go into the singleplayer (which is almost always lackluster in these kind of games) go into the multiplayer. The singleplayer might as well not even be there for a lot of FPS games these days since its generally not worth playing, so I would be paying $60 for a game where I don't even access that chunk of content. I'd rather pay $60 for a game where the effort was put into the parts that are actually fun instead of half of it going into something I'd never play anyway only to the detriment of the good content.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.